Originally posted by Rondec 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.
Having the sigma 300mm 2.8 already and comparing it to its sister lens in Nikon along with the D300 at the time I quick came to the conclusion that I would not buy another screw drive AF prime lens over $1000. This really put me off on considering the sigma 500 /4.5, also when we start to get into this prices range I really would expect to see in lens stabilization.
There are several reason why I want lens VR one of the reasons is for tripod work, How I decide what level of stabilization ( tripod,SR,MLU and cable release ) all depend on how much time I have for the shot. For the best I like to use on a tripod a cable release along with MLU, if I don't have time for MLU I just use the cable release & VR this way I can isolate the tripping of the shutter away from the body of the camera while VR will help for mechanics of the camera during the shot.
If the subject with a tripod does not allow for cable release ( a lot movement in adjustment of the framing) I the rely on using VR, this can almost give you the results of using the MLU along with CR for those times. I also like to use the combo of VR and CR for slower shutter speeds and is mainly used for controlling movement if it was a windy day with VR and use the CR to isolate the tripping of the shutter. I have found with SR it is no where as reliable as VR for tripod work with longer lenses. When I start getting into the 500 4.5 300 2.8 and the 150-450 prices lens based stabilization is a must for me.
Originally posted by Rondec 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.
This is one of the reasons why I am a strong proponent of needing better AF for wildlife photography, I can do with less FPS if I can rely on the AF for it to on focus on the image over the use of FPS, praying and sorting the best from a set.
Originally posted by Rondec 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 have gotten very good images from the K5 and around 500-700 BIF with the setup but there was so much frustration that there was a breaking point that I had hit 1 day in the 2012. One of the largest contributing factors is the latency and how much distance it takes the subject to move and when the camera makes AF adjustments
in AF-C. Every camera that I have tested this latency is 2-3 times greater distance than AF-S. While having the K1mk2 this summer I didn't not test this with a rail, I did however test this while the camera was sitting on a tailgate of the truck both with the sigma 70-200 HSM 2.8 and the DFA 100 wr 2.8 the distance was more than I would like. With other gear in AF-C the lens never stops making micro adjustment even on static subjects like a wall while the camera is on a tripod.
Originally posted by Rondec 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.
Trust me I was very focused on the specs of the D800 and what it was capable of doing when it was announced, just as the OP AF its was right up there in the forefront as was framerate, buffer, noise performance and size held my interest .
---------- Post added 09-20-2018 at 11:40 PM ----------
Originally posted by derekkite I suspect the resolution advantage disappears as the light drops of though. The D500 is better in low light compared to the K3. I'm finding that the K1 in spite of having a lower resolution than the K3 can be cropped as much or more as the ISO increases.
at around 400-600 iso is what I see with 16mp crop to 24mp crop they are about equal, with the D500 and DCG you do see it better at the iso it kicks in. One of the reason why I like FF for wildlife what little advantage we see of using 24mp over 16 is so small for a limited range of use, to me this does not out way the benefit of what 36mp FF can do. I will also add the high amount of cropping one would have to do to see the difference is not the IQ I am looking for ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
A 6mp crop from a 24mp camera or a 4mp crop for a 16mp camera is not what I am looking for.
---------- Post added 09-20-2018 at 11:56 PM ----------
Originally posted by Cannikin I can say that after some hands on experience with a D850 (which supposedly has the same AF system as the D5 and D500),
From my understanding they use the same AF module but they are setup differently with different processors and how much processing power is provided to the AF chain so there is a difference is AF performance reported by users of the 3 different bodies.