|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
12-06-2011, 11:01 PM
|
| |
LBA has placed me in the prediciment of having both a FA* 300 f2.8 and a classic Pentax A* f2.8.. (I did have a A* f4 and a DA*F4 also, but they went down the road to help finance this adventure. The A* f/2.8 has been a part of me in its nice little silver trunk for so long, that I couldn't bare to part with it until I have convinced myself that the FA*300 will do anything as well at the A*.
I just got the FA* today, so only have first impressions and so far have only been able to try it out indoors. For those who haven't seen them
here are a couple pictures.
 
Mechanically and optically the lenses are quite dissimlar although both are internal focusing. the A* is a little shorter and fatter, the latter mostly
because of a built in sliding lens hood. The FA* has a screw on. the FA* like other FA* has a sliding collar mf/af clutch. Both take 112mm filters on the front and drop ins in a holder in the back. The FA* is almost half a kilo lighter than the A* making it a lot more user friendly if the idea of hand holding has crossed your mind.
I'm not aware of anyone who has optically compared these, and my excuse for holding on to the A* for the moment was to see if they were IQ comparable. Oh yes, both are compatible with the Converter-A n.nx-L converter, although unfortunately these converters are, well, converter-A's and don't auto focus.
While I haven't had a chance to use the lens in the daylight I did a quick test with the two tonight indoors at 18 feet.--but taking a set of indoors
photos at f/2.8 at a 1/13th of a second.---and longer exposures as I stopped down----result--- couldn't find a difference. likewise with wide
open shots with the Converter-A 1.4-L---I couldn't verify any difference.
what I'm looking for----have others attempted to figure out if there is meaningful IQ difference in these two lenses. It will be hard even with LBA for me to dream up a reason to keep both of them if there isn't something significant that the Pentax A will do that the FA* won't....
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
02-01-2008, 08:51 AM
|
| |
there is no 'right' answer which is why you have choices. To me shake and focus issues (associated with depth of field) are far more destructive of a photo than some noise.
If the camera is bolted to a block of non-vibrating concrete, and object of the photo is not going to move, and is on a flat plane so depth of field issues won't ruin the photo (or artwork considerations call for something to be out of focus--or blur is wanted) but if you are invading the privacy of a couple not quite behind the bushes in the city park---crank up the ISO all the way.
I carry a camera around for those 'unexpected moments' when you really wish you had a camera which when they occur usually don't give you a lot of time to fiddle witih the knobs.
I usually keep the ISO set to automatic with a range up to 800. as sthe default---often with a depth of field bias--- and a 16-50 SDM lens. This is designed to assure that the 'first photo'
is a photo of something. If time permits then I will tweek the buttons----usually the EV first as this lens frequently underexposes in this configuration, and if there the subject is still around, then I'll tweek other buttons.
This approach is based on the theory that a noisey focused shot of a Martian landing an UFO is preferred to no shot.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
04-01-2019, 10:26 PM
|
| |
I've become in my old age sort of a fan of long lenses. It lets you get views you simply would never see other wise, but lack of adequate depth of field is always
the devil. the attached is an uncropped unretouched example of a very long Pentax lens on the K-- at a high ISO, but still a bit more depth of field
would have been welcome. Had to accept soft focus of his tail for seeing his whiskers, and the green in the background is a holly tree about 4 feet behind him
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
12-13-2015, 09:14 PM
|
| |
the under performance of the DA300 is the real surprise here. My mommy taught me to stick with primes for best results. I did some research similar to yours once some years ago. My curiouisity was whether the TC's were
of any benefit at all. After all it's the same lens with or without the TC and in one sense you are only changing the location of the cropping action -- before or after the image is recorded. The TC optically crops just in front
of the sensor, and Photoshop crops just behind the sensor. If the lens quality is the limiting factor and not the sensor, logically it shouldn't matter where the crop occurs. I worked on a scene at a very long range -- 1/4 of mile
and with extreme telephotos 300,400 and 600mm lenses and with TC's stacked and on down.
What the work after reflection on the results did was to inspire me to buy a really heavy tripod and a gimbal head, and offset plates to make sure that I balanced the camera/lens on the tripod, as the badly out of balance
combinations did not fare well in my testing. When that equipment is hanging out of balance even the shutter releasing will make the combination bob, and this impact is modified a bit (for the better) with offset plates.
Bottom line: I really like your work, and appreciate the difficulty of it....
 |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
07-19-2016, 07:46 PM
|
| |
This California Quail was photographed out the car window with no special rest. equiipment was a K-3, F*300 f/4.5
at 1/800 sec f/10, ISO 6400 and the HD converter (1.4x) for effective 420mm focal length. the shot is uncropped
 |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
06-03-2017, 02:44 PM
|
| |
here is a couple of views of a Douglas squirrel.
the first is a k1- fa*300 -----uncropped. --near minimum focal distance.
Hand held --- 1/800 sec at f/5.6 ---- using ISO 12500
this one with a little less camera HP is taken with a K3 using a 60-250 at 250.
 |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
03-17-2017, 10:59 PM
|
| |
I accomplished this with the K-1 using Pentax-A 400mm f/2.8 and a Pentax 1.4L converter. it was late on a dark cloudy rainy day (today). Used 25600 ISO to close the deal.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Price Watch
01-28-2017, 11:17 PM
|
| |
Well one thing is clear--they aren't needed as badly as they used to be--- which is probably why the declining interest.
I went to Alaska last summer with particular intent on taking wildlife photos and didn't even take my FA600 lens.
