Great shots of a place I visit regularly, like today; you definately captured the peace and tranquility of this lovely place Chris.

Regards

H George i,
Take a look at the pictures, not my best work because I had to take them in a mirror indoors today in a spare 5 mins I was at home and no one else was there to take the picture of set up slung across my chest..
But they do show the set up which has been faultless for almost a year and I have put the same strap arrangement on two other big lenses.



The tilting Manfrotto mount is perfect, in fact is so good if using the monopod as you can tighten it just enough to be able to swivel (tilt it up and down) while panning with the monopod , it really is a perfect answer for moving subjects .





Note: I use Pentax leather straps of my Silver K3's but any good Pentax strap will do

Hope this helps,

Regards

Daron

Hope this helped

Hi George,


Not home at the moment but will send you some piccies tomorrow



Regards

Daron

Common misconception; Surely, all that changes on a APS C is an image that is cropped in comparison to the same image on a full frame which will be exactly the same except the field of view covers a largerarea (FF).

Consider the following: If you mount a 100 mm lens on an FF and a tripod and photograph a fixed object at a fixed length then you put the same lens on an APSc body on the same tripod, shooting the same object at the same shooting distance nothing; is magnified it is just that the cropped sensor has a narrower field of view.

The restricted field of view simply crops out the background but the subject's actual image size on both sensors is the same.

A test I have carried out: Put an FF lens on an FF camera and take a photo of a "brick in a wall" then switch to crop mode and do it again and there should be no difference in the size of the brick on the sensor or the quality if you check the image on actual pixel view in Photoshop.

It is a fact that the FF image takes in a bigger area of brickwork then the cropped sensor but on the sensor the bricks are the same size (in pixels)

When you get your hands on the K1 FF you can carry out that test easily by placing the camera, lens and Tripod at a fixed distance and taking the image in FF then cropped mode: Inspection at actual pixel size in PS will demonstrate that the bricks are the same size on both (same pixel area)

A 1:1 macro lens will put a 1/2" insect on any sensor (cropped or full frame ) at 1/2" ie; actual size

So if you are predominantly a wildlife photographer (like me) which invariably results in a high percentage of images being cropped, then unless you can fill the FF Sensor with the subject , and remember the limitation here is how close you can get to the subject (nothing to do with the lens you use) then you might as well use a APSc

If you recall an article linked on PU some time ago ( Is Pentax the new Superhero) where a K3 II APSC was tested against a Nikon D810 (FF); the conclusions from the reviewer was the K3II was as good if not better from an IQ point of view than the D810.

The fact is, if the pixel (photo-site) has a fixed "diameter" so if you crop the sensor you don't change the pixel size so the quality remains the same.

As I said above: If you crop a FF image in post processing you might as well have used a APSc image because the camera does it for you.

Ditto, tried them all this set up works and I use a Pentax leather strap connected to a small screwed link, connected to a a clone of the Black rapid eyed screw , screwed into the lens foot .

For support a Manfrotto lightweight monopod with manfrotto tilting mount £18 on ebay just great, very secure and great for birding.

I can yomp all day (and do most days) with the rig slung acros my chest, not on one shoulder, with the monopod screwed into the second hole in the lensfoot.

When walking; set up like this, the retracted mononpod is upside down with the camera and lens below it, seems to stop the camera/ lens swinging around and the small manfrotto, which will extend to head height, being in five sections, actually adopts the role of a " handle when not used as a support.

The Manfrotto monopod was £22 in pcworld when I bought it.

So, two unweildy black rapid straps ( I should say trusses) consigned to the drawer and my carbon fibre tripod also having a relaxing time to.

Black rapids: bad experience slipped down my body one day whilst circumnavigating a pile of rubble in an old grave yard and crunched a K 3 silver on a gravestone, trust me it is easier done than people think.

Using the Pentax strap screwed connector link and eyed screw into the tripod foot, makes this impossible" and it doesn't feel like a " contraption" or "parchute harness"

It is so comfortable and very user friendly I have not found anything better

Hope this helps

Regards

I could be posting this Official 2016 Ricoh Pentax Lens Roadmap being the only person that has not seen it before but it looks like the DA* 200 & 300 are fine for FF.

I also downloaded the Pentax Pentax patent US7715116 which is purported to state that the 300mm is designed for FF but I can't find that in the document.

Anyway based on this latest "Roadmap" I am very happy I can use both the 200 and 300 DA* 's on the K1.

Hi David,

Yes , for sure that is a wonderful picture and the bokeh enhances the image too.

