[Tas]

I'll have to try to find somewhere in Oz that hires Canon gear to see if I can try the Canon option and see how it behaves.

They're around mate: Canon DSLR Cameras for Rent - Camera Hire Sydney Australia it might be worth a few bob to see what the 7D Mk II and lens will be like, though online reviews suggest the Nikon D500 seems to get the nod for the type of images you're referencing and it uses the same AF unit as the D5: Camera Comparison: Nikon D5 Vs Nikon D500 - ALC

There's probably also some Sony reviews that give them a nod too but It's only gear, so hopefully you'll find what works best for you and you can get back to the good stuff.

[RobG]

I'd recommend trying the new 55-300mm PLM. The resolution will be a bit worse than your DA*, but the AF is so fast that every shot will likely end up being in focus. The PLM motor provides almost instantaneous response. Might be way cheaper than going for a new system or picking up the 150-450mm (though the latter is really good from an IQ perspective, and also focuses faster than the DA*, but not as fast as the 55-300mm).

Thanks Adam! I was also considering that lens for some situations; airshows being one. The DFA 150-450 frankly is more for birds and wildlife than airshows. For birds, 300mm isn't usually long enough, even with the crop factor. The DFA 150-450 also works with the 1.4x TC, which I already have, although with the crop factor already reaching further than the DA*300+TC, I don't know how much I would use the TC on the DFA lens. I looked at the PLM lens in Shinjuku, but I didn't know at the time that it had a faster AF motor, or I'd have tried it out!

---------- Post added 18-03-17 at 11:35 PM ----------

They're around mate: Canon DSLR Cameras for Rent - Camera Hire Sydney Australia it might be worth a few bob to see what the 7D Mk II and lens will be like, though online reviews suggest the Nikon D500 seems to get the nod for the type of images you're referencing and it uses the same AF unit as the D5: Camera Comparison: Nikon D5 Vs Nikon D500 - ALC

I may have to go to Sydney for a weekend. $230 isn't too bad to hire a 7D and 100-400 lens. Thanks for the suggestions.

[UncleVanya]

My only Canon experiences are with manual focus and film. I concur with the recommendation to rent before buying. I also think you have a lot invested in Pentax and your concerns must be pretty bothersome to you for this swap to even be considered.

Good luck whatever you do. If you are able to stick with Pentax it will be interesting to learn what swayed you. If not then the same data will be an entertaining tale as well.

[Ventzy]

DA*300 + K-3 is very capable combo for air planes. Focus is fast and precision enough.

Attached Images

         

[RobG]

DA*300 + K-3 is very capable combo for air planes. Focus is fast and precision enough.

Nice photos! As I said, the DA*300 is fabulous optically, and I have lots of nice images from it, but my copy seems to have AF issues. I'm surprised that you say the focus is fast, because that has never been my experience, even compared to the DA 55-300 ED. As I have mentioned, I find the lack of a focus limiter especially frustrating given the slowness of the AF motor.

[normhead]

I'd recommend trying the new 55-300mm PLM. The resolution will be a bit worse than your DA*, but the AF is so fast that every shot will likely end up being in focus. The PLM motor provides almost instantaneous response. Might be way cheaper than going for a new system or picking up the 150-450mm (though the latter is really good from an IQ perspective, and also focuses faster than the DA*, but not as fast as the 55-300mm).

+1. SDM (So Damn Maddening) is just not a a fast AF focussing system. To the point I now use my SDM lenses more for landscape and stationary objects. IF there's any way to use my Tamron 300 I do.

[RobG]

My only Canon experiences are with manual focus and film. I concur with the recommendation to rent before buying. I also think you have a lot invested in Pentax and your concerns must be pretty bothersome to you for this swap to even be considered. Good luck whatever you do. If you are able to stick with Pentax it will be interesting to learn what swayed you. If not then the same data will be an entertaining tale as well.

Yes, hopefully I can at least find enough subject material on a couple of weekends to make a call between the two options. However, I have no intention of giving up all the Pentax gear - the alternative camera would be for those long lens and action combinations. There's still a heck of a lot of photos I want to take with my Pentax cameras and lenses.

This is great:

FA-18F Super Hornet at Skyfire by RobGeraghty, on Flickr

This not so much:

Hunting an F18 by RobGeraghty, on Flickr

[rawr]

SkyFire blues.

I agree that you prob shouldn't have used a TC. It's another layer of glass, dimming the DA*300mm to f5.6 wide-open (or f8 FF equivalent, I guess), and it adds another set of electronics for the camera and SDM to fight against.

