Pondering... (1 Viewer)

iporali · Jan 12, 2007

bkrownd said:
If it wasn't for this nagging issue, I
may have already been sold.

Hmmm...I wonder if I can get around it with manual focus? I keep forgetting that
such a thing exists.

If you look at Canon forum there is a thread about focusing problems with the 350D & 5.6/400mm, which just shows that there is no completely reliable AF with any brand - especially in poor light and with affordable "slow" (small aperture) lenses. Even those with "pro" systems seem to complain about their AF-system's low success rates.

The Pentax K10D is the least expensive of the "serious hobbyist/semi-pro"-cameras (Nikon D80, Canon 30D) which have a good viewfinder for manual focusing. It is also the only one that has weatherproofed sealings and in-camera image stabilization - which both are very valuable features (IMHO).

If the K10D suits you otherwise, don't let the AF issue put you off. In poor conditions no AF works well (go to manual) and in good conditions all of them work well. By the time you have saved for those fancy USM-lenses, also Pentax should have some available (and probably Sigma too). Of course we don't know their real-world performance now, but I would be surprised if they were not competitive.

Best regards,

Ilkka

ps. OK, It took me so long to finish this post that MrSpider had basically said what I wanted, but here is my message anyway. :t:

bkrownd · Jan 12, 2007

impotentspider said:
Under the circumstances you mention, what exactly constitutes "cloudy sub-optimal light" can you give us a cameras typical meter reading as an idea of the actual level of light available? or at least state the shutter/aperture combination you (or your camera) normally shoots at.

I can't give you anything quantitative unless you can dig it out of EXIF in the
above image or my darker gallery images, but imagine the typical light under
the forest canopy on an overcast day. "Dark", but not twilight or dusk kind of dark.
I wouldn't expect to take pictures any darker than I do now, but I'd hope that the
ease of use and results would be quite a bit better.

I think I decided an adequate Nikon/Canon setup isn't within my financial means.
I didn't realize how much their IS lenses cost when I started thinking about this.

bkrownd · Jan 12, 2007

impotentspider said:
Bottom line is:
Canon Equipment will always focus slightly quicker and sometime more accurately than Pentax, this is what you are paying for in Canon cameras and Lenses, hence the lack of other features compared to Pentax.

Most likely what you're paying extra for is just the shiny plastic "Canon" badge on the front.

bkrownd · Jan 12, 2007

iporali said:
ps. OK, It took me so long to finish this post that MrSpider had basically said what I wanted, but here is my message anyway. :t:

I appreciate it! :t:

impotentspider · Jan 12, 2007

OK bk.
just had a quick look at your exifs, it looks like most of your shots are between 1/50th and 1/125th sec with the lens wide open (f4), what got me was the ISO setting of 80? Now I'm not familiar with your camera so am I right in guessing its something like 3Megapixel? and am I right in thinking the images have been severely cropped because your lens wasn't long enough?

Anyway, a DSLR will easily let you shoot at ISO400 (if need be) and still retain quality in the image (the sample sparrow shots of mine were at ISO400)
This would whack your average shutter speed (at f4) up to about 1/350th, depending on how good you want your images you may even be able to push the ISO up to 800 and get an even faster shutter speed.

A reasonably priced Sigma or Tamron ??-300mm lens will set you back around 1/3 the cost of a K10D body, but the maximum aperture on these lenses will be around f6.3 (when shooting at the long end of the zoom) which means dropping your shutter speed, however the SR system in the K10D will compensate for that with ease.

At present Pentax dont have anything longer than 200mm (new lenses are due soon) but you could consider secondhand if you want Pentax but cant wait. Pentax will give you the edge optically if you want to nitpick, but for your needs there will be no discernable difference in any of the lenses from the major brands.

bkrownd · Jan 12, 2007

impotentspider said:
OK bk.
just had a quick look at your exifs, it looks like most of your shots are between 1/50th and 1/125th sec with the lens wide open (f4), what got me was the ISO setting of 80? Now I'm not familiar with your camera so am I right in guessing its something like 3Megapixel? and am I right in thinking the images have been severely cropped because your lens wasn't long enough?

