Pentax K10 with Sigma 170-500 Vs Canon 400 with Sigma 100-400 [Archive]

Keith Reeder

Sunday 29th April 2007, 19:29

There is no Sigma 100-400mm, Dave - do you mean the Canon, or the Sigma 80-400mm OS?

In any event: I use the Canon 30D and 100-400mm IS, and I've taken to using a Kenko Pro DG 1.4x converter recently.

Image quality is excellent, and I've got 560mm that I can very easily handhold.

A "no-brainer" in my humble opinion, over the Sony/Pentax/Sigma options you're considering - excellent IQ, more reach and great noise characteristics.

There's also the big question of whether in-body IS can really hack it with long lenses. Much of the internet chatter says it struggles, and my gut would agree: but I know in-lens stabilisation works...

Some random odds and sods here, all hand-held. The bearded tit and the ruff are 800 ISO. The ruff hasn't had any NR, but although the bearded tit has, you can still see loads of really fine feather detail. I can name several cameras where if you NR'd a similar picture from them to get the background that clean, there'd be no feather detail left.

The rest are 400 ISO, all of these were with the set up I mention - and as you can see they're sharp, detailed and with fine noise handling.

I should add that not all were at 400mm (really 560mm), but all but one were with the lens at a nominal f/5.6, but I bet you can't tell which by just looking at sharpness (it's the lapwing), and as I say the converter was used with all of these.

David Smith

Sunday 29th April 2007, 19:43

Keith
Sorry-it's 80-400mm. I'm going through your reply now )digesting the points and appreciate your imput.
Dave

David Smith

Sunday 29th April 2007, 19:51

Keith
Had time to digest your comments now. Your photos are very impressive. One of the things that concerns me is "reach". Obviously the 170-500 will give me an effective 800mm which seem so much longer than 640mm. I appreciate your comment re "no brainer" but I wonder if-in the hands of a good photographer-would we really see a major difference ?

Keith Reeder

Sunday 29th April 2007, 20:12

Hi David,

where does the 800mm come from? If it's the "crop factor", that really doesn't give you any extra reach, but in any event the same argument provides nearly 900mm from the 100-400mm plus 1.4x converter.

But I don't know if a converter will work well on the the 170-500mm lens, it hasn't got IS, and although IQ from that lens can be very good, I'd expect more of the Canon.

I don't really expect that the Pentax would perform as well as the 30D for image quality. The DPReview conclusion is very cool on IQ, saying:

When we reviewed the K100D we thought Pentax had got their image processing just right, however the single element of the entire K10D equation which left us scratching our heads was just that. Either a poorly implemented demosaicing algorithm or a strange choice of sharpening parameters means that while the K10D's JPEG images have plenty of 'texture' they can lack the edge sharpness we're used to seeing from semi-pro digital SLR's.And:

In-camera image processor unable to deliver crisp sharp edges, better to shoot RAW
About a third of a stop less highlight dynamic range than the competition
Turning up sharpness setting doesn't deliver crisper edges(Admittedly this is about jpegs from the camera - maybe shooting RAW would mean a better end result).

Then if you go with Pentax, you're limiting yourself for an upgrade path - there's no Pentax equivalent to the Canon 500mm f/4 IS, for example...

There is this: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/600mm.shtml

;) ;) ;)

I've no doubt that people the world over do great things with the K10, but the 30D/Canon IS lens route is a proven, known quantity where bird photography is concerned.

pduxon

Sunday 29th April 2007, 20:33

Hi David,

where does the 800mm come from?

isn't that 500mm on a 35mm camera equivalent to 750 on a dSLR? presume that's what he means

David Smith

Sunday 29th April 2007, 20:48

I am inclined towards Canon as (from most comments) they seem to "have it right". By 800 I am refering to the 500 x 1.6 as compared to 400 x 1.6.
Most reviews seem to suggest Canon is superior but I wonder if cropping the 400 is better than the 500 Sigma - but to get IS I would have to go for a Pentax body

Modular

Sunday 29th April 2007, 21:02

Thought i'd mention that the Sigma 170-500mm Which i own is a
good lens but not up to Canon lense's in my opinion and also if i
place a Tc 1.4 on it ... It will only be Manual focus even with the pin's
taped, Just thought you may want to know just in case,
Good luck and great picture's as usual Keith, :t: ,
Take care,
John,

