[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

What would be a good alternative as a secondary camera for wildlife and action? I am considering a Nikon D4S with a Tokina 150-600mm lens.... would it be worth investing in or would something like the K3 III have superior AF tracking capabilities??

While I have not used the tamron 150 600 I have used the sigma 150-600 sport and found it to preform really well with the D800 , D810 and the D4

With the D4 and paired with the sport it tracked very well and in most conditions that go beyond what is needed, what I have found is that at full FPS the cameras acts as it should a high action camera with very reliable AF tracking.

If you can keep the dynamic group AF or the the group af points over the subject there really is nothing that the AfF system can not focus on.

The D500 is a step up from the D4s in many ways but I still know a few that prefer the D4s to the D500


If you are looking at the D4S you gain some further ability's that are shared with the D810 and how you can configure AF.

[kayasaman]

While I have not used the tamron 150 600 I have used the sigma 150-600 sport and found it to preform really well with the D800 , D810 and the D4

With the D4 and paired with the sport it tracked very well and in most conditions that go beyond what is needed, what I have found is that at full FPS the cameras acts as it should a high action camera with very reliable AF tracking.

If you can keep the dynamic group AF or the the group af points over the subject there really is nothing that the AfF system can not focus on.

The D500 is a step up from the D4s in many ways but I still know a few that prefer the D4s to the D500


If you are looking at the D4S you gain some further ability's that are shared with the D810 and how you can configure AF.

It would be interesting to hear why the D4S is preferred over the D500. I'll check the manual of the D500 and see if I can spot any differences with the D4S in terms of features and functionality.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

It would be interesting to hear why the D4S is preferred over the D500. I'll check the manual of the D500 and see if I can spot any differences with the D4S in terms of features and functionality.

When using larger lenses I find that it helps to use the larger body of the the D4/D4s along with the increased battery ( this helps the most in colder weather and also times that you are using IS and AF a lot ).

If you buy the grip for the D500 and the larger capacity battery this can really increase the cost of the D500, with the D4/D4S you get all this often times much cheaper when compared to the D500 and extras

I purchased a used D4 for $900 for me to upgrade just the battery and charger for the D800 it was close to $600, I am guessing that for the D500 it would cost about the same with the additional cost of the vertical grip

I look at the D4 purchase that I got the battery and charger with a D4 that cost me $300

[kayasaman]

When using larger lenses I find that it helps to use the larger body of the the D4/D4s along with the increased battery ( this helps the most in colder weather and also times that you are using IS and AF a lot ).

If you buy the grip for the D500 and the larger capacity battery this can really increase the cost of the D500, with the D4/D4S you get all this often times much cheaper when compared to the D500 and extras

I purchased a used D4 for $900 for me to upgrade just the battery and charger for the D800 it was close to $600, I am guessing that for the D500 it would cost about the same with the additional cost of the vertical grip

I look at the D4 purchase that I got the battery and charger with a D4 that cost me $300

I will be looking around on Ebay at stores which deal in used cameras. I've been reading that there are a few people who change the internals of bodies to a much lower spec and charge a higher price. Not sure if it happens with Canon too but definitely need to look at reputable places to buy rather then individuals where you have no guarantee.

But I agree that the larger body in many cases is much easier to handle then standard or smaller size body. The only thing is the weight when using a longer lens but that won't really affect me too much in any case.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

What might be your deciding factor is if you are focal length limited in your style of photography, if you are happy and use to shooting 300mm on a cropped body a 150-600 on a FF body will give you more reach while still giving you the same FOV as your 300mmwhen times you need it that FOV. If however you are looking for more reach than 300mm on a cropped body the 150-600 will give the most reach when pair with the D500.

I know for the way I like to photograph BIF using a FF camera body I like to use 200-500mm FOV with the majority around 300-400mm

[luftfluss]

I will be looking around on Ebay at stores which deal in used cameras. I've been reading that there are a few people who change the internals of bodies to a much lower spec and charge a higher price. Not sure if it happens with Canon too but definitely need to look at reputable places to buy rather then individuals where you have no guarantee.

But I agree that the larger body in many cases is much easier to handle then standard or smaller size body. The only thing is the weight when using a longer lens but that won't really affect me too much in any case.

There is also MPB.com, which has a location in Berlin. They are reputable.

Ian has numerous wildlife photos he's taken with a Sigma 150-600 here: Wildlife in front of the full frame - Page 8 - PentaxForums.com

[pjsaure]

I would first try to solve the issue with the camera that you have.
I had a K-5 IIs that was far from perfect and overall quite frustrating when it came to AF on moving or small subjects, but when it actually focused on a target, the result was very sharp. I am a bit surprised that your more advanced K-1 II doesn’t produce better results than that.
I suspect 2 things:
- your lenses need AF fine adjustments
- you need to practice placing your focus point right on your target and minimize shaking, which can be more difficult than we imagine with long lenses.