I always have the ISO on auto, along with everything else. I never really check what
the settings were. It's about 6mp. I usually crop them down as much as I can to save
disk space on my web page and to get them in under the forums 200kb/800pixel limits.

impotentspider · Jan 12, 2007

bkrownd said:
I always have the ISO on auto, along with everything else. I never really check what
the settings were. It's about 6mp. I usually crop them down as much as I can to save
disk space on my web page and to get them in under the forums 200kb/800pixel limits.

OK, so a bit of quick advice, dig your camera manual out and find out how to change the ISO, take it up to 200 and see the difference it makes, you should get (depending on the cameras default program line) either a higher shutter speed or smaller aperture (bigger number), or a combination of both.
Higher shutter speeds will reduce the number of pics you have to delete due to camera shake, a smaller aperture will extend the depth of field (how much of an area in front and behind of the subject is in focus) thus giving you a better chance of getting the image sharp.
See how you go with that and if the images are acceptable (and they should be at 200) then try cranking the ISO up to 400 and compare the results, But depending on your cameras sensor it may be possible that it could be a little "noisey" at 400 and you dont find the result acceptable.

Who knows, you may not even need a new camera!

What are you using for cropping? Photoshop or what? there are ways to reduce the image file size without cropping (or affecting the quality for web display) Plus I sincerely hope that if you do get any cracking shots you dont reduce the original file, even if it does mean taking up space on the PC.

bkrownd · Jan 12, 2007

400 on the FZ7 is heady stuff.

I may try it sometime when I don't think I'll see anything special.

I need to try sticking my housemate's 5 pound barbell into a 4"x14" PVC tube and see how I feel carrying it around.

impotentspider · Jan 13, 2007

bkrownd said:
400 on the FZ7 is heady stuff. I may try it sometime when I don't think I'll see anything special.

I need to try sticking my housemate's 5 pound barbell into a 4"x14" PVC tube and see how I feel carrying it around.

As I said, try it at ISO200 first, as for the weight lifting excercises, I have problems with arthritis and with my heart, but I can manage a Small Tamrac backpack with two camera bodies, a flashgun and 4 lenses, (it'll kill me eventually but I manage) though I dont go hiking over lava flows!
Good luck with whatever system you eventually decide on, if you go for the Pentax then please do come and join us on the Pentaxuser Forum, you will be more than welcome.

bkrownd · Jan 13, 2007

Well, once I call the bank to reset my password so I can get back into my big savings account...so I can max out my Roth IRA for the year...and if at that time my car or bike don't need $300 in parts...and I don't acquire a new hobby (bad habit of mine)...and after I start next month's credit card statement period...then maybe I'll be in a position to put my sweaty twitchy finger on the "buy" button.

I've been having the same experience with the K10D as I had with the FZ-7 - I gravitated towards it the first time I read the review. I dunno why, but there ya go. With the FZ-7 I was able to validate the choice head-to-head in the store, but this one would be more of a leap of faith. I want to believe...I want to believe... o

I forgot to mention...a remote/cable shutter release is another thing I'd like to have that isn't an option with the FZ-7. I'd also like to have a camera mounted on something like a gun shoulder stock with the AF/shutter button in the trigger place. People have spent centuries developing gun ergonomics so that people can ready-aim-fire as comfortably, steadily, and accurately as possible. Seems like it should work with a camera, as well.

bkrownd · Jan 14, 2007

I gave it a try today at fixed ISO 200. Here are 3 pictures taken in "median" conditions for me - under a low canopy of young trees filtering bright noon Sun. The first one looks OK, but there is a bit of odd NR going on and a little bit of colorful grain if you look closely. The second and third have some splotchy/grainy noise, but you can see they were the shady side of the bird so the metering system may have been confused by the light distribution. The third one isn't really too bad on my dark CRT monitor. These are the best, and the rest have lots of grainy colorful noise. I'm not sure if I'd want to use ISO 200 on the FZ-7 much, though a small number of the pix weren't terrible. The second one shows the shallow depth of focus that's always been a problem with the teleconverter on. I'd guess these birds were about 30-40 feet from me. Maybe the 'elepaio was a bit closer - it's about half the size of the 'akiapola'au in real life.

bkrownd · Jan 14, 2007

Here are some ISO 80 taken under similar conditions, except for the 'elepiao which was not at full zoom and was only under a very thin canopy. Not a great comparison, but something to look at nevertheless... These were in P mode. For the 'akiapola'au the ISO 200 picked f/5.0 and 1/125s while ISO 80 picked f/4.0 1/80s. Sometimes I use an EV +1/3 tweak under the canopy like this, but not this day.

