Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-27-2016, 10:56 PM   #31
New Member




Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Bern
Posts: 22
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by mgoblue Quote
I hope you might report back how it goes SwIsscow. I've been struggling with a K50 missing focus on children runing towards the camera indoors or at dusk. Outdoors in bright light, with f5.6 or narrower it works pretty well for it. I'm wondering if a k3 would make a big difference at 2.8 or wider open in dim light. Your experience would be helpful to hear about. Randomly running kids are tricky.
Will do...once I've been out and bought the thing!

06-28-2016, 05:36 AM   #32
Pentaxian
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,555
QuoteOriginally posted by swisscow Quote
I've been using the OMD EM5ii which is great in many ways but.....I'm not really getting that warm fuzzy feeling with the ergonomics, the EVF is not doing it for me either. Ive got the pro 12-40 which is a cracking lens and I can't really fault the pic quality when I nail it on the head - but taking a picture is more than just the picture quality I think.
As someone who shoots with a Pentax DSLR (K-30) and an m43 camera (Panasonic GX-7), I'm curious about how your m43 kit has let you down. Because I've actually had pretty good results with my GX-7 at school events and indoor performances (ballet, piano recitals, etc.)

Do you own something longer than the 12-40mm? For school events, where you will typically be stuck sitting in the audience, well away from the action, 40mm would not even be close to being long enough for tight shots. That's where you would need something like the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 or Olympus 40-150mm f/ 2.8. Do you have a telephoto?
06-28-2016, 06:49 AM   #33
New Member




Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Bern
Posts: 22
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Edgar_in_Indy Quote
As someone who shoots with a Pentax DSLR (K-30) and an m43 camera (Panasonic GX-7), I'm curious about how your m43 kit has let you down. Because I've actually had pretty good results with my GX-7 at school events and indoor performances (ballet, piano recitals, etc.)

Do you own something longer than the 12-40mm? For school events, where you will typically be stuck sitting in the audience, well away from the action, 40mm would not even be close to being long enough for tight shots. That's where you would need something like the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 or Olympus 40-150mm f/ 2.8. Do you have a telephoto?
Yep, I've got longer lenses. The poor tracking, iso (grain) has been disappointing but the sharpness of th in focus pics are super. It's the ergonomics and the evf mainly I'm not happy about and hence the move back to a dslr
06-28-2016, 07:25 AM   #34
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,769
I've been thinking about the second half of this , the low light kids in action.

I've a couple images to share.... these are taken with the K-3.

My grand daughter, in my daughters basement, (she wanted gymnastics mats for Christmas,). natural light 1600 ISO, very low DR, because there was very little contrast in the light sources. These taken while she went through her mat routine.

exif
K-3 , FA 50 ƒ1.7
ISO 1600, 1/100s, ƒ2
I can't imagine expecting better results with such poor light.







These are challenging conditions for any camera. I'd be really interested in seeing what kinds of results others get in this kind of light. We certainly didn't get a lot of keepers, but I have no idea how a "better" camera would fare in these conditions. I suspect not much better, but I'm also always delighted to see what others come up with. Maybe these images will jog some memories and someone else will post something.

Th point I want to emphasize would be, in low light you need fast glass. The additional ƒ-stop below ƒ2.8 aids in autofocus even if you are stopped down. If you really want to do some low light action shots, you really need to pick up a DA 50, 1.8. They cost next to nothing, but there is no replacing them in low light. If you were really serious, something like a Sigma 30mm ƒ1.4 might be in order or a Sigma 18-35 ƒ1.8. Or of course a 31 ltd. or 41 ltd. but now you're starting to talk a lot more money. A DA 50 1.8 will get you into low light action, without blowing the bank account and let you work your way into whether or not it's something that really interests you.


Last edited by normhead; 06-28-2016 at 07:51 AM.
06-28-2016, 07:34 AM   #35
New Member




Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Bern
Posts: 22
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I've been thinking about the second half of this , the low light kids in action.

I've a couple images to share.... these are taken with the

My grand daughter, in my daughters basement, (she wanted gymnastics mats for Christmas,. natural light 1600 ISO, very low DR, because there was very little contrast in the light sources.

exif
K-3 , FA 50 ƒ1.7
ISO 1600, 1/100s, ƒ2
I can't imagine expecting better results with such poor light.







These are challenging conditions for any camera. I'd be really interested in seeing what kinds of results other get in this kind of light. We certainly didn't get a lot of keepers, but I have no idea how a "better" camera would fare in these conditions. I suspect not much better, but I'm also always delighted to see what others come up with. Maybe these images will jog some memories and someone else will post something.
Thanks, this type of activity is one of the things I'm going to want to document more and more.