When you combine the impacts of the half frame camera bodies, good quality TC's, and the high ISOs now available, you can get the functionality of a 1200 f/8
in a package that will fit in your airplane carryon.... the head and tail of this juvenile eagle were cut off on this photo because I had too much horsepower on this photo shoot.
 |
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-27-2017, 04:09 PM
|
| |
I quite agree that I'm not likely to us 819k ISO, but I don't use the highest numbers on my present cameras others. What I do see is evidence that it will work and provide nice photos at higher ISO's than existing models.
This is progress. I remember being excited when I learned how to cook TRI-X in the darkroom and get 800 out of it. I've purchased almost every top end Pentax ever made beginning with the Spotomatic---oh did I like
an auto coupled light meter, though the K2 was my all time favorite film model. what I've seen in the digital models is steady improvement in low light abilities with the possible exception of the K10 which I regarded as
really lame in low light situations. I now have a K3 and a K1 as cameras of choice, as I have sort of migrated into bird photography.
What I'm finding is that decent bird photos are becoming progressively easier. Birds, it seems, commonly roost in the shadows which has made photographing them difficult and expensive.
implying that my lens collection has such monster lenses as the A-400 f/2.8 -- one of my all time favorites as well as an FA-600 F/4. These are the 16" guns of the navy. They shoot long and hard
IF you can bring them to bear before the target is long gone.
I'm now using ISO 6400 pretty much as my default setting on the K3 and the K-1. IF this new model enables a few higher f stops it will we more than welcome. It means more and more bird photography can
be hand held with affordaable light weight optics.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
09-04-2016, 08:48 PM
|
| |
Some juveniles get their feather ruffled easily..... must have flunked out of grooming school to play on the beach...
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
09-04-2016, 08:14 PM
|
| |
IT seems like ther are some days that you just have the wrong lens on the camera. Often a 300 mm is a good bet if you are birding, but then this happens.
this is a full frame shot of an eagle with a 300mm f/4.5 lens on a K-3
---------- Post added 09-04-2016 at 08:31 PM ----------
IT seems like ther are some days that you just have the wrong lens on the camera. Often a 300 mm is a good bet if you are birding, but then this happens.
this is a full frame shot of an eagle with a 300mm f/4.5 lens on a K-3
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
09-04-2016, 08:34 PM
|
| |
another BIF uncropped specimen. I"m vetry disappointed---- or am I setting expectations too high.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
08-17-2016, 08:38 PM
|
| |
here is a sequence--- not of the greatest quality as I was trying to use an improvised support with a fa600 plus a 1.4x extender.
but I was interested in the the way that this large bird commenced flying.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
08-01-2016, 08:29 PM
|
| |
Do you suppose there is a reason these birds are called "Grosbeaks". Don't think I'll win
any prize for a pretty picture here.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
07-31-2016, 10:25 AM
|
| |
Stellar's jay shows it all.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
07-31-2016, 10:52 AM
|
| |
here is another take of the day. A "Brush Rabbit" native to Western Oregon.---sylvilagus bachmani
fairly small -- around 12" long, little or no tail. Really likes to eat grass.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
07-21-2016, 10:27 PM
|
| |
The camera guy (me) messed this one up big time. I was pursuing this bird in an overgrown parking lot by driving around and shootingout the window with a F*300 4.5 and a 1.4xconverter. This quail
isn't much on flyway away from you but they will run away from you. I circled around and got in front of him, but then I was suddenly too close. I really didn't have time to kick off the converter
when the bird turned and stared at me. I cut the birds feet and tail off, but nailed the head..... IT could be that I should try to salvage this by turning into just a head shot....
AFterall the point of the photo is the 'head shot'..... Note how fearsome this otherwise rather passive bird is when it looks directly at you. --- sort of explains its color scheme that
has no message at all when you look at the usual profile. Anyhow it's the straight in the face look that put this photo here, not my miserable technique.
same photo as above but I carried out my ruminations as aggressive cropping. Can you see the giant black mouth????
 |
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
07-17-2016, 08:44 PM
|
| |
A sunrise sequence over 15 minutes this morning with various lenses and ISO's
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
07-10-2016, 10:40 PM
|
| |
Here is a bath sequence all over a couple of minutes. we often leave a small bowl of water on the back deck for the critters, but here a Northern flicker decided it was a bird bath.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
07-07-2016, 10:16 PM
|
| |
I've named this Steller's jay "Scruffy", but don't know if this is what you mean by fainter barring.
 |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
07-06-2016, 04:49 PM
|
| |
I'm satisfied it a juvenile all right. Have also suspected it was a female which is less blue. It's logical that they feather out with the 'flying machinery' -- wings and tail first. as they seem to have
blue bodies, but a black hood that goes well down as adults to my understanding the females are not as bright. Some you see are almost florescent.
 |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
07-05-2016, 08:55 PM
|
| |
you might have thought this stellar jay had a problem, but not really, just game time
Ah ha! sunny afternoon
17 seconds later: "I think I've been found out"
 |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
07-06-2016, 06:43 AM
|
| |
don't have any fingernails, but a photo of toenails I've got.
I don't think the feet arrived for the bird seed.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
06-18-2016, 08:32 AM
|
| |
The auto focus will just do you in on a photo like that--- it will either buzz back and forth, or just lock on the background
and provide sharp focus for everything except what you want...
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
06-16-2016, 05:23 PM
|
| |
This is a sequence of an eagle catching and eating a crab. All over a period of 8 minutes.
It was so far away I didn't even know what was going on until I examined the photos.
All photos were taken with a K-1, and a manual Focus Pentax-A 400mm with a Pentax 2x-L converter
for an effective 800 mm. the lighting was cloudy and produced F8 at 1/800 with ISO hardset to 6400
The first 4 photos were all taken within a matter of 5 seconds. I used a monopod for stability.
|