[beholder3]

This is the aircraft I was trying to photograph today. Part of the problem was that the amount of time it was in my field of view on each pass was small, and it was moving fast. The display was also very short. So any amount of hunting in the middle of that meant a lot of frustration, but the part which was the most disappointing was the series of 32 images where almost all were OOF.

FA-18F Super Hornet - PentaxForums.com

Usually the user influence is massive on the ratio of keepers. Much more so than equipment.

Once you understand what you do, you can optimize.

1. What setting for AF Hold did you use? --> Here where there is no want to quickly switch to an object in a totally different distance set it to medium or high. Definitely not off. The background sky which you do not want to focus on is a totally different distance.
2. What AF fields did you use? --> the AF algorithms only can use data from what is exactly under the AF field used. Judging by your images, each individual AF field was all over the place. In one microsecond over the wing in the other over the cockpit and maybe in between on the background. So you do have to use more AF fields. And with that friendly blue background (which should not draw in focus just because one outer field is over it) you should use as many as you can get, maybe just avoiding the extreme side line sensors, so 25 fields either in select or auto.
3. Did you use back button AF? --> back button AF tends to help in the way that you can start feeding the algorithms with distance info by using the back button even before you actually fire away. That obviously helps any prediction.

The one big equipment effect here is that the DA*300 is not really fast, but that should not hurt with airplanes. The one thing where it really is too slow is in recovering once a shot is missed. The micro USM drives used as SDM simply do not provide the torque required. That's a lot better on the DFA 150-450.

And yes, using the teleconverter did hurt a lot. As far as I know the official specs on AF once said they were best at F4 (the x1,7 converter listed only lenses with F2.8 or faster as compatible), so a F5.6 lens is already crippled down a little.
And to add to the limited AF sensor the framing you got was so big that all your swaying around moved quicker and more over the subject, irritating the algorithms.
You are better of not using the TC and cropping later.

[normhead]

SkyFire blues.

I agree that you prob shouldn't have used a TC. It's another layer of glass, dimming the DA*300mm to f5.6 wide-open (or f8 FF equivalent, I guess), and it adds another set of electronics for the camera and SDM to fight against.

Actually your confused here, for exposure, ƒ5.8 is not ƒ8 on full frame. For exposure ƒ5.6 is ƒ5.6 on any system 8x10 film or on your Q. When discussing AF DoF equivalence is irrelevant. For 90% of shooting DoF equivalence is irrelevant.The fact it is even called equivalence is a lie in itself. It applies only to DoF, in DoF critical images. It should be called Depth of Field equivalence. There' no need for for a term like exposure equivalence, or mentioning that most AF systems are turned to ƒ2.8, regardless of sensor size because most of us understand those things. Or at least used to before these "equivalence" freaks started pretending that depth of field is all tha matters. It's one of three factors to consider when adjusting aperture, and for most of us the least important.

But, your point that your AF doesn't function as well with at ƒ5.6 as it does at ƒ2.8 is real consideration. But that is only a low light consideration. Every lens I own, even the 60-250 with the 1.7 at ƒ6.3 focusses well in daylight. It shouldn't have been a problem. The issue I seem to face more often is my ability to follow the object in the viewfinder is so unsteady that the camera doesn't seem to have time to lock on given object. There is room for human error here. But it's also possible that the refresh cycle on a Nikon or Canon would be enough faster that it could lock even though I'm not that steady. All I ever see on these kinds of issues is a lot of speculation.

The trouble is, for this kind of shot, I don't know how to eliminate human error for testing. Without that, I wouldn't even venture an opinion.

I would start with establishing tha no one shooting Canon (or Nikon) for the camera model I'm interested in has these kinds of issues. Ian and I did a shoot off a while ago with dogs running straight at us. If memory serves me well I had about a 60% keeper rate I was using my K-3, he had a 90% keeper rate. But the difference in AF performance wasn't enough to explain your results. IN fact the K-3 did fine at a distance, it was only as the dog got close to the camera the K-3 had problems, Ian's Nikon was able to keep up even at close range. That may be as much a function of lens design as it is the cameras AF system. But of course that's irrelevant. Pentax is really late to the game, and only with the 3 DFAs and the PLM have they even tried to build lenses with any fast AF capability.

If you are talking speed of AF and you don't own one of those lenses, one of which is actually quite inexpensive, but you are planning to go out and buy a Canon with a fast focussing lens, you haven't given the Pentax a fair shot. For the cost of a 55-300 PLM you might be happy.