Keep the samples coming everyone
06-28-2016, 07:56 AM   #36
Loyal Site Supporter
WPRESTO's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,585
That second image, how did you do that in PP? I KNOW it isn't possible for a human to do that. He was right, the guy who said too much youth is wasted on children.
06-28-2016, 08:00 AM   #37
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,769
My granddaughter was moved from her base club to an elite competitive club about 6 weeks after starting gymnastics. So, she's a natural at it.. Her club has at least one olympic athlete training there, which is just amazing inspiration for the little gaffers. All I can say about that stuff. is,"Don't try this at home, " and if you're my age, with my failing joints, "Don't try this at all."

IN the first image, she's in the middle of a cartwheel, I was pleased with it. For shooting in a basement the 50 was definitely too tight, I'm back in a closet for this image trying to get as far away as possible.

If you were to do the same thing
A 31 ltd, or a Sigma 30 1.4 is definitely recommended.
In the exif, I'm at 1/00s, I need every bit of ƒ2 and every bit of 1600 ISO to make things work.
It also need to pointed out in the first and third images, using the same lens and settings, a K-1 would have included more of the room and her feet.

K-1 with DA 50 - $3k CAD
K-3 and 31 ltd. - $2.5 CAD

I would really see those images with those setups compared.

K-3ii with DA 50 and hope for a big basement with a deep closet - $1.5k CA
This is the solution for folks like myself who do this once a year with our grand kids. If you expect tot do this on a regular basis one of the above solutions will be what I'd want down the line. For me it would be the 31 ltd. as I do a lot of things APS-c does better. You'll have to decide what might work for you.

It's complicated enough, just looking at Pentax. Include Nikon (D7300) and D750. D3s), Canon, and Sony, and you open the door to a world of analysis for possibly not much benefit, or possibly huge benefit at huge additional cost.


So to get pretty much the same image, you need to spend pretty much the same money. This is a focal length where if you never plan to go telephoto, you really should consider a K-1.

Of course as soon as you look at the DA 50 for the K-3 and have to buy a 70 mm for the K-1 to compare, the effective price point really starts to tilt in favour of the K-3., and it will continue to favour APS-c as you go longer and longer.

My guess is any normal human being faced with the challenge of actually doing a fair analysis of all the systems available will at some point just throw up their hands , buy what they like, enjoy the advantages, and learn to live with the disadvantages. You can probably do what you want to do with any modern system including K-S2 and K-70 type systems. There will always be better and worse systems for what you do. Learn to use what you buy and all will be well.

DA* 50-135 ƒ2.8 on K-1 about $1k Canadian
DA 70-200 on FF to achieve the same field of view (albeit with superior AF)- $2.5k Canadian.

These decisions are always way more complicated than most human beings can make sense of. Most of us just buy what we can. make the most of it, if it doesn't work out, buy something better, or if we have money lying around in a bank account somewhere, buy something better.

Last edited by normhead; 06-28-2016 at 09:58 AM.
06-28-2016, 08:13 AM   #38
Pentaxian
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,555
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
These are challenging conditions for any camera. I'd be really interested in seeing what kinds of results others get in this kind of light.
There's low light, and there's poor light. Looks like you're going up against both in those pictures, with the poor light being the bigger problem. No camera or lens combination is going to get many good-looking shots there. This location would be an ideal candidate for off-camera lighting.

But it's not just the basement you're in (mine is very similar). The gym where my daughter does gymnastics also has poor light quality, and it's not overly bright, so getting good pictures there is a challenge. But the room is so large, that off-camera lighting would also be hard to pull off without a really serious setup and without the full cooperation of the facility.

QuoteOriginally posted by swisscow Quote
Yep, I've got longer lenses. The poor tracking, iso (grain) has been disappointing but the sharpness of th in focus pics are super. It's the ergonomics and the evf mainly I'm not happy about and hence the move back to a dslr
Which telephoto lens(es) do you have?

06-28-2016, 10:11 AM   #39
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,769
QuoteOriginally posted by Edgar_in_Indy Quote
There's low light, and there's poor light. Looks like you're going up against both in those pictures, with the poor light being the bigger problem. No camera or lens combination is going to get many good-looking shots there. This location would be an ideal candidate for off-camera lighting.

But it's not just the basement you're in (mine is very similar). The gym where my daughter does gymnastics also has poor light quality, and it's not overly bright, so getting good pictures there is a challenge. But the room is so large, that off-camera lighting would also be hard to pull off without a really serious setup and without the full cooperation of the facility.
When I've taken my camera to the gym with her, I get exactly the same thing. There's bad photos, really bad photos, and most are photos I only keep because she's my grand daughter.
06-28-2016, 10:27 AM   #40
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,929
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Share a freaking image or something.
I'd like to think I give opinions tempered with experience and not with an agenda of converting someone. But that might not be the case. But I try. And I'm afraid you cannot say the same.