Neil · Jan 14, 2007

Have a look at the Fuji http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms6000fd/
which would enable you to shoot at iso800/1600 and get better results than you are getting now with it's great lens and sensor. Neil.

impotentspider · Jan 14, 2007

bk, I did some looking up your camera, sorry didnt realise it was the Panasonic, to be honest I would have thought the noise would be minimal even a 400 on that model, maybe you are cropping the images too much, is the noise still unnacceptable at 200 with the image uncropped?
Another reason is are you also using digital zoom? Digi-zoom has its limitations, it is no substitute for a good quality telephoto lens.

bkrownd · Jan 14, 2007

impotentspider said:
bk, I did some looking up your camera, sorry didnt realise it was the Panasonic, to be honest I would have thought the noise would be minimal even a 400 on that model, maybe you are cropping the images too much, is the noise still unnacceptable at 200 with the image uncropped?
Another reason is are you also using digital zoom? Digi-zoom has its limitations, it is no substitute for a good quality telephoto lens.

I'm not sure what you mean. The data in the individual pixels, including the noise
in them, isn't changed at all by cropping. Also, I don't use the digital zoom.
However, that wouldn't matter anyway because "digital zoom" is simply in-camera
cropping, so you get the same noise as you would without it.

bkrownd · Jan 14, 2007

Neil said:
Have a look at the Fuji http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms6000fd/
which would enable you to shoot at iso800/1600 and get better results than you are getting now with it's great lens and sensor. Neil.

If I don't get a dslr, at some point I'd have to move to a new superzoom. Capabilities and
features are changing rapidly, and they aren't built to last forever. However, I don't really
want to make an incremental change between superzooms quite yet - I'd if I'm
going to spend some money I'd rather go all-out and make a big change.
Also, image stabilization is an absolute necessity. Thanks, though.

Neil · Jan 14, 2007

Image stabilisation is all very well but it probably won't work with a tele-extender on and what is more important is the achieved Shutter Speed. For a Super-zoom like the Panasonics you need at least 1/400 second and if you are taking photographs while climbing/riding then more would be better.
The Panasonics can do good work if used within their limitiations. Unfortunately we haven't seen a low noise sensor from them yet.The attached photo was taken with the 4 meg Lumix DMC-FZ10 at full zoom in poor light. Neil
http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/25616/sort/1/cat/all/page/2

bkrownd · Jan 15, 2007

Neil said:
Image stabilisation is all very well but it probably won't work with a tele-extender on

I always have the teleconverter on the camera. No problems with it.

I just bought my superzoom 6 months ago - I'm going to wait at least a generation
before I think of getting another superzoom.

normjackson · Jan 16, 2007

As I'm sure you're aware, the bigger Panasonic models have a slightly bigger sensor, better manual controls plus quicker startup (no extending lens). These differences might make a difference in your shooting conditions, but as you say, perhaps not enough. Was wondering whether, whatever camera used, a powerful flash with fresnel screen could improve the result where you and your camera managed an accurate capture :
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/better_beamer.shtml
Also the Kirk Flash X-Tender or this home-made version :
http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/flashfocuser.html
If you wanted to try this out with your FZ7, guess you'd need a slave flash setup, or an all-in-one like the Vivitar DF200.

bkrownd · Jan 16, 2007

A flash would certainly improve the image quality, though not autofocus performance, but I can't (won't) use a flash anyway. My subjects are all endangered species clinging to their last years of existance in (tiny) endangered habitats. Besides, I like to watch the birds doing their natural bird things, not scare them away.

The FZ-30 would have been a better choice for what I'm doing, but when I was shopping I wanted a simple, light, cheap camera. This is my first camera since I had a Disc Camera in the 1980's. If I go for another superzoom I'll hold out a few more months hoping that there will be something significantly better by the end of the year.

Pondering... (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread