|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-02-2016, 05:08 AM
|
| |
what's the result?!
I bet we're all curious...
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
05-26-2016, 11:42 AM
|
| |
I also wish I had $100k in camera gear and was contracted to travel the world in search for those remarkable shots.
I am just saying there's a difference between the styles...
Hooking an yellow-fin tuna from a kayak is much different than long-line fishing 60 miles out.
Not saying one is better than the other. Each has their advantages; disadvantages.
I have friends and family that still shoot and cannot move about as much anymore. I have a huge amount of respect for them as photographers.
I am still young and able to get out in the woods and I enjoy that. That's the reason I picked up a camera in the first place, to share my experiences with nature.
When I'm older I hope to still have that drive, but ultimately we have to shoot to match our lifestyle.
And there's nothing lazy about your style of shooting!
Keeping double-paned windows clean takes some work as well!! :lol:
Is the bow-hunter jealous of the crossbow?
No, they share the same season and can easily hunt with one.
However, they prefer to master something that others cannot.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
05-26-2016, 11:08 AM
|
| |
I'll argue that.
I think we need to reserve this notion for photographers like Paul Nicklen and Tim Laman.
I think there are some great photographers on this forum, Norm included; however I think there's a huge gap between wildlife photos and feeder photos.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
05-26-2016, 10:50 AM
|
| |
I disagree, I think this comparison is legitimate...
We're not trying to compare the same FOV between cameras, obviously the K-3 will have a narrower FOV everytime when using the same subject, lens, ISO, aperture, distance to subject, etc.
This comparison shows both at 1000x1000, so they both have equal number of pixels.
That's what the skepticism was based on, right?
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
05-26-2016, 08:28 AM
|
| |
Thank you for that clarification!
The more I hear first-hand accounts from members here, the less I want a K-1...
Perhaps if it drops below $700 one day I'll consider it, but the K-3ii is a darn good camera for the price I got it for!
Sure there are advantages to the K-1, just not for my shooting.
Thanks again!
Cheers!
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
05-26-2016, 07:00 AM
|
| |
I couldn't agree more with you regarding the K-1 being a tool and not a solution to good photography...
To be fair though, members here have had much more time to shoot with the K-3 series and the 300 club is a result of that.
Given enough time, there may be an inspiring number of K-1 posts at the top rankings in that club thread...
Also, if you look at the photos you linked for Kengoh, the first image is ISO 6400. That same photo is not going to be achievable on the K-3 or K-3ii. Even the last few shots at ISO 2000/2500 have more noise than the K-1 at ISO 6400.
Again, I agree that for most wildlife shooters, the K-3ii would be the better choice.
I have achieved incredible results with my K-3ii + DA*300. By no means do I have enough reputation on the 300 club to convince anyone here, but I am happy with the results of my gear and they have taught me more about photography in the last 6 months than I could have ever imagined. If I jumped on the K-1 bandwagon back then I may have been overwhelmed and given up already.
The K-3ii still overwhelms at times, but that helps me learn. I am comfortable enough with the K-3ii that I can take it pretty much anywhere now and know I will get a few good shots.
 IMG_2713 by Logan Hall, on Flickr
I'm just arguing both sides, because if you can't argue both sides you really shouldn't be "debating" at all - you need not argue against your own morality to argue for a position you oppose.
---------- Post added 05-26-16 at 10:12 AM ----------
To the OP.
Sorry we got a bit off track...
Is your 300mm the DA*?
I do not believe that was ever confirmed...
Sorry, just noticed it in your signature
The K-3ii is an incredible camera, if you find one used for around $600 I would go that route.
I'd also consider that HD 1.4xTC to pair with the DA*300.
So with that:
K-1 = $1800 (brand new)
K-3ii + HD 1.4xTC = $1000 (used market)
I'd take the latter - every day, no questions asked. + $800 to spend elsewhere
Just remember, bodies will always become obsolete.
If you invest in good glass now, it will serve you well for many more years to come.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
05-26-2016, 05:50 AM
|
| |
Finally someone talking sense!
That's why I always say FOV...
Let's talk about what we really want here; it's the field of view that's of concern when moving to full-frame. Focal length is not related.
---------- Post added 05-26-16 at 08:59 AM ----------
I don't understand the frame either, perhaps a shameless plus for the business?
Some shots are extremely well composed.
Again, it just comes down to the heavy PP for me... I am very much a naturalist when it comes to my photography, some may disagree with me. Certainly all portrait photographers will - I like natural lighting on a subject that doesn't have artificial elements imposing on the shot.
This means no feeders, no laying seed, no cheater bars or peanut-butter, no drilling holes in trees... Just in the wild capturing nature organically.
This also applies to PP.
If I didn't see it in the field, you shouldn't see it in my photo.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
05-26-2016, 05:29 AM
|
| |
Just want to offer some criticism, mainly because I like to play advocate...
disclaimer:
I do not own a K-1.
I do own a K-3ii and the DA*300.
I love my K-3ii and I do not think a K-1 is in my foreseeable future...
criticism:
Norm, I agree that the people ignoring the math are quite frustrating, however you have to agree the low-light performance of the K-3/K-3ii is not great... At least when comparing to the K-1. I think most people are raving about the K-1 because the AF is superb and the ISO performance is top notch. It handles well for a FF and it's overall just something to rave about...
Don't get me wrong, I love the K-3ii - It well surpasses my skills as a photographer at this point in my life. One day I see the FF K-1 being a nice rounded addition to my kit.
Don't take it personally, but I tend to dislike your style of post processing. It's all personal preference, perhaps you dislike my style of shoot and that's perfectly fine with me.
The only reason I say that thought is with the curiosity of whether the K-1 would achieve something in rendering your images that you want from the K-3 but can only get in PP.
It looks like you want more contrast and deeper highlights from your birds images. I see heavy saturation and sharpening in your images.
Perhaps the K-1 would provide this rendering by default, or closer to it at least?
All I'm saying is I wouldn't bag it until you try it.
Again, I do not own a K-1, haven't even handled one in person...
But I'd love to give it a shot, even if I lose a few degrees of FOV with my DA*300.
Cheers!
Logan
---------- Post added 05-26-16 at 08:32 AM ----------
Honestly, I'd like to see a raw image of both to compare.
No cropping and no post processing...
I tend to like this shot better than all of Norm's solely due to PP technique.
to each their own.
|
