[biz-engineer]

The original post, quoted below, stated he was considering a dedicated wildlife system by selling his Pentax gear.

The customer case if that he wants to leave Pentax because these days he feels like Ricoh Imaging as being too slow to release new products, I think he has posted such statements in other threads or so.
And in order to justify the move, the customer says he can't get good bird in flight photos with the Pentax auto-focus and he would be better off with a Nikon D500. We come up with technique etc, but that's like water drops rolling on bird feather, simply because there is a desire to jump ship anyway. I posted a burst of 16 pictures all of them in focus, but he said "some are not in focus" (I know they are in focus, as I have the full size version of the files). In addition you have a couple of Nikon/Canon users who have some angst against Pentax who immediately feel the need to jump in the thread and confirm the OP feelings. I was also stirred by a Nikon user who was telling to sell my whole Pentax system and get a Nikon system, BUT, this Nikon guy spent $25 000 in Nikon , I spent a quarter of this money on my Pentax and I get the same images, so I'm sorry for the Nikon guy, I consider him a victim of modern marketing. We here are like a few honest experienced guys confronted to the marketing war machines of Nikon and Canon, the arguments are very unbalanced. Never mind. Such is such, what else can we do? Well all go Nikon and then if Canon release the next 7DIII with 400 AF points, say I can't get good BIF with my D500, I need to sell all my Nikon lenses and camera and switch to Canon 7DIII and lenses. Just to backup my point, go here https://500px.com/ogunturkay and here https://500px.com/photo/206453047/asio-flammeus-by-ogun-caglayan-turkay?ctx_...user_id=766109

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 09-18-2018 at 11:16 PM.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

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.

My consideration for switching really didn't have anything to do with BIF, I was more after the shots that you find yourself up close and personal with the animal. Many times these in its self requires very well performing AF and I would even go as far as to say more challenging than BIF because of requirement you are placing on the tracking system.
these critters are seldom stationary where you are not even able to take maybe 1 or 2 shots and expect the camera to nail on the eye the subject

Just me moving because of the light breeze bring me closer to the loon while I was in a kayak is challenging



There are key times that I want to be sure about AF that are hard to capture when the subject is walking towards you or in the heat of action




For myself I sat down and looked at the equipment I had purchased over the year. What I found out I was always chasing the next model of camera body when I was using pentax , all while looking for the next best lens that might give me what I was also looking for. These improvements always came at cost that people seldom see, incremental improvements, that total additional cost of updating your camera with only small improvement and finally the frustration.

If I looked at the evolution of the equipment and what I had spent on the equipment and time trying to make heads or tails of the equipment I found that the cost was not too far off if I had just bought the equipment that suited my needs from the start.

I have not updated my camera in 7 years because I am not after the next body or felt the need pay for my camera to be updated, when I go for my next camera its going to be because the camera is CIA. Now are we going to see a huge improvement with the D500? I suspect that the camera would be a 7-8 year old camera before you would consider a update to the body and that you could spread out the cost of the camera over the life of the camera.

If I had followed what I had done in the past I could see myself going something like this.
K5II fixed some of the issues I had with the K5
K3 is much more betterAF than the K5II
There is a supposed increase with AF in the K3II
K1 comes out with an improved AF
K1mrk2 is even better so I purchase it or upgrade.

I am kind of glad I didn't, 1 model of camera over 7 1/2 years and not needing to look for a solution that is still present in the current model of pentax camera and lenses.

[Dan Rentea]

Just to backup my point, go here Ogun Caglayan Turkay (ogunturkay) Photos / 500px and here Asio flammeus... by Ogun Caglayan Turkay - Photo 206453047 / 500px

For static wildlife, there is no need for the af speed of Nikon and Canon cameras. I looked at the images from the link you provided and from 128 images that he has on his gallery, only 5 images are BIF images. For this kind of wildlife there is no need of cameras with fast af-c.

This guy has a Canon 5DsR which has a very good Ai Servo (Af-C), but when comes to action shots, he replaced the 5DsR with 1Dx which is a completly different beast. If you like to shoot action instead of stationary subjects, you may need to consider a proper camera for this task. If you shoot action occasionally, a faster lens combined with a proper technique may be enough. I mean, I have lots of BIF images taken with 6D which has only 4.4 fps and 11 af points so it's doable. But it's a lot easier to get the same shots with 5D Mark IV, not to mention 1Dx Mark II. I'm amazed on how good is 1Dx Mark II compared to 5D Mark IV and bare in mind that 5D Mark IV is a very capable camera.

