[redpit]

Nice shot.

Are using the focus limiter on the Tamron? That is something that can really speed up auto focusing. The biggest reason why cameras don't lock focus is due to lack of contrast in the area where you are focusing. This is why you often have trouble focusing on a cloudless sky. Looking for an area of contrast and focusing the camera on that will help the auto focus system try to grab focus a lot better.

Sorry Rondec but as far as I know the Tamron 70-200/2.8 is a screwdrive lens without focus limiter.

Nice photo! Prefocusing is what I would have done to improve the keepers rate (Maybe you had tried it too).

[tikku]

Nice shot.

Are using the focus limiter on the Tamron? That is something that can really speed up auto focusing. The biggest reason why cameras don't lock focus is due to lack of contrast in the area where you are focusing. This is why you often have trouble focusing on a cloudless sky. Looking for an area of contrast and focusing the camera on that will help the auto focus system try to grab focus a lot better.

Thanks Rondec, I have never used the focus limiter on that lens. thats something I need to learn and you are right about the contrast issue. The mouse isn't very contrasty on the stalk and the beige background didn't help either. may be a full green background could help.

---------- Post added 07-14-17 at 06:36 AM ----------

Sorry Rondec but as far as I know the Tamron 70-200/2.8 is a screwdrive lens without focus limiter.

Nice photo! Prefocusing is what I would have done to improve the keepers rate (Maybe you had tried it too).

Thank you. the mouse shot I posted was taken with the K10D mounted with Tamron 90mm f2.8 and this macro lens has a focus limiter. Sorry if i was confusing in the previous posts. I very rarely try prefocussing (just on three occasions when i wanted to photograph a diving kingfisher); but this time I was using back focusing towards the end as you know the shutter wouldn't let capture without the subject being in focus.

---------- Post added 07-14-17 at 06:37 AM ----------

Sorry Rondec but as far as I know the Tamron 70-200/2.8 is a screwdrive lens without focus limiter.

Nice photo! Prefocusing is what I would have done to improve the keepers rate (Maybe you had tried it too).

Thank you. the mouse shot I posted was taken with the K10D mounted with Tamron 90mm f2.8 and this macro lens has a focus limiter. Sorry if i was confusing in the previous posts. I very rarely try prefocussing (just on three occasions when i wanted to photograph a diving kingfisher); but this time I was using back focusing towards the end as you know the shutter wouldn't let capture without the subject being in focus.

[BrianR]

Than you Brian. I wasn't expecting to photograph mice that day because we usually go there only for bird hides. I can suggest him your idea next time I go there. I didn't try the Tamron 90mm on K3 but true, its faster than K10D but my partner won't give me the k-3 though she bought it for my birthday lol :-)

It's not just faster, but more accurate. AFAIK, the k10d does not have the high-precision AF points to take advantage of f/2.8 lenses. My k5iis has just one at the centre, and at least anecdotally, it seems to make a difference when auto focusing with my macro. The k-3 has three such points, the centre one and the on above and below it (see Feature 2?K-3 | RICOH IMAGING). Might be worth ensuring you're taking advantage of these points by manually selecting the points you're using and making sure you have a contrasting edge running across the AF points orientation (these are linear sensors running left-right, not the full cross point).

[tikku]

It's not just faster, but more accurate. AFAIK, the k10d does not have the high-precision AF points to take advantage of f/2.8 lenses. My k5iis has just one at the centre, and at least anecdotally, it seems to make a difference when auto focusing with my macro. The k-3 has three such points, the centre one and the on above and below it (see Feature 2?K-3 | RICOH IMAGING). Might be worth ensuring you're taking advantage of these points by manually selecting the points you're using and making sure you have a contrasting edge running across the AF points orientation (these are linear sensors running left-right, not the full cross point).

Thank you. This is what I use for AF. Chooing a single point and use the other points to track subject. Honestly not with great success.

