Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-18-2018, 08:03 AM   #91
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,545
QuoteOriginally posted by UserAccessDenied Quote
I am surprised by the amount of noise at 2000ISO for the K-1...
It's cropped. That's why a 500 f4 or 600 f4 with TC option would be better than a 200-500 f5.6 on a full frame. Or, if apsc crop, get a lens 1 or 2 stops faster.
Believe me, compared to a zoom, a prime wide open will get you the sharpness of the zoom stopped down, and when the lens aperture is wider you'll get more responsive AF because the AF sensor that gets more light is faster to operate. That is the reason why I am saying to get a 500 f4 on a apsc camera or a 150-600 on a full frame. If you shoot with a 500 f4 on a D500 or D7500, you can shot wide open (f4). If you use a 200-500 f5.6 on a crop camera, that's significantly not as good as the prime. You can shoot a f5.6 on a 200-500 but it's not going to give you the sharpness required by the pixel density of the D500, and if you stop down the 200-500 to f7.1 or f8, you lose 1 stop of light, and in the woods it's hard to take because of being in shadows already. Or, get the 600mm FL stop down to f8 but use it in combination with a full frame sensor that still looks good when downsize to the pixel count of a crop sensor. I've met a number of wildlife photographers, a lot of them use either long zoom on FF or faster prime on a crop. Typical Canon kit I see a lot is the 7DII and 500 f4 or 300 f2.8, 5DIII and 600 f4. With long lenses, you are constrained by shutter speed / ISO / available light / lens aperture. The most common choice among wildlife photographers who get excellent results is 7DII + 500 f4 or 300 f2.8, same combo with Nikon. That's why I am telling you that if you get a D500 and a slow zoom like the 200-500 f5.6, you have not going to get a step improvement / cost by going Nikon compared to staying with Pentax. You would get a bigger step for the money if you would get a D500 and a 500 f4, and you could even get a D7500 and the Sigma 500 f4, you will get a world of difference in terms of image output compared to a D500 and 200-500 f5.6, as that lens is going to be the bottleneck.

---------- Post added 18-09-18 at 17:12 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
You'll never have to put up with my opinion again. I'll save you the emotional stress, an honest discussion causes you.
The problem is often that people judge by the specs with no practical learning experience in the field, usually they don't listen even if you try to help them, they get what they want, they experience it, then realize they made the sub optimal choice, sell it , and buy the kit that was earlier recommended to them. It seems people can't learn from the experience of others, they prefer to do they own trials and errors.


Last edited by biz-engineer; 09-18-2018 at 08:09 AM.
09-18-2018, 08:22 AM   #92
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Nelson B.C.
Posts: 3,689
QuoteOriginally posted by UserAccessDenied Quote
That's certainly the dream!

And valid point... There's a learning curve with anything. Even if I picked up a K-1ii and a 150-450 it would be some time until I felt comfortable enough to shoot blind (not looking at camera - muscle memory for controls).

That's one plus side to the K-3ii right now. I can keep my eye to the viewfinder and make any adjustment I need, even SR on/off without taking my eye off the subject.

I think the Nikon 300PF is a better "upgrade" from the DA*300 than the 200-500.
A little pricier. But I've seen some great reviews so far and that lens is sooo compact!

Toss on a 1.4xTC and it's comparable to what I'm shooting now. At least in terms of FOV and aperture. It should feel familiar.

Other side of things, if I can find a 150-450 for relatively cheap (1200-1300) I'll pick it up and give the K-3ii another chance.
It could very well be the limitations of the DA*300 rather than the K-3ii itself. Especially with the 1.4xTC attached.
The 300 PF is indeed light and compact, very nice. The autofocus performance decreases with TCs attached though. I'm not certain if that is what Ian is referring to, a slight degradation from excellence, or if it is a problem.
09-18-2018, 08:27 AM   #93
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,545
QuoteOriginally posted by derekkite Quote
The 300 PF is indeed light and compact, very nice. The autofocus performance decreases with TCs attached though. I'm not certain if that is what Ian is referring to, a slight degradation from excellence, or if it is a problem.
That's the kind of info the OP will be receptive to. This is the kind of thread opened to ask advice / feedback but only the feedback that match the pre-conceived idea of the OP is considered. That kind of thread is a waste of time.
09-18-2018, 08:41 AM - 1 Like   #94
Pentaxian
Dan Rentea's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 1,089
Oh, this is a tough subject... Most of the time when people talk about wildlife, they usually talk about stationary subjects. For this kind of wildlife any kind of camera released these days can do the job.