But, for the OP, here is a Nikon Df with its comparatively poor focus ability compared to the D750 but with a sports lens mounted on it which makes it better and has a pretty high hit rate. But this lens is one you will not like to carry around. It's burdensome.


06-28-2016, 10:34 AM   #41
New Member




Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Bern
Posts: 22
Original Poster
Great pic - did they impact the camera a second after :-) ?
06-28-2016, 10:53 AM   #42
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,769
QuoteQuote:
I'd like to think I give opinions tempered with experience and not with an agenda of converting someone.
Does anyone care what your opinion of yourself or of me is? That isn't the topic. You seem to be one of those people who thinks they can build theirselves up by knocking others down.

Powder hounds
K-3 & DA 18-135










These aren't even his best images, but, you get the point. It may in fact be easier on D750, but you also have to take into account what you lose. Lighter telephotos for the same magnification or more magnification with the same telephotos, in camera shake reduction on even legacy lenses, WR on almost all current lenses, the best frequency of repair rate in the industry and faster FPS .

check out mattb123, with his K-3 and 18-135, and a fraction of what a similar D750 set up would cost.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/179869-da-1...can-do-56.html

And if cost is no issue, Canon 1Dx 20 MP, 14-16 frames per second ($6k. . A couple of aqauintences shoot it. Awesome sports camera especially with an $11k lens on it.
Or for low like a second hand Nikon D3s 12800 ISO clean or 16 Mp, or the simla Sony A7s 12 MP.
Or for high res and low light 645z.

These are all cameras I investigated buying at one time along with the D750
I'm still shooting a Pentax K-3 because for me it's the best compromise given all the options available. It might be for you too.

It's sad fact, for folks like tuco, but if you come to a Pentax forum, there's probably people doing what you do better than you do using Pentax cameras, although you could also say the same for almost any dslr.

QuoteQuote:
I'd like to think I give opinions tempered with experience and not with an agenda of converting someone. But that might not be the case. But I try. And I'm afraid you cannot say the same.
You are so irritating. I can give the same unbiased opinion as you. Just my opinion tends to favour Pentax as a one stop solution. I would have different choices picking multiple systems. Your opinion is biased towards a particular spec set, the same as everyone else's, the difference between me and you is, I am aware of my biases and comfortable with them. You don't think you have any biases, despite what's clear to everyone else. Hence your rep as an "anything but Pentax " guy.

Last edited by normhead; 06-28-2016 at 12:36 PM.
06-28-2016, 11:01 AM   #43
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,929
QuoteOriginally posted by swisscow Quote
Great pic - did they impact the camera a second after :-) ?
Thanks. This lens is a 70-200/2.8 VRII @ 130mm so it gave some time to jump out of the way.
06-28-2016, 11:12 AM - 1 Like   #44
Pentaxian
volley's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,249
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
I'd like to think I give opinions tempered with experience and not with an agenda of converting someone. But that might not be the case. But I try. And I'm afraid you cannot say the same.

But, for the OP, here is a Nikon Df with its comparatively poor focus ability compared to the D750 but with a sports lens mounted on it which makes it better and has a pretty high hit rate. But this lens is one you will not like to carry around. It's burdensome.

Excellent!
06-28-2016, 01:07 PM   #45
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,535
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
I'd like to think I give opinions tempered with experience and not with an agenda of converting someone. But that might not be the case. But I try. And I'm afraid you cannot say the same.

But, for the OP, here is a Nikon Df with its comparatively poor focus ability compared to the D750 but with a sports lens mounted on it which makes it better and has a pretty high hit rate. But this lens is one you will not like to carry around. It's burdensome.

EDIT - I see you posted info in another post. I hoped to see more info on Flickr but that picture is private. Can you share more details EXIF data (focal length, aperture etc.)?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
advice, af, camera, capabilities, child, dslr, focus, focus tracking, head, k-1, k-3, k-3ii, lens, lenses, light, m43, off-camera, olympus, pentax, people, photography, picture, pictures, pm, post, quality, results
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Credible? next Pentax 645 will most likely have a 100MP Sony sensor rfkiii Pentax Medium Format 46 04-11-2016 03:53 PM
Is K-30 AF good for fast moving subjects? drabina Pentax DSLR Discussion 6 09-13-2013 05:38 AM
A Pentax Model you most likely do not have! Tom S. General Talk 8 03-13-2012 02:36 PM
Good Photos in Bad Light casil403 Photographic Technique 2 01-07-2011 12:11 PM
Photographing a very dark, moving subject (my black dog) switters Photographic Technique 12 09-09-2010 06:38 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:50 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top