You can talk about marketing when comes to Canon and Nikon, but for action photography Pentax is not even close to Nikon and Canon. For wildlife that doesn't require af-c (birds on branches, animals walking, etc.) Pentax can deliver excelent files and I don't think that you need D500/D5 or 7D Mark II/1Dx Mark II to get great results.

amazing morning photographing kingfishers with Canon 5DS ? Oliver Wright Photography

[biz-engineer]

For static wildlife, there is no need for the af speed of Nikon and Canon cameras.

For photographing gun bullets in flight, I need a camera designed for that. But the question is , how much worth is a photograph of gun bullet in flight. Back to topic, spending 4K to take photos of birds bottom view with blue sky in the background, that's a waste of money. You are completely missing the point here, you create a need that doesn't exist in the first place. Now if you say, I have 4K and I fancy buying new gear because I like it, that's different, that's related to desire, envy, subconscious etc. then you need to find rational arguments to justify the purchase decision and not look silly if someone ask you why you spent all that money. But to find rational arguments to spend the money into a new system, that's easy, just look for something that you current gear doesn't do well and that another model does do better, you can always do this with any brand. You could for example get a 5D IV and then complain that the resolution is too low and use this as a rationale to get a D850, at the end of the exercise, no one would care about the difference in images, but you could sleep well at night because you would be in peace because the rational argument of sensor resolution would have health your bad feeling. In sales, we know that customers buy with their guts and then need to find arguments to justify their purchase decisions, we know this, and we use this to help customers spend their money. I guess you will agree :-)

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 09-19-2018 at 01:17 AM.

[redpit]

I've read the whole thread and it's about a question often raised in PF and have raised to most of us. The answer is totally subjective IMHO. There are objective facts though that can help you decide what is the best option for you. But in order to get as much help as you can and in order to have a clear answer, you must put a clear question! What is exactly what you're looking for after all and how much are you willing to pay to get it (not only in terms of money, but effort, time etc also).

I can confirm you that the D500+200-500/5.6 is better than the K-3+DFA 150-450 for BIF concerning the keepers rate and total keepers number. The same goes for the D850+Sigma 150-600S Vs the K-1+DFA 150-450 that I'm shooting, but I'm still shooting Pentax for various personal reasons! For me the best possible IQ was the question (I prefer quality over quantity) and a camera that I love to shoot with and my equipment is the right answer for my given budget. There are no perfect systems but there are systems that perfectly fit someone needs. What your priorities are?

The D500+200-500/5.6 combo is excellent for getting many great pictures of BIF under good light conditions.

What I can also ensure you is that if you decide to switch to Nikon be prepared to spent lots of money! There are many more equipment options that will be so tempting as time goes by You will miss the Pentax delay in releasing new equipment!

[Rondec]

My consideration for switching really didn't have anything to do with BIF, I was more after the shots that you find yourself up close and personal with the animal. Many times these in its self requires very well performing AF and I would even go as far as to say more challenging than BIF because of requirement you are placing on the tracking system.
these critters are seldom stationary where you are not even able to take maybe 1 or 2 shots and expect the camera to nail on the eye the subject

Just me moving because of the light breeze bring me closer to the loon while I was in a kayak is challenging



There are key times that I want to be sure about AF that are hard to capture when the subject is walking towards you or in the heat of action




For myself I sat down and looked at the equipment I had purchased over the year. What I found out I was always chasing the next model of camera body when I was using pentax , all while looking for the next best lens that might give me what I was also looking for. These improvements always came at cost that people seldom see, incremental improvements, that total additional cost of updating your camera with only small improvement and finally the frustration.

If I looked at the evolution of the equipment and what I had spent on the equipment and time trying to make heads or tails of the equipment I found that the cost was not too far off if I had just bought the equipment that suited my needs from the start.

I have not updated my camera in 7 years because I am not after the next body or felt the need pay for my camera to be updated, when I go for my next camera its going to be because the camera is CIA. Now are we going to see a huge improvement with the D500? I suspect that the camera would be a 7-8 year old camera before you would consider a update to the body and that you could spread out the cost of the camera over the life of the camera.