Regarding K-3 II and DA* 300mm f4 lens, it's a very good combo for stationary subjects. That lens is very sharp, but is very slow to focus if you want some consistency, at least to me.

Regarding K-3 II and D-FA 150-450mm, I didn't get the chance to use it for BIF and I don't know how good it is. I've used it for some stationary subjects and it seems fast to focus compared to DA* 300mm.

Regarding D500 with Nikon 300mm f4, you can't find a better camera for BIF in this price range. With a 1.4x TC and you will have 630mm at f5.6.

Regarding D500 wtih Nikon 200-500mm f5.6, for tracking in my opinion you will get better results than you will get with K-3 II and any zoom lens. Af algorithm is better on D500, af points are spreaded almost all over the sensor, you get 2 aditional fps...

I use Canon, not Nikon, but I shoot as much as I can with lots of cameras from different manufacturers. When I'm really after a subject, I rent Canon 300mm f2.8L lens and if I need more reach, I have with me a 1.4x TC or a 2x TC. If you find a prime lens like 300mm f2.8 (or 300mm f4), 500mm f4 second hand at a good price, go for it. It will make your camera to shine. These lenses are good because can be used handheld if necesary.

K1 can be problematic for action. It's not designed for this job. Again, for stationary subjects can do the job and you'll get beautiful files.

Find a way to rent first a Pentax 150-450mm and see if it is going to do the job on K-3 II. To me, if you are a photographer oriented on action shots, Nikon D500 is the better option. If by wildlife you mean birds sitting on branches, animals walking in the forest, then a fast lens may be enough to keep you satisfied.

09-18-2018, 08:53 AM   #95
Pentaxian
UserAccessDenied's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Maryland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,674
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
That's the kind of info the OP will be receptive to. This is the kind of thread opened to ask advice / feedback but only the feedback that match the pre-conceived idea of the OP is considered. That kind of thread is a waste of time.
Not sure if that was directed towards me?

I'm just saying earlier that certain comparisons in this thread are unrealistic.
I'm not LOOKING for any particular answer or information that confirms my "love" for Nikon. If anything I'm looking for people to convince me to stay with Pentax, but doing so with valid arguments.

quoting norm earlier: "And the point here is, you don't get the benefit of a better AF system on something like a D500, if you don't buy the lenses that will take advantage of it. IN fact it would be interesting to see a comparison of a D500 with say a 150-600 and Pentax with a 600 4. People assume there would be an advantage to the Nikon system, but, when the Pentax is the expensive system and the Nikon is the bargain basement system, that's probably not the case."

Don't see how this is relevant at all since the 600mm F4 is almost certainly going to out perform (IQ) a 150-600 zoom... Regardless of whether it's the K-3ii or D500. AF is still arguable though.

Your response later on quoting: "I have a DFA150-450, it's good , but it's not like a 600 f4, I wouldn't spend the money to get a D500 and put back a 200-500 f5.6 on it..." This is very helpful information, and makes me realize the comparison here should be the SAME lens with the D500 vs the K-3ii, such as the Sigma 50-500 OS since it's available in both mounts.

When an equal playing field is applied to both cameras, which performs better?
09-18-2018, 08:55 AM - 2 Likes   #96
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 12,754
Folks, just a friendly reminder to keep things friendly and respectful. There's no need to get personal, whether directly or indirectly.

Thank you!
09-18-2018, 08:57 AM   #97
Pentaxian
UserAccessDenied's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Maryland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,674
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
Oh, this is a tough subject... Most of the time when people talk about wildlife, they usually talk about stationary subjects. For this kind of wildlife any kind of camera released these days can do the job.

Regarding K-3 II and DA* 300mm f4 lens, it's a very good combo for stationary subjects. That lens is very sharp, but is very slow to focus if you want some consistency, at least to me.

Regarding K-3 II and D-FA 150-450mm, I didn't get the chance to use it for BIF and I don't know how good it is. I've used it for some stationary subjects and it seems fast to focus compared to DA* 300mm.