Neil

Monday 30th April 2007, 01:16

The Canon lens is sharper and the image stabilising works well. I have the Nikon 80-400 and the Sigma 170-500. The Sigma is a bit slower to AF at the longer end of the zoom and at 500 needs to be on a tripod for good results. Your can't really use a tele converter with it as the quality drops right off. You might need a closeup adapter for it though as close-focusing is much longer than the 100-400 zooms.
If I had no legacy lenses I would go with the Canon solution as Keith's photos prove. Neil.

postcardcv

Monday 30th April 2007, 10:27

I'd agree that the 400D with 100-400 IS is a great set up. I've not used the Pentax camera so can't comment on that but I have used the Sigma 170-500 and it is not of the same standard as the Canon lens. The Canon lens has noticeably faster AF and is sharper wide open, that said the Sigma 170-500 is a decent lens and is capable of delivering excellent results.

I have tried putting a 1.4x tc between my 400D and 100-400, I do get AF, but the IS doesn't work so I then need a tripod. Using a 1.4x tc with this lens seems to work for some, but not for others (I can see no reason for this), so I wouldn't recommend relying on this as it may not work.

David Smith

Monday 30th April 2007, 11:10

paul goode

Monday 30th April 2007, 12:30

My thanks to everyone for the advice. Interesting to note from "Modular" the Sigma loses AF with the 1.4 but Canon doesn't (wonder why this is ?)
Just to get it in my mind as I don't think it's been answered specifically-as I see it the sigma x 1.6 would give me 800mm whereas the Canon x 1.6 would give me 640mm. This (I think is a 20% difference). Therefor the Canon would have to be cropped 20% more than the sigma for the same photo. Would the Canon still show better results ? Tell me if I have this all wrong-it seems right on paper !

Dave,

I think this pin taping lark is more black magic than science. Its basically pushing the af limits of the lenses and the f6.3 aperture of the 170-500 compared to f5.6 of the 100-400 may mean not enough light is reaching the af sensors for them to work with any degree of reliability with the tc attached and the consequent further reduction in maximum aperture.

I've found the same as PostcardCV, that the IS is alarmingly unstable using a 400d body with the 100-400 & 1.4x tc, so its safer to assume this won't work. If it does its a bonus.

Your maths is right on the crop factor, so the 500 is considerably longer but with the better glass and MILES faster af I reckon you'll get far more shots you're pleased with out of the Canon setup.

Thought I'd post a wild bird as an example of the 400d & 100-400 instead of that dodgy captive stuff of Reeders 8-P 8-P .

Keith Reeder

Monday 30th April 2007, 12:46

instead of that dodgy captive stuff of Reeders 8-P 8-P .

Harumph!

;)

To be fair though, they do make for useful subjects when testing lenses, converters and whatnot - and none of these will appear in the gallery of course.

paul goode

Monday 30th April 2007, 12:53

Harumph!

;)

To be fair though, they do make for useful subjects when testing lenses, converters and whatnot - and none of these will appear in the gallery of course.

Only jealous Keith, my Bearded Tit didn't come out anywhere near as good as yours! That shots stunning! Not for the gallery I agree but lose the ring and you could make some money out of that one! (With the right description of course)

David Smith

Monday 30th April 2007, 13:48

Paul-thank you for that.
Your not going to tell me Keith's birds are all stuffed & mounted I hope !!
Incidentally I noticed another, unrelated thread where someone was bemoaning the slow AF on his Canon 350 & 100-400mm. Any thoughts??

tjsimonsen

Monday 30th April 2007, 15:37

Incidentally I noticed another, unrelated thread where someone was bemoaning the slow AF on his Canon 350 & 100-400mm. Any thoughts??

Hi,

I use that setup, and I wouldn't call the AF slow. It's not blazingly fast, though it gets considerably faster if you turn off the IS! But remember the 100-400 has FTM, and it always helps it you pre-focus a bit before pressing the shutter buttom.

Thomas

Keith Reeder

Monday 30th April 2007, 20:26

That shots stunning!

In that case I'd better not say anything about the fact that - "tame" birds or not - I got about fifty "keeper" BT shots!

