|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
11-22-2017, 07:46 PM
|
| |
The statement wasn’t about how accurate pentax or Nikon AF, it was more geared towards an implication that has no basis in rational thought,
One could look at Norm’s implication and substitute another one of automated features found in the camera like metering.
Here's another implication for you.
A loyal Pentax shooter, switched to Nikon recently. He hung around and still posts in the 300 plus club. He reported his keeper rate went from 40% to over 70% because of the better AF metering . A person like myself, looks at that and thinks, so if I shoot 500 images in a shoot, with Pentax I would get 200 clean correctly metered images, and with Nikon 350-400. But the thing is, I only want 3 or four. So, I have a ridiculous amount of choice. He has a more ridiculous amount of choice. But they are both ridiculous. The argument that you need better AF metering can be easily countered with the argument " What Pentax is doing, works for me."
Who in their right mind would want the camera to cull the images because the camera missed focus incorrect exposure as a way of limiting the number of images one has to go through?
This is about the only person who would complain about getting too many images in focus correctly metered as a negative.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
11-21-2017, 11:03 PM
|
| |
The above is not an implication
It’s a way out there attempt to rationalize the lack of keepers with and irrational implication.
The rational why to look at that 70%
I only have to take 300 images to ensure I have 200 keepers and not needing 500 images to cover the same success rate, that works better for me ;)
Very seldom do I have the luxury to shoot 500 images, most of the time on a single subject 2-6 images are captured and for them I would like to have better odds that 50% . When image captures are time sensitive like action work in wildlife where I am only afforded the luxury of maybe 1 frame I will take the highest success I can get ;)
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
06-17-2017, 12:53 AM
|
| |
300 on a cropped body usually wind up clipping the subject for my style of shooting
300mm on FF and I have to be careful even with little birdies
 |
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
06-16-2017, 11:22 PM
|
| |
How many do you want ? ;)
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
06-16-2017, 10:01 PM
|
| |
Yes
With BIF I would recommend going with a lens that is half (at the very least) of the focal length you normally shoot a stationary bird, the area of the bird in the FOV can easily increase 2-3 times larger than that of the stationary bird.
If you are using a 300mm lens on cropped for your stationary work and the bird starts to fly or take off and you want the same buffer zone around the bird you need to adjust your FL at least in half so that 135mm lens would work if you use 300mm and your normal working distance from the subject. ;)
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
06-15-2017, 10:51 PM
|
| |
It really depends on what you are shooting. For allot of my BIF 300mm on cropped is way too long I like around 200mm even on FF for BIF 300mm is pushing it. For larger game often times 300mm on cropped again is too narrow a FOV and many times 200-250 would have worked better.
When I get into smaller birds with FF I like 200--400mm for most situations but it is handy to have a 500-600 but that FOV is not one I often use.
|