If I had followed what I had done in the past I could see myself going something like this.
K5II fixed some of the issues I had with the K5
K3 is much more betterAF than the K5II
There is a supposed increase with AF in the K3II
K1 comes out with an improved AF
K1mrk2 is even better so I purchase it or upgrade.

I am kind of glad I didn't, 1 model of camera over 7 1/2 years and not needing to look for a solution that is still present in the current model of pentax camera and lenses.

I think, Ian, that you probably would have gotten to a K-1 with either a Sigma 500mm or DFA 150-450 and stuck with that. The "improvements" that the K-1 II brought aren't necessarily the sorts of things that a wildlife photographer are interested in. Also, while you've not pushed it in this thread, you have been a huge proponent in other places of using full frame for wildlife shots. Clearly you've been able to deal with a little lower frame rate (actually not too different from that in the K-1) in order to get high quality photos.

Obviously you shoot with Nikon now, but your skill is such that I think you would actually get high quality images with a K-1 and DFA 150-450.

I guess I'm saying that while the OP seems focused on the specs of the camera, you have not been focused on the same things as the OP at all, otherwise you would have looked more seriously at a D850 or for that matter a D500 and you didn't.

[biz-engineer]

I remember when photographers used film cameras the birds slowed down a bit to help the photographers. When Nikon released the D500, they've told the birds, "now you can fly full speed", needless to say Pentax have not a chance here. Last time I was shooting birds in flight, they looked at my camera, read Pentax, they laughed at me, it was so annoying.

---------- Post added 19-09-18 at 12:32 ----------

I guess I'm saying that while the OP seems focused on the specs of the camera, you have not been focused on the same things as the OP at all, otherwise you would have looked more seriously at a D850 or for that matter a D500 and you didn't.

Some guys get superb wildlife shots with a cheap 70-300 and a entry level DSLR, it's easy, they spent 5000 of their money to travel to the Galapagos Islands and come back with amazing bird photos. Pentax gear would have been an overkill. It is also possible to spend 5000 of your money at the camera shop and have not a single wildlife photo from it.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 09-19-2018 at 03:45 AM.

[Dan Rentea]

Back to topic, spending 4K to take photos of birds bottom view with blue sky in the background, that's a waste of money.

Why and why? Who said that is going to photograph birds against blue sky and why is a bad thing to shoot birds against blue sky? Only because you don't like them?

And why spending 3300$ (B&H prices) on a D500 + Nikon 200-500mm for wildlife is a waste of money? You gave me as arguments a photographer who has 5 BIF images from 128 images in his portfolio and a series of images taken by you of a flying duck. With these arguments you want to convince someone interested in BIF that is well covered with a Pentax K1?

Again, I never said that you can't take occasionally BIF with K1. We have a few threads on this forum in which we all can see great BIF images.

You are completely missing the point here, you create a need that doesn't exist in the first place.

Really? I've read what the OP wants and I answered based on the fact that I aslo like to shoot BIF and I know which are the limitations of a camera not designed for BIF.

Now if you say, I have 4K and I fancy buying new gear because I like it, that's different, that's related to desire, envy, subconscious etc. then you need to find rational arguments to justify the purchase decision and not look silly if someone ask you why you spent all that money.

Now, if you recommend gear unsuited for specific tasks and you want me to agree with you, this is not going to happen. Because K1 may be a wonderful camera for a lot of things (including occasionally wildlife), but it's not designed for BIF or for action, at least not when you photograph mostly action and the OP seems to indicate that he is interested in BIF.

But to find rational arguments to spend the money into a new system, that's easy, just look for something that you current gear doesn't do well and that another model does do better, you can always do this with any brand. You could for example get a 5D IV and then complain that the resolution is too low and use this as a rationale to get a D850, at the end of the exercise, no one would care about the difference in images, but you could sleep well at night because you would be in peace because the rational argument of sensor resolution would have health your bad feeling. In sales, we know that customers buy with their guts and then need to find arguments to justify their purchase decisions, we know this, and we use this to help customers spend their money. I guess you will agree :-)

It seems that you don't read what I write and you jump straight on conclusions. I will say again the same thing that I say since I became a member of this forum: rent or borrow the gear you are interested in so that you don't have to complain after. If the OP complains about his results using Pentax gear, I already told him that:

1. He may try and rent or borrow the Pentax 150-450mm lens if he is shooting BIF only from time to time. A faster lens than DA* 300mm f4 and working on technique will improve his results for sure.
1. He may buy a proper camera for action if this is going to be his main activity. And he choosed the best crop camera available today for that, which is a D500. He will not have the sharpest images by shooting with Nikon 200-500mm f5.6 instead of shooting with K1, but he will have better chances to photograph BIF and have more keepers.

