Thanks for your wisdom here guys, I think the results are aligned to the conditions and I have no doubt this lens can do the job but my calibration standard has been the DA*s ( 200 faultless and 300 doesn't get better) but they are primes .

This is why I wanted to post some images taken spontaneously "on th hoof" because it seems to me the DA* primes are really special regardless of wether they are used as serious telephotos or for " grab shots" that come out of the blue and require immediate reaction, when there is no time to consider the set up or all the "niceties"

i have been through a period of doubt and re-evaluation of the various brands recently, before committing more money going forward and from recent field tests I have undertaken with the big zooms on offer! over the spring I can honestly say Nikon and Canon don't offer alternatives regardless of £s; neither do Tamron or Sigma

None of them match the performance of primes; all have weakneseses but this Pentax has less weaknesses, better build quality and more potential in ideal conditions, and even though it cost enough to icreate a potential divorce or prolonged matrimonial punishment it is not expensive compared to the others for what it is

One thing that is clear fir me already though is, more care is needed with big zooms as we all know, but given the stunning results we can achieve with the 50-135 and the 60-250 DA*s the difference between zooms and primes can overlap and in the case of the 150-450 it will be the same.

This lens is a special " tool" , moreso than those that have gone before; it is not a normal telephoto zoom, it is a challenging lens, and basically my expectations regarding it's potential have been consolidated in line with the overall opinion of the numerous reviews; I am very impressed with it.

The shots posted were very " honest" but also very encouraging given the conditions and I am certain with a little more attention I will get the best out of it and it will be a superb addition to the Pentax range.

I hope to do it justice through the summer so I will post regularly with some images

1 tend to agree but remember it is absolutely flat out (450) hand holding and all but the last one are at shutter speeds are much lower than I would use on a 675 mm lens which is what it is at 35mm.

Also bare in mind these are large crops in each case so on tha tbasis I have posted what I think is the worst case scenario with the lens and as such I am very pleased with it.

A better example is the shot of a young sparrow I posted the other day which shows how good it can be (link below).

https://www.dropbox.com/s/387ktksl8nnft0m/young%20sparrow%20%281%29%2030pc%20crop.jpg?dl=0

The reason I posted these photos is simply because most of us will use that lens fully extended; according to the test that is where it is optically at its weakest .

I did a trial the other day with. Nikon D810 and their 80 -400 and the new tamron 150 - 600. Both of those lense were very poor fully extended based on what I expected and compared to this lens in the worst case set up as above

I am actually very happy with this lens based on the mixed bag of pictures I have taken ( I even posted some macro shots last week under the post " how much resolution do I need" which were very respectable and also those images posted were massive crops.

Watch this space as I will post a few more specimen shots in coming weeks hopefully showing how it performs in ideal conditions.

Originals
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/chfcbnmu6ayggt8/AAA33FvrFCcgC7rm_ZXbjqlya?dl=0

Hi All,

Thought I would share a couple of images taken today with the new HD 150 -450 (on K3II ) all taken hand held with the lens zoomed out fully (450).



(ISO 400, F8 @ 400th)




(ISO 400, F8 @ 250th)




(ISO 200, F8 @ 80th)




(ISO 400, F7.1 @ 800th)

Gret picture and the house is definately better than my boring caravan

This thread has been incredibly interesting and Ronald's ( 50mp CMOS) commentary above articulates the essence of this subject so comprehensivly and clearly; sensor resolution is critical when producing very large pro-standard exhibition / commercial images and prints

However, picking up on the references to wedding photography, I do feel that even for the wedding photographer who wants to acheive the standard without taking out a second mortgage, a modest sensor size is more than adequate from an IQ standpoint.

For sure, the execution of a wedding shoot requires very demanding organiztional skills as well as photographic competence but as the whole photographic process it is pretty dynamic, not having to " lug around" or utilise unweildy flash equipment fon more or less every interior shot is a massive bonus.

Gone are the days of tripods, slow film, sometimes very complex lighting and flash equipment for the interior shots which prompted Nigels's (GregNi) response when I was commenting earlier in this thread, on resolution not being too much of a concern anymore and that maybe the potential low-light capabilities of a "lower pixel count FF sensor" would bring more to the table per se than simply adding pixels/resolution as it could potentially reduce the need for flash even more.