Regarding D500 with Nikon 300mm f4, you can't find a better camera for BIF in this price range. With a 1.4x TC and you will have 630mm at f5.6.

Regarding D500 wtih Nikon 200-500mm f5.6, for tracking in my opinion you will get better results than you will get with K-3 II and any zoom lens. Af algorithm is better on D500, af points are spreaded almost all over the sensor, you get 2 aditional fps...

I use Canon, not Nikon, but I shoot as much as I can with lots of cameras from different manufacturers. When I'm really after a subject, I rent Canon 300mm f2.8L lens and if I need more reach, I have with me a 1.4x TC or a 2x TC. If you find a prime lens like 300mm f2.8 (or 300mm f4), 500mm f4 second hand at a good price, go for it. It will make your camera to shine. These lenses are good because can be used handheld if necesary.

K1 can be problematic for action. It's not designed for this job. Again, for stationary subjects can do the job and you'll get beautiful files.

Find a way to rent first a Pentax 150-450mm and see if it is going to do the job on K-3 II. To me, if you are a photographer oriented on action shots, Nikon D500 is the better option. If by wildlife you mean birds sitting on branches, animals walking in the forest, then a fast lens may be enough to keep you satisfied.
Thank you for the thought out response.
I agree, the K-3ii with my currently lenses work wonderfully for stationary subjects. It's tracking any motion with AF that gets troublesome. Sounds like either a new lens for the K-3ii or the D500. But either way I need to look for something else.
09-18-2018, 08:57 AM   #98
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 33,059
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
Oh, this is a tough subject... Most of the time when people talk about wildlife, they usually talk about stationary subjects. For this kind of wildlife any kind of camera released these days can do the job.

Regarding K-3 II and DA* 300mm f4 lens, it's a very good combo for stationary subjects. That lens is very sharp, but is very slow to focus if you want some consistency, at least to me.

Regarding K-3 II and D-FA 150-450mm, I didn't get the chance to use it for BIF and I don't know how good it is. I've used it for some stationary subjects and it seems fast to focus compared to DA* 300mm.

Regarding D500 with Nikon 300mm f4, you can't find a better camera for BIF in this price range. With a 1.4x TC and you will have 630mm at f5.6.

Regarding D500 wtih Nikon 200-500mm f5.6, for tracking in my opinion you will get better results than you will get with K-3 II and any zoom lens. Af algorithm is better on D500, af points are spreaded almost all over the sensor, you get 2 aditional fps...

I use Canon, not Nikon, but I shoot as much as I can with lots of cameras from different manufacturers. When I'm really after a subject, I rent Canon 300mm f2.8L lens and if I need more reach, I have with me a 1.4x TC or a 2x TC. If you find a prime lens like 300mm f2.8 (or 300mm f4), 500mm f4 second hand at a good price, go for it. It will make your camera to shine. These lenses are good because can be used handheld if necesary.

K1 can be problematic for action. It's not designed for this job. Again, for stationary subjects can do the job and you'll get beautiful files.

Find a way to rent first a Pentax 150-450mm and see if it is going to do the job on K-3 II. To me, if you are a photographer oriented on action shots, Nikon D500 is the better option. If by wildlife you mean birds sitting on branches, animals walking in the forest, then a fast lens may be enough to keep you satisfied.
What he said/^

Paying thousands for a lens you've never actually used is insanity. And paying for capability you'll never use is equally insane, Where I live, with our wooded hills and dense forest, the opportunity for BiF photgraphy rarely arises. Pentax's superior AF.s is worth more to me than anyone's tracking AF.c. But if you are really into and have opportunity to catch birds in wide open spaces from view points that let you track them, something like a D500 is a no brainer, and a k-3 or K-1 can be really frustrating. You just have to be comfortable with the cost, and lack of resolution. When I nail a K-1 image it's better than a D500 image, but, I may miss the shot altogether if it's bird in flight. Not at all for landscape, wildlife, perched birds, or most of what I shoot. But if all you do is BiFs, or action sports, anything where AF.c is an advantage, maybe you'll put up with second rate resolution and slower focus confirmation for first rate action shots.