;)

Dave, these birds live in a big free-flight aviary at Pensthorpe Wildfowl Park, near Fakenham in Norfolk.

If there'd been some light about when I took these I suspect they'd really look rather good, but even at 800 ISO (and with no NR) I'm happy enough with them.

macshark

Monday 30th April 2007, 20:35

If you choose to go with the K10D (which is a great camera), I would consider the Sigma 50-500 EX DG instead of the 170-500. IMHO, the Bigma PQ is comparable to the 100-400 IS though many in these forums will argue it is not as good. I have a small number of pictures taken with the 50-500 and a 350D in my galleries if you want to take a look. I eventually switched to 400 f/5.6L...

Of course, with a Pentax body, you won't have an option like the 400mm f/5.6L IS. If you are planning to upgrade at some point, I am not sure if Sigma makes a Pentax version of the 500mm f/4.5, but that would be a very interesting combo...

paul goode

Monday 30th April 2007, 23:03

Your not going to tell me Keith's birds are all stuffed & mounted I hope !!

No, but there's a few on here wish he was :-O :-O

Those BT's look damn good as they are!

Keith Reeder

Monday 30th April 2007, 23:36

Aye, they're OK considering, Paul.

I'll have to do some proper PP on 'em and see how they turn out - and maybe have a proper look at the other 30-odd I haven't converted yet..!

;)

paul goode

Monday 30th April 2007, 23:55

Aye, they're OK considering, Paul.

I'll have to do some proper PP on 'em and see how they turn out - and maybe have a proper look at the other 30-odd I haven't converted yet..!

;)

30 odd still to convert....!

Must admit, when I was there they were not very confiding (or didn't like Sarah's hat and coat, but thats another story) This was the only shot I was vaguely happy with. 20d, 100-400 no TC. ISO800 as well, do people only go to Pensthorpe when its raining?

paul goode

Tuesday 1st May 2007, 00:05

If there'd been some light about when I took these I suspect they'd really look rather good, but even at 800 ISO (and with no NR) I'm happy enough with them.

No NR!

They look the same as my Neat Imaged one. I'm definitely over processing mine somewhere!

Edit Sorry David, I've hijacked your thread.

Keith Reeder

Tuesday 1st May 2007, 00:24

Apologies from me too, David.

But while I'm here - that BT looks great too, Paul.

David Smith

Tuesday 1st May 2007, 11:55

postcardcv

Tuesday 1st May 2007, 12:11

Incidentally I noticed another, unrelated thread where someone was bemoaning the slow AF on his Canon 350 & 100-400mm. Any thoughts??

I often use my 100-400 on a 350D and think the AF is fast enough, sure it's not as quick as a fast prime lens, but is noticeably faster than the AF on the Sigma 170-500. A friend who uses a 350D recently changed from a Sigma 170-500 to a Canon 100-400 IS, they have commented on how much faster the new lens focuses.

While the Sigma is a good lens the Canon is better in almost all ways, AF is faster, it's sharper wide open, much better close focus and IS... but it does cost a good deal more. Be warned, if you ever end up buying a big prime lens you won't want to trade in the 100-400 IS, it's such a useful lens!

postcardcv

Tuesday 1st May 2007, 12:15

2) KEITH (& others) what software do you use for noise reduction ?
When I 'sharpen' it seems to leave them looking 'harsh' -will NR solve this. I am only learning so answers in simple terms prefered please.

Personally I use Neat Image for my NR...

how do you sharpen your images? If using unsharp mask in PS try altering the settings to give a 'nicer' image, there's a thread somewhere on here all about sharpening. Personally I'd rather look at a slightly soft image than one that has been over sharpened.

paul goode

Tuesday 1st May 2007, 12:16

2 more questions please.
1) MACSHARK Why did you switch from 50-500 to 400 ?
2) KEITH (& others) what software do you use for noise reduction ?
When I 'sharpen' it seems to leave them looking 'harsh' -will NR solve this. I am only learning so answers in simple terms prefered please.

Hi David,

The comments in this gallery post may be of interest
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/137704/ppuser/4913

Keith seems to have mastered smooth, natural looking images.

Sharpening does in my opinion increase the 'harshness' of images and obviously emphasises noise. Using a noise reduction program such as neat image, free download at http://neatimage.com will help.