Attached Images

 

[CarlJF]

To be honest, AF-C with a macro lens and a close subject randomly moving would be problematic for any camera. I'm far from sure a 7DII would have fare much better under the same conditions... It's not like shooting sports where subjects can move fast, but in a predictable way, with a high speed professional grade motorized telephoto lens.

[stevebrot]

I took few photos with autofocus but sadly just 2 of them were in focus. (We used AF continous) and my partner had similar issues, though she got few more shots in focus than me.

That you missed focus with the K10D does not surprise me. The K-3 is quite a bit better (world of difference, actually), but difficulty in the mouse setting you describe does not surprise me either. I wish I knew whether other systems might offer an advantage for this sort of very challenging shot, but alas, I don't! (Even BIF is easier than skittery-mouse-on-swaying-grass!)

Cool photo, BTW

Steve

[pres589]

Is the stalk stationary, and you could manually zone focus the lens properly, before the mouse shows up in the frame? This might be where AF just isn't the right answer.

Nice photo.

[automorphism]

No matter if it's Canon, Pentax, or any other brand, I would not call an "investment" spending money on photography gear. At best, it's just an expense on which you can expect some return if you sell back the gear, assuming it still has a significant value when you sell it. But even then, it still a loss and not an "investment".

Spending money on photography in an investment, and pretty much the only way you won't get a return on it is if you bury your camera in the ground.

When economists tally gains and losses, they count all forms, not just liquid assets. For example, suppose you don't have a camera. However, every day you spend one hour right after work at the beach by your office. Let's say you value that hour at $50, so for example, your boss would have to offer you at least that much to work an hour overtime instead of going to the beach. Now, you buy a camera, taking it to the beach to take pictures of the cool shells there. Suddenly you enjoy the beach, and you no longer work that overtime whenever offered $50 -- now you value that time at $70. By buying the camera, you increased your total benefit every day by $20. It's true that you don't actually get $70 dollars by going to the beach with your camera, but you get $70 worth of enjoyment out of it.

Even without direct cost and benefit estimation, the intuitive reason to do this is clear: by obtaining goods you enrich your own life through the enjoyment of those goods, and so that is a return. You could spend $10 to see a movie, or for an hour to take pictures in your backyard -- you might enjoy both activities equally.

If you still find this reasoning unusual, you can look at it from a more practical angle: taking up the hobby of photography increases your future opportunities. You might meet people and make connections that will bring you actual money in the future, which doesn't have to be making money off photography. To take a salient example, I had a job interview once where the interviewer saw some of my flower photos and really liked them. I can't say for sure that it helped me get the job, which I did, but I believe it probably helped.

My point is that you should consider your acquisition of knowledge and hobbies as investments, because you will enrich your own life and increase your opportunities.

[Rondec]

Spending money on photography in an investment, and pretty much the only way you won't get a return on it is if you bury your camera in the ground.

When economists tally gains and losses, they count all forms, not just liquid assets. For example, suppose you don't have a camera. However, every day you spend one hour right after work at the beach by your office. Let's say you value that hour at $50, so for example, your boss would have to offer you at least that much to work an hour overtime instead of going to the beach. Now, you buy a camera, taking it to the beach to take pictures of the cool shells there. Suddenly you enjoy the beach, and you no longer work that overtime whenever offered $50 -- now you value that time at $70. By buying the camera, you increased your total benefit every day by $20. It's true that you don't actually get $70 dollars by going to the beach with your camera, but you get $70 worth of enjoyment out of it.

Even without direct cost and benefit estimation, the intuitive reason to do this is clear: by obtaining goods you enrich your own life through the enjoyment of those goods, and so that is a return. You could spend $10 to see a movie, or for an hour to take pictures in your backyard -- you might enjoy both activities equally.

If you still find this reasoning unusual, you can look at it from a more practical angle: taking up the hobby of photography increases your future opportunities. You might meet people and make connections that will bring you actual money in the future, which doesn't have to be making money off photography. To take a salient example, I had a job interview once where the interviewer saw some of my flower photos and really liked them. I can't say for sure that it helped me get the job, which I did, but I believe it probably helped.