If he is going to shoot most of the time birds sitting on branches like you see in the images from below, then any cheap camera with a good lens can do the job.

[Theov39]

There is a very good review here that discusses Nikon D500 for the purposes of wildlife photography. While not a direct comparison with Pentax, looking at their other reviews these guys love Pentax so I guess that may be in the back of their minds.

You Tube

You Tube

---------- Post added 09-19-18 at 03:46 AM ----------

PS Dan, great images. Wish I could get my shots that sharp.

---------- Post added 09-19-18 at 03:51 AM ----------

Another nice Nikon D500 review here from a wildlife photographer's perspective that focuses particularly on BIF, including suggested settings for BIF:

You Tube

You Tube

All in all, it looks like a very nice camera. Having shot Nikon for many years (but not the D500), I generally prefer Pentax tonal quality and colors but it seems like a great choice for BIF.

[Dan Rentea]

Dan, great images. Wish I could get my shots that sharp.

Thank you. I do have better images but I don't have time to edit wildlife images because I have a lot of portraits to edit. These are saved on my phone because my nephews like these birds (bee eaters) and because I'm crazy about kingfisher.

Get close to the subject to get sharp images with lots of details. Use a tripod and lower the shutter speed to maintain a low ISO. The kingfisher image (the one in the middle) was taken at 600mm and 1/320s.

The image from below was taken with Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary at 600mm, f8, ISO 640, 1/400s (from a tripod). This is a 100% crop of the image. For a lens that costs 500$ second hand or 17$ for rent, it does the job just fine for stationary subjects.



The one from below was taken a month ago in Monte Carlo, with a 35mm lens on a full frame camera. I know that it has blue sky in the background and Biz-engineer doesn't enjoy birds with sky in the background, but I like it. I have about 200 images with BIF taken with lenses with focal lenght under 200mm, but I'm not trying to convince anyone that wide lenses are better for BIF images than tele lenses. That's why I say over and over again that you can take great BIF images with K1, but that doesn't mean that the camera is a proper tool for action photography.

[biz-engineer]

I know that it has blue sky in the background and Biz-engineer doesn't enjoy birds with sky in the background, but I like it.

Has zero value, I can shoot thousands of those all in perfect focus with my Pentax K1, it's very easy. I shot those with the DFA24-70 on the coast in Brittany. Pentax works well for birds in the sky, usually it's easy to the camera to focus when there is not detail in the background.

---------- Post added 19-09-18 at 14:54 ----------

======================

As a general and important comment addressing the big picture of the OP, I would like to highlight something important here. In photography, we always have at least two options for the way we think: the first way of thinking is to focus our attention on the subject matter and select the subject and the surrounding conditions that produce good photographs. The second way of thinking is to not be selective with regards to unsuitable conditions for the subject matter and try to find the equipment that can cope with sub optimal conditions. The downside of wanting to have the equipment fit the conditions is that it often lead to poor photographs, because natural condition range from bright direct sun light to complete darkness, to rainy, to freezing or very hot. Let me give an example: wanting a camera that has the ISO 100 000 setting or wanting a large format camera because we want to capture a photograph at night while hand holding the camera, in that case , the photographer would look for a camera that has the higher possible high ISO specification, the cost of getting the equipment would be high and the resulting photograph would be very poor. The other approach would be to photograph when the light is the best to take a photographs with ISO100, for instance waiting for sunset or sunrise time (no equipment is needed for waiting for sunrise or sunset), or the other solution would be to use a tripod (tripod is as old as photography, it's not high tech and it work a lot better than even the large format camera at very high ISO settings). For photographing birds, the same principles do apply. Not all birds at any time will make a got photographic subject, a camera that can get all frames in focus will not help. A bird can be photographed in poor weather conditions, on a rainy day, with little lighting, and flying at full speed, the equipment that can take that photograph technically correct is very very expensive, simply selecting another day with better condition allow to get a much better photograph without top notch equipment. Last but not least, at any point in time, we never know if the shot we've just taken will be a keeper, simply because we will take other pictures in the future, and some of the future pictures will be better than the one we've just taken, that is why there is no such thing as the camera that give make your immediate shot a keeper, the keeper is one of your best photographs selected over a few years, a keeper is not a keeper because the subject is in focus, if a keeper was a keeper every time a photo is in focus we would have so many keepers that we wouldn't know what to do with them.