It may be worth posting an image you think looks harsh, so that we can have a look at the problem
Edit, and describe how you presently sharpen images.

Edit II, sorry Peter didn't see your post.

Paul

Keith Reeder

Tuesday 1st May 2007, 12:53

NR and sharpening are a bit of a Black Art, but I take a straightforward approach to both.

1) Start with a sharp, in-focus image! I sometimes don't really need to sharpen: the attached for example are RAW files which I've opened, resized, cropped and saved as a jpeg in Irfanview - not even a proper RAW converter - they've had no sharpening whatsoever (there's a Kenko TC on these too).

2) After I convert (usually in RawShooter Essentials where I also add "just above default" sharpening, adjust exposure and contrast) I will open the image in Paintshop Pro X where I generally add one pass of the basic "sharpen" algorithm (as opposed to USM).

3) If I need to NR (and I actually run pictures through NR even when they're not noisy in order to blur the background more - an instant "DOF" effect) I use NeatImage 5.5 Home Edition.

I usually let NeatImage "Auto Profile" the picture and work out the best settings, but I've also got a couple of sets of Canon 30D profiles installed too and sometimes use them instead. I let my eye decide what looks best.

Personally I NR last: some people say that NR should be the first stage in the editing process, but last works for me...

mav12

Tuesday 1st May 2007, 13:55

When I 'sharpen' it seems to leave them looking 'harsh' -will NR solve this. I am only learning so answers in simple terms prefered please.

try taking a photo in raw format
rawshooter is a good program for converting raw files

prefrebly on a tripod or rest the camera on some thing

your camera is probaby already processing the image so when you try and sharpen it you are probably over doing it

Keith Reeder

Tuesday 1st May 2007, 14:51

Personally I'd rather look at a slightly soft image than one that has been over sharpened.

Yep, me too - though it's easy to get carried away sometimes.

I think it really is important to remember that PP sharpening can't perform miracles: if feel that if an image needs to be sharpened to the extent that it generates sharpening artifacts, then it wasn't sharp enough in the first place.

I'm very fussy about sharpening artifacts though!

;)

The single most important thing is starting with a sharp image - one reason I'm so impressed with my current toys is that AF seems extremely accurate, and that helps immensely: I'm getting better at focussing on the eye of the bird, even though I only ever hand-hold the camera.

It's also worth remembering just how different the same picture can look on different monitors.

impotentspider

Wednesday 2nd May 2007, 00:43

Quote;
When we reviewed the K100D we thought Pentax had got their image processing just right, however the single element of the entire K10D equation which left us scratching our heads was just that. Either a poorly implemented demosaicing algorithm or a strange choice of sharpening parameters means that while the K10D's JPEG images have plenty of 'texture' they can lack the edge sharpness we're used to seeing from semi-pro digital SLR's.

And:

Quote:
In-camera image processor unable to deliver crisp sharp edges, better to shoot RAW
About a third of a stop less highlight dynamic range than the competition
Turning up sharpness setting doesn't deliver crisper edges

What an absolute load of twaddle, where do these reviewers get the imagination to make up such stories? probably from the backhanders they get from Canon!
it is a well known and publicized fact* that Pentax DELIBERATELY leave the sharpening algorythyms out of the equation so that the photographer can decide the level of sharpening to apply, maybe reviewers should do a little research and maybe even try reading the manual before making these and other wild assumptions.

*for those who care to actually take the time to research a product before making such assumptions as "oh its a Pentax so it'll probably be rubbish"

Keith Reeder

Wednesday 2nd May 2007, 01:30

There's no secret about the the fact that some manufacturers keep in-camera sharpening to a minimum - so does Nikon - and I would expect Phil Askey to be aware of that fact.

He does in fact mention that even with in-camera sharpening turned up he was unable to get crisp images - so the fact that Pentax have chosen to leave the default in-camera sharpening low doesn't explain his results.

He also knows the difference, I imagine, between a camera with low in-camera sharpening and a camera that produces the kind of "weird" results he mentions.

Just for balance: Askey also reviews the K100D and is extremely enthusiastic about the IQ ("Canon handouts" hardly explains that, does it?)