I've used SDM (and a DC lens) long enough I shudder when ever I see "fast AF" and SDM in the same sentence. It's virtually 100%, someone is disappointed. SDM being so slow is the biggest reason the DFAs have done so well. At least from an action shooter's perspective. For 90% of what you do, SDM is just fine.

[RobG]

+1. SDM (So Damn Maddening) is just not a a fast AF focussing system. To the point I now use my SDM lenses more for landscape and stationary objects. IF there's any way to use my Tamron 300 I do.

Funny you mention a Tamron. I used to have a Promaster lens 80-300 (I think?) which was amazingly fast to focus, but the contrast and colour were poor. I think the OEM was Tamron. I never used it again once I bought the DA 55-300 because the colours from the Pentax lens were so much better.

SkyFire blues. I agree that you prob shouldn't have used a TC. It's another layer of glass, dimming the DA*300mm to f5.6 wide-open (or f8 FF equivalent, I guess), and it adds another set of electronics for the camera and SDM to fight against.

I shot heaps of photos with the DA*300 and TC at Avalon. With the setting sun shining on the F18 this evening, there was plenty of light viz 1/1000s @ f7.1 & ISO 400. But the TC isn't the problem here, it's the DA*300 with its tendency to suddenly hunt, but more than that it's deciding between a DFA 150-450 or a completely different camera and lens combination.

Usually the user influence is massive on the ratio of keepers. Much more so than equipment.
Once you understand what you do, you can optimize.

1. What setting for AF Hold did you use? --> Here where there is no want to quickly switch to an object in a totally different distance set it to medium or high. Definitely not off. The background sky which you do not want to focus on is a totally different distance.
2. What AF fields did you use? --> the AF algorithms only can use data from what is exactly under the AF field used. Judging by your images, each individual AF field was all over the place. In one microsecond over the wing in the other over the cockpit and maybe in between on the background. So you do have to use more AF fields. And with that friendly blue background (which should not draw in focus just because one outer field is over it) you should use as many as you can get, maybe just avoiding the extreme side line sensors, so 25 fields either in select or auto.
3. Did you use back button AF? --> back button AF tends to help in the way that you can start feeding the algorithms with distance info by using the back button even before you actually fire away. That obviously helps any prediction.

The one big equipment effect here is that the DA*300 is not really fast, but that should not hurt with airplanes. The one thing where it really is too slow is in recovering once a shot is missed. The micro USM drives used as SDM simply do not provide the torque required. That's a lot better on the DFA 150-450.

And yes, using the teleconverter did hurt a lot. As far as I know the official specs on AF once said they were best at F4 (the x1,7 converter listed only lenses with F2.8 or faster as compatible), so a F5.6 lens is already crippled down a little.
And to add to the limited AF sensor the framing you got was so big that all your swaying around moved quicker and more over the subject, irritating the algorithms.
You are better of not using the TC and cropping later.

Thanks for all the thought you've put into this reply. I appreciate the input, but the reason for this post wasn't to critique my use of the DA*300 and my failure on this occasion to remove the TC before I left home, but to find out if anyone had experience with both Canon and Pentax cameras with long lenses. The reason that Canon came up in this case was because someone else shot photos of the same plane using a 7D and a 100-400 IS lens. I've looked at Canon for use with long lenses before, because a number of professional wildlife photographers I know use Canon, and because buying a DFA 150-450 is a similar price to buying a Canon DSLR and a lens.

Anyway, I'll see if I can hire or borrow a Canon + lens to try out, then hire a DFA 150-450 and see which combination I'm happier with. If anyone does have experience with Canon gear, I'd be interested to hear from them. Digidirect hire the DFA lens, but for a minimum of 6 months.

[biz-engineer]

Hunting an F18 by RobGeraghty, on Flickr

You can also do this shot with a 7D :-) With the 7D AI servo , prefocus the lens at nearest focus, and fully press the shutter button, you'll get 2 or 3 shots like this one, then it tracks well once in focus, that's the nature of AI servo (or "AFC" for Pentax and Nikon). Usually when we get a 7D, if we get out of focus shots, we can only think over what we've done because 7D is the best, Pentax not so much, so usually, when a Pentax camera does not deliver as expected, we tend to get the camera from Canon or Nikon, which is better but still not perfect, except the D500, the D500 is the only camera with AF sticky to subject, 7D not so much actually. The best is to try.