Maybe try shooting some static subjects filling at least a quarter to a third of the frame, on a sturdy tripod to eliminate some variables. Be mindful of the depth of field. Focus accuracy should be very good. If it is not, you probably need to do some AF adjustments. If it is, you may need to practice your stability and ability to keep a focus point on target.

Buying a new camera may prove costly and frustrating if you are not 100% sure that your poor results are only because of the camera.

[kayasaman]

I would first try to solve the issue with the camera that you have.
I had a K-5 IIs that was far from perfect and overall quite frustrating when it came to AF on moving or small subjects, but when it actually focused on a target, the result was very sharp. I am a bit surprised that your more advanced K-1 II doesn’t produce better results than that.
I suspect 2 things:
- your lenses need AF fine adjustments
- you need to practice placing your focus point right on your target and minimize shaking, which can be more difficult than we imagine with long lenses.

Maybe try shooting some static subjects filling at least a quarter to a third of the frame, on a sturdy tripod to eliminate some variables. Be mindful of the depth of field. Focus accuracy should be very good. If it is not, you probably need to do some AF adjustments. If it is, you may need to practice your stability and ability to keep a focus point on target.

Buying a new camera may prove costly and frustrating if you are not 100% sure that your poor results are only because of the camera.

I would agree with this and hence the reason why the K3 iii might be the best choice if AF was on par with other systems.


I can shoot static subjects just fine, they are in focus with no issues.

I do shake a lot in general but I have SR turned on and also the shutter speeds I've been using are around between 1/1000 to 1/4000. I doubt with the shutter setting this high, the image should come out blurred from motion. On larger bodies such as planes in the range of Boeing 777 or 787 models at a distance but enough to fill a few focus points using my 300mm, they are still coming out a little soft. I had the same issue with a Squirrel recently too which was at around 20 meters (60 ft) away.

If the subject is large and covers around 2/3 of the frame, then the AF works well. Tested on a few pigeons walking infront of me.


Most likely the problem is with distant and small subjects. I had a few attempts at shooting a crow perched on top of a tree in front of me. The crow probably covered about 1/4 if the frame. It came out soft each time and I had Continuous shooting mode on and set to H.

Going for a Nikon D4S or D500 (as suggested) with a Tamron 150-600mm lens will cost about the same amount as the DFA150-450mm.


Another example is a robbin which was purched around 4 or 5 meters (around 15ft) in front me. There was no detail in any of the feathers or plumage at all.


The best I could do with the AF are these:

_IMG0257.jpg - Google Drive

Update your browser to use Google Drive, Docs, Sheets, Sites, Slides, and Forms - Google Drive Help


Eventually I got so fedup that I switched to my Irix 150mm and manually focused. This is cropped but what I would expect to see:

_IMG0649.jpg - Google Drive

---------- Post added 05-15-22 at 04:17 PM ----------

There is also MPB.com, which has a location in Berlin. They are reputable.

Ian has numerous wildlife photos he's taken with a Sigma 150-600 here: Wildlife in front of the full frame - Page 8 - PentaxForums.com

Those are some amazing images!! I could not get anywhere near that level of clarity unless I used MF.

[KiloHotelphoto]

If you're photographing planes that are only the size of a few focus points they are just to far away to get sharp pictures. You will have a lot of atmospheric conditions that will soften and blur images.

[kayasaman]

If you're photographing planes that are only the size of a few focus points they are just to far away to get sharp pictures. You will have a lot of atmospheric conditions that will soften and blur images.

This is the sort of size:

_IMG0268.jpg - Google Drive

_IMG0514.jpg - Google Drive


I wouldn't call that too small for the AF. They cover all the points when set to 9 points, or even single Spot mode. But I agree with the atmospheric conditions, that might have affected the images.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Going for a Nikon D4S or D500 (as suggested) with a Tamron 150-600mm lens will cost about the same amount as the DFA150-450mm.

What I would recommend is the version II of the tamron, one of the key features would be the ability to use the dock, what I have found and this is the same across every brand I have used is with zoom like these they require AF tuning over the entire zoom range and also the need for Af correction over different working distances. When AF tuning with the dock you can really finetune AF


Here is the AF tuning for the sigma as you can see there is a lot that you can adjust for it also becomes critical if your goal is to focus on the eye's many times you are limited to less than an inch of DOF

[kayasaman]

What I would recommend is the version II of the tamron, one of the key features would be the ability to use the dock, what I have found and this is the same across every brand I have used is with zoom like these they require AF tuning over the entire zoom range and also the need for Af correction over different working distances. When AF tuning with the dock you can really finetune AF


Here is the AF tuning for the sigma as you can see there is a lot that you can adjust for it also becomes critical if your goal is to focus on the eye's many times you are limited to less than an inch of DOF

Thanks Ian, yeah this will be interesting to learn how to do it.