He says:

About as good as six megapixel resolution gets, crisp and detailed, a big improvement

Excellent detail even at higher ISO's, overall noise levels on par with competitionAnd

Not only has Pentax improved in-camera image processing but they appear to have overtaken some of the competition, the amount of detail delivered is about as much as we could expect to see from a six megapixel CCD. He's demonstrably not anti Pentax on principle, then.

I mention Nikon, so let's see what he says about the D200:

Default sharpness is too mild, first impression to a new user may be negativeSo as I suggest, he knows what soft by default looks like. (Funnily enough, I found RAW images from the D200 to be very acceptably sharp, even with a cheap Nikkor zoom - go figure).

That, to me, is a loud and clear indication that he's talking about something else in the K10D review.

I don't always agree with DPReview's reviews (I think test images of a stamp prove bugger all about noise performance for example, because there's no shadow noise in 'em, which is a big issue) but to completely dismiss what I quoted out of hand without providing anything to support an alternative position doesn't prove much.

Maybe he'd been provided with a sub-standard example of the camera, but you can't doubt the thoroughness of yer man's reviews.

Oh, the review of the camera by DCResource (http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/pentax/k10d-review/) says:

with the camera at its default settings, the K10D's photo quality was somewhat disappointing by D-SLR standards. Photos are soft (which is, admittedly, common on midrange SLRs) and colors are fairly dull. When I started taking RAW and JPEG images at the same time, I was floored by the differences: the RAW images were significantly better, and truly show what the camera is capable of.That's pretty much what DPReview said - shoot in RAW if you want to get the best out of the camera.

I'm particularly persuaded by the two "woman with pram" pictures, one jpeg out of the camera, one RAW: you'll never get a sharp, detailed end result out of the first one no matter how much you sharpened it (have a go!) whereas there's clearly much more room to manoeuvre in the RAW image - that says "funny jpeg-RAW algorithm" to me.

As an aside, as a general observation I think it's sad that a camera which might be full of quality components and is well put together can still live or die IQ-wise on the strength of a few lines of code - and yet it happens all the time.

macshark

Wednesday 2nd May 2007, 07:18

2 more questions please.
1) MACSHARK Why did you switch from 50-500 to 400 ?
2) KEITH (& others) what software do you use for noise reduction ?
When I 'sharpen' it seems to leave them looking 'harsh' -will NR solve this. I am only learning so answers in simple terms prefered please.

1) I switched to 400 f5.6L for the following reasons:
400L is sharper and has better contrast & colors
400L is much lighter, easier to handle w/o tripod/monopod
400L focuses much faster, crucuial for in flight shots
400L works much better with a 1.4x TC

Since I also have the 70-300IS zoom, the zoom aspect of the Bigma was not as important for me as it may be for others.

2) A quick comment on this one: I also use NeatImage and I am very happy with it. Even though its sharpening capabilities is not nearly as sophisticated as PhotoShop CS2, I have a few settings that take care of NR and sharpening at the same time and saves me a lot of time...

iporali

Wednesday 2nd May 2007, 09:55

Hi David - and others,

Sorry for a long message...
You may already have made up your mind for Canon based on very good advice from "Canon people" here. As much as I hate to admit, I think they are right - Canon is the strongest in areas that count most in bird photography: long-fl lens selection, focusing speed and handling of high-ISO noise. And they do have the upgrade path all the way to the uber-pro level.

However... ;)
I would like to bring about a couple of points if photography involves significantly other areas than bird photography - and if you perhaps think that investing thousands for high-end ("L"-glass) long lens telephotography is expensive and/or limiting. I wouldn't want this choice to be left a generalized "no-brainer" for Canon.

Firstly, Keith's quotes from Dpreview could deserve some comments.
- I agree that Pentax should include a "sharp jpeg" setting for those who like it, but for those who know and use RAW - all the sharpness *is* there (as Dpreview mentions).
- "soft" K10D jpegs still have more detail than any 6Mpix jpegs, which already is entirely sufficient for A4 prints (which is pretty large).
- 10Mpix K10D RAW actually have more detail than the 8Mpix Canon 30D RAW-pics (and even 10Mpix Nikon D80)
- dynamic range of the K10 RAW is no worse than competitors'
- if you usually shoot jpeg, using RAW is made extremely easy in the K10D (a dedicated button for your left thumb)

Again I agree that in long fl telephoto the sensor-based image stabilization loses to good in-lens IS (maybe 1-2 stops?), but it is nevertheless useful - and you do get it to all your lenses without paying extra. And contrary to Canon's claims it is very useful also in low-light wide-angle photography.