I have an opportunity for BiF images maybe 4 times a year. I shoot macro, landscape, flowers, stationary birds, forest walks, mushrooms, sunsets, waterfalls, etc. more often. For me the choice was simple. A camera for 95% of what I do, make do with the other 5%. Because for the other 5%, I rarely get nothing, I just don't get as much. On the other hand, for 95% of what I do, a D500 isn't the better camera.

Like my K-3, if I had a D500 I'd still want my K-1 for most of my shooting. But adding a D500 in place of my K-3 would be an upgrade. If you are considering a K-1, in most ways either a K-3 of a D500 is step back. Just the K-3 is a bigger step back with less to offer, and that's reflected in the price.

It almost always comes down to how much is it worth to you? The only all purpose camera for me would be a Nikon D850, and I don't want the expense, so, that's not going to happen.


Last edited by normhead; 09-18-2018 at 09:12 AM.
09-18-2018, 08:58 AM   #99
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,545
QuoteOriginally posted by UserAccessDenied Quote
the Sigma 50-500 OS since it's available in both mounts.
By today's standards you may not be happy with a Sigma 50-500, it's rather soft wide open and the newer 150-600 from Sigma and Tamron are a lot better, yet not as good as OEM lenses, the DFA150-450 is another league, more like the Canon 100-400 II , except for AF the Canon 100-400 II will be a lot quicker than the Pentax DFA150-450 and still quicker than the Nikon 200-500. The advantage of the DFA150-450 is its sharpness is decent for used with a camera such as the K3, I wouldn't say the same of the Sigma 50-500. When considering only a zoom lens, the Canon 100-400 II is the best of all, in terms of sharpness and AF speed. Considering camera, the D500 is the best in term of AF module, but a slow lens isn't going to get you what the D500 can do. BIF and photographying widlife in less then ideal lighting condition is a lot of stress for AF system being pushed at the edge. Anyway, systems for wildlife is a headache, because there is not such thing as good and cheap. The cheapest for the best perf. is to get an previous gen, of a prime lens, used. There are Canon 500 f4 that are the previous generation without IS, used, yet optically superior to any zoom, and prices are discounted due to the lack of IS, those lenses mounted on a newest of the camera body models like the 7DII can be a winning combination, cost performance wise.

Last edited by biz-engineer; 09-18-2018 at 09:14 AM.
09-18-2018, 09:00 AM   #100
Pentaxian
UserAccessDenied's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Maryland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,674
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
Folks, just a friendly reminder to keep things friendly and respectful. There's no need to get personal, whether directly or indirectly.

Thank you!
Thank you for your moderation!
09-18-2018, 09:03 AM   #101
Pentaxian
UserAccessDenied's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Maryland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,674
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
What he said/^

Paying thousands for lens you've never actually used is insanity. And paying for capability you'll never use is equally insane, Where I live, with our wooded hills and dense forest, the opportunity for BiF photgraphy rarely arises. Pentax's superior AF.s is worth more to me than anyone's tracking AF.c. But if you are really into and have opportunity to catch birds in wide open spaces from view points that let you track them, something like a D500 is a no brainer. You just have to be comfortable with the cost, and lack of resolution. When I nail a K-1 image it's better than a D500 image, but, I may miss the shot altogether if it's bird in flight. Not at all for landscape, wildlife, perched birds, or most of what I shoot. But if all you do is BiFs, or action sports, anything where AF.c is an advantage, maybe you'll put up with second rate resolution for first rate action shots.

I have an opportunity for BiF images maybe 4 times a year. I shoot macro, landscape, flowers, stationary birds, forest walks, mushrooms, sunsets, waterfalls, etc. more often. For me the choice was simple. A camera for 95% of what I do, make do with the other 5%. Because for the other 5%, I rarely get nothing, I just don't get as much. On the other hand, for 95% of what I do, a D500 isn't the better camera.
Touche.
It's all about the application.