By the way ultra cool pictures of yours provided in the link above. That spider is simply amazing!

I'm really amazed at the clarity and detail brought out in each subject.

[pjsaure]

I do shake a lot in general but I have SR turned on and also the shutter speeds I've been using are around between 1/1000 to 1/4000. I doubt with the shutter setting this high, the image should come out blurred from motion.

I was not referring to motion blur. The thing is SR (in-body image stabilization) doesn’t affect the AF sensor. So if you shake, regardless of SR being on or off, the AF sensor will see a shaky image and its performance will be impacted.
I noticed I had much better AF performance with my K-5 IIs when on a tripod because of this: the AF had much better data to work on.

In-lens image stabilization (or going with a mirrorless system with in-body IS, or both) would certainly help AF if you are shaking a lot. But as always, it can only be better if your technique is appropriate, regardless of the technology.

In any case, if you can afford it and don’t mind having to adjust to different camera systems, sure, a D500 or other sports oriented DSLR or any recent high end mirrorless camera will certainly be better regarding AF.
Just be aware of your own limitations and of how the AF system works in relation to the rest of the camera, it will avoid lots of frustrations.

[kayasaman]

I was not referring to motion blur. The thing is SR (in-body image stabilization) doesn’t affect the AF sensor. So if you shake, regardless of SR being on or off, the AF sensor will see a shaky image and its performance will be impacted.
I noticed I had much better AF performance with my K-5 IIs when on a tripod because of this: the AF had much better data to work on.

In-lens image stabilization (or going with a mirrorless system with in-body IS, or both) would certainly help AF if you are shaking a lot. But as always, it can only be better if your technique is appropriate, regardless of the technology.

In any case, if you can afford it and don’t mind having to adjust to different camera systems, sure, a D500 or other sports oriented DSLR or any recent high end mirrorless camera will certainly be better regarding AF.
Just be aware of your own limitations and of how the AF system works in relation to the rest of the camera, it will avoid lots of frustrations.

Definitely a valid point! I agree, I don't want to splash money on unnecessary things. It would be a secondary camera if I got a second body. One thing that is probably obvious is that the 300mm lens that I'm using hasn't really got the reach when it comes to targets which are far away.

I actually purchased the lens for astro imaging and it does a great job coupled with astro tracer for targets like the M42 or Orion nebula, the North American Nebula is another great target for it. I probably started using it with AF about a month or two ago as previously I was using it only in MF mode at night.


As I said previously, I can pickup a used D500 or D4S with a Tamron or Sigma 150-600mm lens for the price of a DFA150-450mm, which will give better AF performance and reach. I wouldn't need to really invest in a new system because I would only have a body and lens for one specific purpose.


For landscape, macro, and astro the K1 is perfect for me. Though I would also be interested to test the longer focal length of the Sigma or Tamron with a GOTO mount as I already have KStars setup with indilib which works with the K1, bar a few glitches but I'm still learning things.


Just throwing my astro intentions out there as I also want to go for a Moravian Instruments monochrome cooled CCD camera down the line. Incase anyone is curious as to what I'm talking about: C3 Series CMOS Cameras

[kayasaman]

I tried out the DFA28-105 earlier to compare the AF with the 300mm. As I hardly use this lens, I don't have much experience with it, but settings were pretty much normal. TAv mode with f/8 and shutter set to 1000s. The ISO was 4500.

Here are the samples, I shot them in raw but converted to jpg without any processing done at all:

_IMG1744.jpg - Google Drive

_IMG1745.jpg - Google Drive

_IMG1746.jpg - Google Drive

_IMG1747.jpg - Google Drive

_IMG1748.jpg - Google Drive

_IMG1749.jpg - Google Drive

_IMG1750.jpg - Google Drive

_IMG1751.jpg - Google Drive


AF was set to Auto 33 and I was using AFS-C mode.


Somehow it seems that the target, although in the center, the camera decided to focus on the flowers in the foreground. For sure, if I set 9 point or Spot AF, it may have come out differently.


In the meantime I am continuing to research into a camera with better AF tracking.

Nikon D500 vs Nikon D4s Detailed Comparison

Nikon D4s Review

Nikon D500 Review

10 Best Cameras for Sports to Buy in 2022


The last site suggests the Canon EOS 90D.....


Probably for me at this stage it will be deciding between the Nikon D4S and D500. Then as Ian mentioned above it is a question of: do I want the 1.5x focal distance from the APS-C sensor or do I want the larger Pixel size of the D4S??


Just quickly to say a big thank you everyone for your help and continued assistance!! It's highly appreciated.