Speaking of which - with Pentax you could get a weather-sealed 10Mpix body and a stabilized high-end "normal" zoom.
- 16-45/4 corresponding 24-67.5mm (1.5x crop) for less than 1300€
- 16-50/2.8 (weather sealed & ultrasonic motor) corresponding 24-75mm for 1700€ (?)

With Canon 30D & 1.6x crop
- 17-55mm (IS) corresponding 27.2-80mm for something like 2000€ (?)
- no weather sealing, and to get a good "landscape"-24mm (film-equivalent) stabilized wide-angle you have to buy another expensive lens.

OK, so to someone who wants to seriously become involved in bird photography, Canon is probably the best choice - but for many of us a DSLR system is largely/mainly for other uses. And as such Pentax offers as good or better quality for significantly lower price - and it actually works very well also in bird photography.

Best regards - and, honestly, no intentions to offend anyone!

Ilkka

postcardcv

Wednesday 2nd May 2007, 13:24

OK, so to someone who wants to seriously become involved in bird photography, Canon is probably the best choice - but for many of us a DSLR system is largely/mainly for other uses. And as such Pentax offers as good or better quality for significantly lower price - and it actually works very well also in bird photography.

I'd agree that any of the current crop of DSLRs can produce good images. However the limited range of longs lenses available for some brands make them a less than ideal choice even for the casual bird photographer. The range of widely available long lenses for Nikon and Canon (both own brand and third party) make them a better choice for bird photography. From what I can see the cheapish Sigma zooms (135-400 and 170-500) are the only long lenses you can currently get for Pentax, there seem to be no Pentax long lenses and none of the top Sigma seem to come in Pentax fit. I just had a quick look online and can't see any lenses in the same league as the 100-400 IS available for Pentax.

iporali

Wednesday 2nd May 2007, 13:59

From what I can see the cheapish Sigma zooms (135-400 and 170-500) are the only long lenses you can currently get for Pentax, there seem to be no Pentax long lenses and none of the top Sigma seem to come in Pentax fit.

There are some top Sigma tele lenses with Pentax mount (like the 300, 500 and 800mm EX primes and at least 100-300mm f4) http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all.asp , but they do not come with the HSM focusing motor - at the moment. I think it will be just a matter of time before Sigma incorporates the Pentax SDM compatible focusing for the K10D. Yes, there are better lenses available for Canon and Nikon, but I just wonder how much "casual bird photographers" can afford to spend for their tele lenses. With Pentax you can get optically great second-hand MF lenses for peanuts (compared to the L-lenses) and the image quality depends more on how much time you are willing to spend in hides than how fast your lens can focus.

Regards,

Ilkka

paul goode

Wednesday 2nd May 2007, 14:36

There are some top Sigma tele lenses with Pentax mount (like the 300, 500 and 800mm EX primes and at least 100-300mm f4) http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all.asp , but they do not come with the HSM focusing motor - at the moment. I think it will be just a matter of time before Sigma incorporates the Pentax SDM compatible focusing for the K10D. Yes, there are better lenses available for Canon and Nikon, but I just wonder how much "casual bird photographers" can afford to spend for their tele lenses. With Pentax you can get optically great second-hand MF lenses for peanuts (compared to the L-lenses) and the image quality depends more on how much time you are willing to spend in hides than how fast your lens can focus.

Regards,

Ilkka

Well I didn't know that. Its got to be a big plus for Pentax users. The strange thing is they aren't listed on Sigma's UK site
http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/telephoto/500mm.htm
for instance.

postcardcv

Wednesday 2nd May 2007, 15:01

There are some top Sigma tele lenses with Pentax mount (like the 300, 500 and 800mm EX primes and at least 100-300mm f4)...

As Paul has mentioned Sigmas UK website does not list these lenses as being available for Pentax. As a user of the 500 f4.5 I'd agree that they are very good lenses, and will give Pentax user some excellent long lens options.

With Pentax you can get optically great second-hand MF lenses for peanuts (compared to the L-lenses) and the image quality depends more on how much time you are willing to spend in hides than how fast your lens can focus.