I live on a spit of coastal sand where my horizon extends as far as I can see... Most of the time it's birds sweeping over expansive flatlands and sand dunes where AF-c is critical for capturing aerial maneuvers and positioning yourself with proper lighting is about all the control you have over your subject.

when it comes to macro, landscape and portraits, I'm almost sure the D500 wouldn't really give any benefit over my current setup.
09-18-2018, 09:05 AM   #102
Pentaxian
UserAccessDenied's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Maryland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,674
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
By today's standards you may not be happy with a Sigma 50-500, it's rather soft wide open and the newer 150-600 from Sigma and Tamron are a lot better, yet not as good as OEM lenses, the DFA150-450 is another league, more like the Canon 100-400 II , except for AF the Canon 100-400 II will be a lot quicker than the Pentax DFA150-450 and still quicker than the Nikon 200-500.
I know, I've owned the Sigma 50-500 and I didn't like it so I switched to the DA*300.
I'm simply stating for the purpose of comparison.

It would be nice to have some sort of hands-on review done that backs up the rest of the comparisons, like the Canon 100-400 vs the Nikon 200-500 and the Pentax 150-450. Otherwise it's all speculation.
09-18-2018, 09:23 AM   #103
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,545
QuoteOriginally posted by UserAccessDenied Quote
the comparisons, like the Canon 100-400 vs the Nikon 200-500 and the Pentax 150-450. Otherwise it's all speculation.
I went through this a few years ago. I compared those lenses for sharpness, there is a site where you can compare sharpness of those lenses with various cameras (here:https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens...mp=0&APIComp=2) . Then for AF I compared the lenses in real use, the Canon is fastest, the Nikon is second fastest, the Pentax DFSA150-450 isn't far behind the Nikon 200-500 in terms of AF/motoring speed, you can search and find AF speed comparison vids online. The Sigma 150-600 C and Tamron 150-600 SP AF speeds are about like the Pentax DFA150-450, at 150mm, the DFA50-450 maintain it's focus speed from 150mm to 450mm, however the Sigma and Tamron 150-600 get slower to focus as the FL increases, at 600mm the Tamron 150-600 is very slow to AF (significantly slower than the Pentax). Both Canon 100-400 II and Nikon 200-500 AF don't slow down with increasing FL.

Last edited by biz-engineer; 09-18-2018 at 09:28 AM.
09-18-2018, 09:55 AM - 2 Likes   #104
Pentaxian
Dan Rentea's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 1,089
QuoteOriginally posted by UserAccessDenied Quote
Touche.
It's all about the application.

I live on a spit of coastal sand where my horizon extends as far as I can see... Most of the time it's birds sweeping over expansive flatlands and sand dunes where AF-c is critical for capturing aerial maneuvers and positioning yourself with proper lighting is about all the control you have over your subject.

when it comes to macro, landscape and portraits, I'm almost sure the D500 wouldn't really give any benefit over my current setup.
Shooting with D500, 7D Mark II, D5, 1Dx Mark II is not that easy as some people think. These cameras are very customisable in terms of Af and it takes practice to learn the best settings for each particular type of action you will photograph. These cameras will not do what you want by simply going from Af-S to Af-C. The Af has to be further customised. Once you find the best settings for each type of action, the reward is going to be a big smile on your face and your problem will be which image to keep from the bursts.

Again, if you want something light to shoot handheld and also something lightning fast for action, a D500 with a Nikon 300mm f4 can't be beaten among APS-C cameras in my opinion.

Oh, a good hide is very important also. Invest in a good camouflage tent. If you buy a tent, make sure to install it before sunrise (at least if you go shooting eagles and other raptors).
09-18-2018, 09:57 AM   #105
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,545
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
Again, if you want something light to shoot handheld and also something lightning fast for action, a D500 with a Nikon 300mm f4 can't be beaten among APS-C cameras in my opinion.
The Canon option such as 7DII and 300 f4 is cheaper, and pretty good for AF as well. The 7DII now is cheap in comparison to the D500.
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!
af, backup, bif, camera, consumer, copy, d500, d800, d810, f5.6, focus, gear, hd, k-3ii, k1, keeper, lens, light, lot, ltd, mask, nikon, pentax, post, sensor, shots, sport, system, time, wildlife
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon D500 ? stevewong Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 24 05-16-2017 07:11 AM
More test images from the Pentax KP compare with D500/K1 melander Pentax KP 3 02-02-2017 11:00 PM
DXO has tested the D500 and the 80D D1N0 Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 48 08-24-2016 09:35 AM
K1 or D500??? Shanti Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 45 04-18-2016 01:42 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:47 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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