AFRAID TO SAY IT!

Ive been thinking of changing from Pentax to Canon or Nikon for the last few months now and its really eating at me. I loovve the Pentax system - uncluttered, easy to navigate and great images.
I want to change because I shoot wildlife. Presently the setup is Pentax kx with Sigma 150 500

Can anyone let me know if they have tried the K-5 with the Sigma lens and the results?

Canon have the 400mm 5.6 and its the only draw for going Canon really.

The DA* 300 is too short and the converter is leaves to autofocus.

Would love to hear peoples experiences if they have tried the above setup.

Ta

QC

Plenty of people on here use a K-5 and one of the large Sigmas .. take a look at Alan's pictures (Blythman) for some really decent bird shots.

I use the 50-500mm (but tbh have hardly used it in the 6 months that have passed since I bought it) but from the little time I have had with it the combination looks like it will do the job just fine.

I also have a 7D and the 400mm 5.6 but I'm not allowed to mention that

Sell the wife, sell the kids, sell the house and a kidney then buy the DA 560mm and live in the box. No need to make such a drastic change.

Difficult decision Alistair. I was looking for a 7D and a sigma 120-300 (plus converters) for a while

For now, I've accepted that I'm going to miss some action shots because of limitations to the focus tracking. And that's with the K5

On the plus side I am happy with the quality of both the Sigma 150-500 and the DA 300. I am also happy with the high ISO performance of the K5, as I was with the performance of the K-x before it. I believe the Canon 7D is crap above ISO 800.

I am pushing myself to take more varied shots, as you have recently with your land and seascapes. I am happy that my Pentax cameras more than match similarly priced Canon and Nikons for these.

Mike has both systems. Best of both worlds.

Just put this B&W in for a competition. It was taken at 500mm at f6.3 and ISO 1600 with the K-x.

People have said don't use the Siggie at the full zoom length of 500mm, and don't use it wide open. Well the below breaks both those guidelines and it looks great on a 16 x 12 inch print


Reed Warbler B&W by Alan Wennington, on Flickr

Wouldn't go that far, I have mine set for a max ISO of 1600 but ISO 3200 shots clean up nicely. Unlike the K-5 the 7D is very unforgiving if you get the exposure even a little bit wrong. This was ISO 2500 wide open with the 70-300mm L through mucky patio windows and had no real NR applied.

The 7D AF is spectacular but I Still prefer the K-5 99% of the time.

Just the honest view of a mate Mike, who knew I was looking and his was available. I'll send you a link to his flickr, so you can see why I value his opinion.

Having said that, I also value yours

its probably the most important decision I will make and i just don't know what to do. I just wish the auto focus was quicker on the Siggy

It's not the Sigma at fault.

I have the 50-500mm OS for both K-5 and 7D ... the lens on the Canon is way faster than the Pentax mount version.


Suppose it's like all things, he just needs to get to know how to use his equipment to it's full potential.

Seriously though .. he has some great bird shots on there.

I first tried a 7D when the original K-5 came out and wrote it off virtually straight away due to the "crap" ISO performance but wanting faster AF I recently decided I could live with one for low ISO photography but this one seems so much better than what I remember of the previous body.

Just wish we could get all the manufacturers to combine efforts for one perfect DSLR with a universal lens mount.

Hi QC,

I understand the 1st part of that sentence but not the last part. Could you explain what you mean?

Rather than spend a whole lot of money, why not give a K-5 II/IIs and the 560mm a whirl to see what they are like?

It might even be worth renting as it could save the OP guessing what might suit themselves from other people's experiences.

Given the much improved low-light AF sensor on the K-5 II, perhaps it's worth giving that a go- can anyone comment on if the K-5 II improves focus speed for birding?

I'd imagine with the small f6.3 aperture at the 500mm end it ought help quite a bit?

apologies i meant to say earlier that the DA 300 isn't an option because the teleconverter removes auto focus. what about the mk2 k5? is it a good move?

No, it doesn't.

I am certainly no expert on bird photography, but like everything else photographic wise you just have to practice technique, be patient and know what you are trying to photograph. I do a fair amount of sports related photography with a K5 and have learned how to overcome some of the focus limitations of the K5. I am now fortunate enough to also have a K5lls which is just stunning IQ wise and I am also finding the AF a little faster too.

Personally I don't think the grass will be that much greener with Canon or Nikon but I guess if another brand meets your needs, then it maybe time for a change. I have not used the Sigma 150 500 on a K5, but as others have pointed out it would no doubt meet your needs on a K5 for birding and you can find some great examples of birding images on the net taken with a K5 and the Sigma 150 - 500. On a K5lls I think you would be knocked out with the image quality in terms of sharpness and detail.

I think Pentax will really be moving forward over the next two years both in terms of lenses and cameras, if you already have a bit of Pentax kit and enjoy the Pentax system I personally would think carefully before jumping ship all together.

For wildlife APS C certainly gives you an advantage in relation to price to focal length, but which system is the best is not such a straight forward answer, all of the brands have + & - points.

This is something I have a bit of a giggle about - people always say that Pentax AF is slow compared to others systems yet when looking on the 'pophoto' site the k5 is as quick or quicker in their tests than other cameras until the light drops and with the k5II is this an issue:

I have to feel that those seeking that extra 1/100th of a second or so in af speed may well find that in many (but not all) cases it just doesn't matter if it even exists. Tracking issues of moving objects seem to widen the gap as well if you forgive the inaccuracies of the faster system (none are perfect)

Yes I know people will now beat me with that Canikon are quicker stick but on the few times I have been to Gigrin Farm for the red kites the only people noticeably bitching about 'that would be a nice shot if the camera hadn't missed focus' have been holding Canikons

I read an interview wqith Steve Bloom, who happened at the time (if still not) to be using top of the range Canon equipment and his advice was that af is not as quick as wildlfie and he suggested learning the behaviour of the aniaml and then predicting a place where it will be momentarily stationary then pre focus on that place, switch to mf and fire away when the 'animal' is there

I use this a lot for my shots as mainly I use mf lenses - surely other have noticed that when using af it takes only an insect or branch to cross the focus point and your shot of the bird is gone anyway.

I will go get my tin hat on