Indeed there are plenty of cheap MF long lenses out there, though personally I'd hate to have to rely on MF for bird shots... I'm just not good enough at it. I take my hat off to anyone who can get good flight shots with MF.

iporali

Wednesday 2nd May 2007, 16:05

personally I'd hate to have to rely on MF for bird shots... I'm just not good enough at it. I take my hat off to anyone who can get good flight shots with MF.

I take my hat off to anyone who can get good flight shots with anything :t:.

Ilkka

Keith Reeder

Wednesday 2nd May 2007, 17:54

No offence taken here, Ilkka, but when two of the most respected review websites make - in essence - the same observation about the K10D (backed up very effectively by the pictures on the DCResource website) it's enough to put doubt in my mind about whether it would be the camera for me: why take the risk when there are proven alternatives?

And - just for clarity - I'm not blindly wedded to any one product line. I was an enthusiastic Nikon Guy before I became an enthusiastic Canon Guy, so I'm not averse to considering alternatives (no blind Brand Loyalty here - I'll use whatever does the job, and - for me - Canon currently does the job).

Based on the evidence I've been able to find and what was presented here, I don't see anything that would persuade me from my initial recommendation, a recommendation which clearly and demonstrably addresses each of the original poster's requirements - image stabilisation (specifically, proven long lens image stabilisation), reach, noise performance and image quality.

The simple fact is, this stuff works and works extremely well, whereas the suggested alternatives are comparatively a bit of an unknown quantity and/or don't quite tick all the right boxes.

In that respect then, a recommendation of Canon is arguably a bit of a "no-brainer" after all, if we want to put ticks in all of David's boxes first time round - I'm simply suggesting taking the easy option rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.

What it isn't is simple Blind Brand loyalty - there is a wealth of evidence out there in support of my view (and my own experiences tend to bear out the evidence - it is less than a year ago that I was in much the same boat as David, and I put in a huge amount of time and effort before I reached the conclusion that the Canon approach would best suit my requirements - requirements which were very similar to David's) whereas there is little or none to suggest that the alternatives will satisfy David's stated requirements more effectively or more economically.

I'll close by saying that I'm not trying to convert anyone to using what I use - we should all spend our money as we see fit, and there's room in the world for everybody's opinions.

David asked a reasonable question and I believe I gave him a reasonable answer - but what happens after that isn't something I'll lose any sleep over, one way or another.

People should not confuse my willingness to try and help with missionary zeal 'cos - really - I'm not bothered what other people use: I'll still get very satisfying results from what I use!

;) ;) ;)

impotentspider

Thursday 3rd May 2007, 01:00

Ahhh! so Keith is a Missionary Zealot|8.| |:d| |:d| |:d|

Seriously tho' I dont think anyone is trying to have a go at anyone whos simply trying to point prospective users in the right direction.
But I still stand by my statement that reviewers dont know what their taking about half the time, When the Pentax istD was released the reviewers slated the camera, yet thousands of buyers have proved the reviews wrong by producing superb images, the same goes for the K10D, I have been using mine a lot longer than any reviewer has had one for and I can confidently say that most of what they say is unfounded. I think the images in my gallery (currently all with the istD) and those in my Photobucket (mixed) back this up; http://s80.photobucket.com/albums/j168/impotentspider/

iporali

Thursday 3rd May 2007, 01:10

Keith,

I absolutely believe that a Canon 30D + 100-400mm IS - at the moment - is the ultimate semi-pro bird photographer's setup. I also know that your knowledge and experiences on different DSLRs have been very useful for many of us, and most beneficial for this forum.

My purpose was to emphasize that David's choice was between the Pentax K10D, Canon 400D and two Sigma lenses. That is why I raised the point about costs and possible other uses. Yes, Canon and the L-glass are an easy and often good answer, but not necessarily the right answer for everyone. I don't have any DSLR at the moment, but I have tried many of them and I do think that with the Pentax K10D you get significant advantages over the Canon 400D and even 30D.

No camera is perfect, but I don't think soft "edge sharpening" in JPEG is that bad if all the details are there (like dpreview mentioned) - or if the RAW has more detail than any other DSLR with Sony's 10Mpix sensor. I also don't consider it a "risk" to have a weatherproof body, sensor-IS (which makes all your lenses stabilized), better viewfinder than the 30D, cheaper and better wide-angles than Canon and ultrasonic focus motor support - for at least 100€ lower price than the Canon 30D. Its lens selection is not as large as Canon's, but it is very good and actually does have a high-end upgrade path (Sigma EX primes). And even if it right now can't compete with Canons in low light or focusing speed - it is not *that* bad even in bird photography: with lower-end Sigma/Tamron zooms it is just as average as the Canons ;).

But - to each their own. I don't feel bad if someone chooses a Canon over a Pentax for the right reasons, but I just don't think the lack of "edge sharpening" of JPEGs and "high-ISO noise" are sufficient to compensate the many advantages of the K10D. It is also hard for me to believe that a possibility to upgrade to 5000€+ lenses is a good reason to choose the first DSLR system. I know there have been focusing issues with many 30Ds and I know many Canon owners would happily take a nice feature of the K10D: user-accessible focus calibration for each lens (through a couple of clicks in the service menu).

Best regards,

Ilkka

ps. Your (and Paul's) BT pics are indeed excellent. :t:

Keith Reeder

Thursday 3rd May 2007, 02:02

Hi guys,

I guess that what I'm really trying to do here is drum up a bit of empirical evidence of how various bits of kit perform.

It is indeed true (as Peter - PostcardCV - says above) to suggest that most any camera/lens available these days can produce great images (just tonight I saw a fantastic great blue heron close-up from the K10D), but for all I know that might be the only one!

;)

And that's what I'm getting at.

It's all well and good on threads like this to write "oh yeah, you should buy camera X - I've got one..." but I think that it would be really helpful if when a camera or a lens (or whatever) is recommended, the person making the contribution could post up a few examples of what that camera/lens/whatever has done in their hands: that way we'd remove some of the subjective "brand fanaticism" from posts by backing up recommendations with proof - good or bad.

Now I know that this is a far from scientific approach to gear selection because of the human (and other) variables involved, but it wouldn't take that long for interested parties to get a feel for the kind of capability that this lens or that camera might have, so all in all this is a very fair way to do things...

Here, the original poster asked about some specific things (stabilisation, reach, noise performance) and I made a suggestion or two which directly addressed those points, backed up with pictures and shooting details (and EXIF in the images), to show what those suggestions were capable of in (my) inexperienced hands.

It'd be great if alternative gear recommendations were supported by similar sample images, along with details and EXIF, IMHO.

Some people will doubtless argue that this approach proves nothing, but personally I can't think of a "methodology" that proves more - at least this way you have to put your money where your mouth is, so to speak.

impotentspider

Thursday 3rd May 2007, 14:42

QUOTE:It'd be great if alternative gear recommendations were supported by similar sample images, along with details and EXIF, IMHO.

I think that is probably everyones opinion Keith, but as you point out an individuals skill goes an awful long way to making the shot, as does certain DSLRs abilities to perform better under certain situations, take a look at the shot I recently posted in the Photo Critique Forum;
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=85061
Maybe I would have got a better shot with your recomended gear or maybe not, I am totally new to bird photography (less than six months under my belt) and have not yet got the hang of tracking birds in flight (I was never any good at panning anyway) Maybe my K10D let me down on this occasion but I would probably have got a good shot had the bird stayed a little longer, despite this I would still say the K10D is just as good for birding as any other camera on the market.

One final gripe, I wouldn't put too much faith in EXIF info as this can be faked, sadly there are the odd few Noddys who would stoop to such levels, Happy to say I've not found any on this forum yet.

Keith Reeder

Saturday 5th May 2007, 05:32

Oh yeah, I know it's not an idea methodology for evaluating the performance of this camera or that lens, but nobody has yet come up with a better one, and it has to be more objective than someone simply posting up "well I have the [insert name of camera/lens/other bit of kit] and I don't agree with what Bert said about it..." without backing it up in some way.

Yes, it's absolutely the case that a talented photographer will be able to pull rabbits out of hats in situations - and with gear - that would stymie we mere mortals, but I still reckon that (if we were discussing noise performance for example - always a favourite!) it wouldn't take long to get enough examples from various cameras onto the thread to enable interested readers to at least get a feel for what's what.

It might not be perfect, but it's better than simple gainsaying, I think.