---------- Post added 19-09-18 at 15:07 ----------

===========================

The image from below was taken with Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary at 600mm

there is also the Tamron 150-600 G2 and the Nikon 200-400 old version, and the Nikon 200-400 new version, and now there is also the Nikon 500 f5.6 PF that Canon don't have. Every time, the bank account takes a hit, and the photographs remains the same, because what is in the frame is not selected by the lens, not it is selected by the camera, it is selected by the guy behind the viewfinder. If the d500 is a must have, then there is a problem about how the subject matter was selected.

[normhead]

Well good to see Dan and Ian are here. Two guys that can help with the transition. I don't always agree with their perspective, but if you are going to switch those two will get you pointed in the right direction.

[CarlJF]

I can confirm you that the D500+200-500/5.6 is better than the K-3+DFA 150-450 for BIF concerning the keepers rate and total keepers number.

Out of curiosity, and also because it could be of interest to the OP, how much would you say is teh difference ? Is it something like 1/10 with the Pentax while 10/10 with the D500 combo ? Or is it more like 4/10 with the K3 compared to 7/10 with the Nikon ? Said other wise, is it the difference between no pictures and a lot of them, or does it rather means a some more pictures with the D500 but still many keepers with K-3 ?

[biz-engineer]

Well good to see Dan and Ian are here. Two guys that can help with the transition. I don't always agree with their perspective, but if you are going to switch those two will get you pointed in the right direction.

That's a good one, I love it

As there is a welcome section in Pentax forum, we could suggest Adam to add an automatic Pentax seat ejection from the Non-Pentax section directly to Nikon forums.

[normhead]

He wouldn't be taking $4000 out of his pocket. The original post, quoted below, stated he was considering a dedicated wildlife system by selling his Pentax gear. He's willing to sacrifice other areas of photography that he seldom indulges in. B&H currently has the D500 plus 200-500 for $3300 new, $2700 used. Selling his Pentax camera and lenses might bring in most of that money.

You've made some good comments but it also looks like you want to keep fighting just to be right.

Ya, I just don't buy that "all I'm going to do is BiFs" thing.
I know what it's like to have had my K-1 and not the other than wildlife lenses to work with. I bought my Tamron 300 to work with the 1.4 and 1.7 . But I wasn't really happy until I picked up the 28-105. I honestly thought my 35-80 and 18-35 would be enough. I've since added the Rokinon 14, 2.8, the DFA 100 macro, and a DA*55 1.4. IN my experience, you buy a camera, you buy lenses for that camera, no matter how restrained you thought you were going to be going in.. So that part sounded like a bit of wishful thinking.

But you're right. All he wants to do is bird photography, which makes my advice irrelevant to him. Personally, I like high res, high Dynamic range landscape as my #1, and I would never give that up for better BiF photography for which I have opportunity maybe once or twice year. So my advice is pretty much moot, just on that point. He makes the assertion that he doesn't care about anything but BiF. And when I do bird photgraphy, I look for opportunities to get those high res K-3 images as opposed to lower res, action cameras. I scout with the K-3, once Have my high FPS images, I go for the less likely but more pleasing.K-1 images.

Scouting with the K-3


Back the next day with the K-1. The 36 MP files I find much more enjoyable, even if they are a lot harder to get. But you rarely get this kind of detail with Birds in Flight in any case. So, it's noted, the OP has already dismissed this kind of resolution.



But bottom line, if he buys his camera to be a BiF camera, then I'm sure he'll be happy with what it does for everything else. I was tempted a while ago by a second hand 1Dx on sale with a warranty by Henry's for $3000. If there's a weakness to the D500 in my mind it's the 10 FPS. It's only marginally better than a K-3. And the IQ is only marginally better than a K-3. The difference being, if I'd bought the 1Dx I would have kept my K-1. IMHO, what the K-1 does comes first.