My point is that you should consider your acquisition of knowledge and hobbies as investments, because you will enrich your own life and increase your opportunities.

Nice. But you still aren't investing in a camera company by this metric, rather you are investing in yourself.

[Kunzite]

Hold that thought, I'm going to the store to invest in some beer...

[Nicolas06]

While I respect that note, practically most canon users of the 100-400 use it on crop (mostly 7D or 7DII) because 400mm is too short on full frame and the Canon full frames (except the 5Ds) has too less resolution for cropping to 1.5x . What happens is Canon users who what full frame usually end up also having a 7D or 7DII, it was a nice business model for Canon to have, and with all the 6D, and now 6DII it is still the same problem. While with a Pentax K1 or D810 36Mp, you can still get away with a decent resolution after 1.x cropping.

30MP vs 36MP isn't a significant difference. It is like 300 vs 330mm and the limitation would apply only to lenses that outrevolve the sensor at the long end. Overall the 5DMarkIV is a better camera but the price is also twice the K1...

Also FF provide another possibility to get lower end lenses with more reach like a 150-600. In term of price, that may be a better option.

If we reason in term of keepers and missed opportunities, better AF on the Canon side may have more impact on the final outcome. After all the latest Pentax camera, the KP with the latest AF still isn't on part with the competition from Canikon as per Pentax forum own testing.

The problem isn't 5DmarkIV isn't great the problem really is if it worth it? The best shots are taken anyway in better conditions when the subject isn't that far and while Pentax hasn't the best offering for wildlife, there no doubt one can go far with K3 or K1 + a 150-450 for example.

Getting nice wildlife shots can be quite costly too. Going to the right location, maybe pay a guide that know the best spots, potentially crafting a hide, wait for all the conditions to meet including great light etc. All of this is about tradeofs. There no way somebody already invested in Pentax would get better gear from Canon at no cost. Some money would be lost in the middle.

The investment would be worth it only if some serious money was to be put on the table. So that really the question. Get far better gear for maybe $5000 or more.

As for the rumors, well again switching brands cost money. Keeping what one already have cost nothing. If current gear does the job switching or investing more will just cost even more.

And there thing the new brand may not have that you'll miss. Things like SR, ergonomics...

[Nicolas06]

Yes this is true from the most common definition of investment. But for me, every dollar Iʻve put into photography has been essential and has fostered my career in photography and art education for over 45 years. I went to film school and got a degree in film, and although you donʻt need a degree in photography to become a photographer, it opened doors to teaching decades later.

Most people would say getting a degree in the arts is a waste, but for me it was an investment that has paid off well, not just financially, but in my overall happiness, skills, perspective, etc. Of course, everyoneʻs experience is different, but unless itʻs an impulse purchase, if we take the money aspect out of the word investment, there are other assets and awards that come with spending on tools like cameras.

And then you know that basically the exact tool brand or model isn't what make or break the photo. If anything a great photographer will do things with entry level DSLR that most people spending lot of money in gear will never manage to achieve.

It is like most field, if one has no clue what to do with the thing, he should first learn and improve, no go for even more foreign tool.

[biz-engineer]

30MP vs 36MP isn't a significant difference.

I agree, it is not a significant difference if you don't crop 1.5x. Now, if you crop by 1.5 for wildlife , 36Mpixel without optical low pass still gives about 15Mp like a K5IIs would. But a 30Mp with OAA (such as 5DIV) cropped to apsc size would be below that figure, would be more compelling to run two canon cameras then (that was my point). Although it was pointed out that the third party 150600 would be available for the 5DIV would provide the same reach as a cropped image from the K1 and 150450. Anyway, correct. The best in photography is to be at the right place at the right moment, regardless of the camera we use.

[automorphism]

Nice. But you still aren't investing in a camera company by this metric, rather you are investing in yourself.

Yes, that's true.

[stevebrot]

This might be where AF just isn't the right answer.

Yes...pre-focus followed by "spray 'n pray".


Steve