There are user comments about AF here: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii/2

About the 7DII:
"It isn't a mater of just putting the camera in AI Servo, and shooting away. There are a bunch of case modes that you can tweak for the type of action you're shooting. What I would also recommend is turning on all 65-points for your AI Servo needs. You can customize the camera to only show the center point. When you do that, whatever you initially focus on with the center point, will be tracked with the other 64 points as it moves across the frame. Once I did that, my keeper rate skyrocketed. Before this, I would use the single point expanded with four points around it, or the 15 cluster points. The focus in both of these cases was erratic, especially when shooting with a fast aperture where depth of field is razor thin to begin with."

"The AF is quick I'll give it that - easily on a par with the 1DX and slightly better in low light - but I've found in servo (AI) mode it doesn't lock on as well as either of the 1 series bodies I use, even when set to it's slowest point for tracking."

[SpecialK]

Does anyone have experience with both Pentax and Canon cameras using long lenses?

I had repeated issues with a K-5 and Sigma 150-500 not auto-focusing well at airshows regardless of the various methods I tried - so much so that I got a used 40D and a new Tamron 150-600 (the 40D eventually was replaced by a 70D) and airshow life became much better.

[Kunzite]

Usually when we get a 7D, if we get out of focus shots, we can only think over what we've done because 7D is the best, Pentax not so much, so usually, when a Pentax camera does not deliver as expected, we tend to get the camera from Canon or Nikon, which is better but still not perfect, except the D500, the D500 is the only camera with AF sticky to subject, 7D not so much actually. The best is to try.

Hmm... so it goes like this for a typical Pentaxian:
- start with a Pentax camera
- can't get good results (mostly because he's lacking experience)
- read around the net that Pentax is the worst
- jump ship to Nikon/Canon
- still can't get good results, but cameras can't be faulty because they're Nikon/Canon
- gradually improve
- finally, good results! (mostly because now he has experience)
- praise Nikon/Canon and post around the net how Pentax is the worst

(no connection with anyone here... I guess )

As for the OP's problem... I felt that frustration, too, when the 60-250 was losing the subject and started hunting - it's pretty much game over when it happens. The 150-450 will help (it has a faster AF motor and a focus limiter), but so would jumping ship to some expensive Canon/Nikon gear.
What I'm curious about are the conditions when the lens starts hunting. For me, it was when I lost the subject (naturally!)

[Miguel]

Hi Rob,
My advice would be to rent a 7D Mark II and the 100-400mm Mark II and see how that works for you. The 7D Mark II is the second most accurate AF system in the Canon line; the 100-400mm Mark II is an improvement over the first version, not a huge one but noticeable. An alternative would be the Nikon D500 and the Nikon 200-500mm lens which I hear is just excellent for the money.

I'll respond based on my real life experience using both a 7D + the 100-400mm L for many years as well as the K-3 + Sigma 100-300mm f4 for several months. I shoot birds and fast moving team sports like U-19 soccer and now college women's lacrosse.

I had left the Pentax world for Canon about 10 years ago when my job as a corporate photographer turned to shooting a men's soccer team that the company sponsored. The 7D was very good at that time, though noisy sensor wise, but sports is not fine art and there is wiggle room for NR. I still had a bunch of Pentax glass and when the K-3 came out I purchased it along with that Sigma and gave it a good long test over many months. Unfortunately the AF accuracy was about 60% of what the 7D offered--that was a fairly high bar for the time, so the K-3 was OK. What was frustrating was the lack of AF configuration at the level of control and sophistication that Canon offered and that made a big difference. I grew frustrated and sold off the K-3 and Sigma lens (which was detrimental to birds as its screw drive AF was noisy and scared them off).

Then I purchased a FF 5D Mark III which had better AF and configuration and interface than the 7D. I sold the 7D last year finally. In the US you can find them for under $500. Nowadays I'm using the 5D with the newer Tamron 150-600mm G2, a super bargain. The optics are quite good, especially if you go through the laborious AF tweaking provided by their USB-based Tap-In Console and software.

For the record, I'm back with the Pentax K-1 which for art is just a fantastic camera. It was tough deciding between that and the 5D Mark IV (which is excellent image wise) but the pricing and value was unconvincing. The AF is superb. I'm going to rent the Pentax 150-450mm just to see, but in my experience everything AF with Pentax is second rate--not just performance but the configuration and the user interface. The thumb-based joystick on the newer Canon bodies is excellent for putting the AF points where you want them to be and the button layout is great for back-button focus. And the tracking is very good. As a postscript--I borrowed my friend's Nikon D500 for shooting birds and that was the best for AF, really top notch, but not cheap.

Hope this helps

M