Definitely a very composed and well thought out image which has got me thinking about trying to take a similar type of image in order to answer the question regarding the " bokeh " on the HD 150-450

I guess back grounds on wild life shots, which is my main focus ( not to use a pun), are a little random, particularly when panning around or following a moving subject but having seen that lovely image of yours I will test the lens on a similar composition,so watch this space

Thanks again for the sample image, it is not only a good example of the subject ( bokeh) but underlines the standard we should all be trying to achieve.

Regards

Daron

Link Posted 27/03/2016 - 06:57


Recent PU Quote in respect of the HD 150-450: "My only concern would be the bokeh"

Not sure if the images below ( all taken with the 150-450) show "the good, bad or the ugly as regards bokeh" specifically;

Whether there must be defined points in the backgrounds that can be rendered out of focus in such a way that results in attractive bokeh is also a question ; these three shots might not demonstrate the "quality or lack of quality of bokeh" from the HD 150-450.

Couple of associated points:

(i) I don't really know what is visually good bokeh being perfectly frank ?

(ii) Maybe someone can post some shots exhibiting good bokeh ?

(iii) Good subject for a competition !

(Iv) Is it a subjective thing in an image ?

It strikes me that the lens might need to be assessed on subject matter that does exhibit clearly defined background shapes with high contrast or colour variations more suited to the discussion.

Based on the three shots below I am not sure if a comment can be made about the bokeh characteristics of the HD150-450 , but it would interesting to hear opinions on the bokeh ?







Daronl
Last Edited by Daronl on 27/03/2016 - 07:06
Quote this post

Bokeh and the HD 150-450

Not sure if these images show "the good, bad or the ugly as regards bokeh" specifically;

Whether there are defined points in these backgrounds that can be rendered out of focus in such a way that results in attractive bokeh is also a question ; they might not demonstrate the "quality or lack of quality of bokeh" from the HD 150-450.

It strikes me that the lens might need to be assessed on subject matter that does exhibit clearly defined shapes with high contrast or colour variations more suited to the discussion.

I am not sure, but it would interesting to hear opinions ?

I am a "prime fanatic" of many years, zooms were never in my vocabulary having been more than disappointed with them over the years.

My appreciation of the superiority of primes was further underlined by the DA* 200 and DA* 300 ; they are stunning lenses in every respect; however I have to say , I eventually broke my own rules and bought the DA* 50-135 Zoom based purely on so many universal accolades from the reviewers and the users; this lens changed my view of zoom lenses for ever.

I realised very quickly that this zoom was truly comparable with prime lenses and I in no time added the 16-50 then the wonderful 60-250 DA*'s to my toolbox.

So, here we are with the 150-450: all I can say it is breathtaking, particularly wide open (check my portfolio shots); even making very large crops it is just fantastic.

I have used and abused this lens ( not physically) but in poor light, hand holding, wide open, slow shutter speeds, awful weather, where you just don't expect a "good image" and this big zoom never ceases to amaze even on insects.

Before it was released, being very frustrated by the delay in the K1 launch and fed up of endless waiting for Pentax I decided to buy a Canon or Nikon FF for wild life;

It was a big ( and costly) decision, so I decided to try out the cameras with the big zooms they were offering in both the pro grades and the " non- pro" grades

I did extensive field testing of the big Sigma and Tamron zooms too, as well as the big zooms from Nikon and Canon; The Canon/Nikon Pro versions were "nice" ( and that is all) but horrendously expensive; the "budget versions" were optically and from a user point of view, not as good as the Tamron, which was much brighter in the viewfinder and much quicker to focus, but the lens seemed flimsy compared to the others; the Sigma felt like an RPG Launcher but was optically up there with the rest.

I was now even more frustrated, as none of these lenses really impressed in the field so I parked that idea.

But, some months later, by pure chance, being in the right place at the right time, I tested the Pentax 150-450 on a K3 II; what a revelation; no contest, the big Pentax was simply stunning; I bought the K3II as well, to permanently mount solely on the big zoom.

So, is it as good as the fabulous DA* 300mm ?

For sure it is; as zooms go the lens is as good as the DA* 50-135.

There are shots in my portfolio which are not taken in ideal lighting conditions, which show what it can do at it's limits; in fact I posted some huge crops in there too just as an example of the way it handles such conditions (poor light , hand holding very large crops) - check to gallery submissions from me just this week ( Reed Bunting and Long Tailed Tit)

This lens is so good on both my K3 and dedicated K3II , I have just committed to a K1 and Four lenses but can't wait to try the big zoom on FF.

SO HOW GOOD IS IT; That good I will not ever again consider leaving Pentax.

Hope this helps and read the EXIFs if you check out some of the shots in my portfolio; case in point this weeks gallery submission of Long tailed Tit ( wide open F4.5, hand holding 800 ASA) that is as "bad as it gets" on this lens.