By the way I think Nigel's response was perfectly correct foash will always be needed as a crwtive necessity.

However Increasingly we are seeing whole albums shot virtually without flash because unlike in film days where the process was very formalised and standardised as regards posed shots, typically mounted as 9x6 to 14x11 prints, todays pros will shoot off literally hundreds of shots at very high ISO, of which the majority selected for the album will not be printed above 7x5 in the typical A4 "photobook " albums; consequently resolution is not that challenging.

No worries today about low ISO film media, hand holding, low shutter speeds and slow lenses with poor IQ at the wider apertures; and of course the luxury of being able to change ISO at the press of a button was not possible on a film camera; back in the day you were stuck with whatever film you loaded so changes in light levels could only be countered by skilful use of a flash-gun.

In the case of the recent weddings of my two daughters, both taken by quite well known pros, the "photobook" collage style albums were formatted on larger A3 size pages.

Apart from two or three pages where a single A4 image was presented, there was between three and five images laid out per page in the typical "storybook collage" style with random aspect ratios and sizes, some of which were as small as 4x4

Flash was used very little and then mostly for some of the exterior shots to lift shadows and balance contrast ( fill in) but on the interior shots, even in challenging lighting environments the flash was used on just a very few posed shots.

I have the discs (and EXIF data) from the weddings and in both cases the indoor shots, all taken on full frame Canons, were generally shot between ISO 400 up to 12,800 with most being at the higher ISO range (ISO 800 +) even exterior night time shots in the beautiful grounds of the venues were lit by ambient lighting only.

The point of my previous comment regarding the topic "how much resolution do I need", I think it is fair to say 16-18mp is more than adequate in respect of resolution for "collage style wedding albums" and even the odd conventional framed enlargement but the advantage of, for example a 16mp array on a full frame sensor, would be very good IQ at the highest ISOs further reducing the need for flash.

I know in my days as a wedding photographer producing typically 9x6 up to 14x11 album prints, colour fidelity, resolution and grain were the first challenge and to acheive the quality, very slow film was used, typically 100 ASA (ISO) because even ISO 400 film in the early days was not good enough for enlargements above 7x5

Wedding photographers would need to use very unwieldy flash equipment on just about every indoor shot to overcome the slow film needed to provide the appropriate standard of IQ

In that environment the art of flash photography was the most important factor in underpinning the quality of the indoor shots for the printed wedding album

As regards to Nigel's comments on flash; Flash is definitely under-utilised if not lost as an art today and I agree unreservedly with his comments about the creative advantages of flash particularly in the hands of a skilled exponent, which is why his recent guide to flash photography is not only very useful as a learning reference but is very important in preserving the skill and art of flash photography.

Todays wedding environment is quite different and the very dynamic and candid approach, coupled with the incredible flexibility that digital cameras offer has completely changed the style of wedding photography and the images

IQ and resolution are not a real concern anymore but as I said above lighting is a priority consideration in every shot and using a flash at a wedding is still a challenge because it requires great subtlety and skill to be done well; even more so today because modern cameras can rely on the remarkable light gathering capabilities of the sensors to give very natural lighting and we simply don't use flash very much if at all

Skilful use of flash will always be a fundamental requirement that demands high levels of competence if the result are not to degrade the image and is both unobtrusive and natural .

I have lost that skill in recent years myself and therefore feel indebted to Nigel in producing his Practical guide to Flash photography which definitely provides a means of refreshing my capabilities with the often dreaded flash gun.

But how much resolution do I need ; 16-18 mp on a full frame sensor coupled with an ultrafast prime would do me very nicely thank you

Regards

After all is said above, an interesting point, particularly from the point of view of the modern day wedding photographer, given the image sizes needed for the modern "storybook" album formats and the latest superfast primes, would be the availabilty of a 16-18mp Pentax FF; flash might become almost obsolete ?

I think these days these answer is nothing to do with prints as very few of us go above A2/3 which in film days was a little challenging but with todays sensors it is not .

I have completed a sporting gallery of several hundred framed display prints (A4, A3, A2, sizes) over the last year for two clients, with both a K5IIs and a K3, using good primes; it has been a revelation in terms of quality from both cameras

Additionally however, with resolution comes "Cropability" and frankly speaking I can't have enough of that, but whether it requires anything above 24 mp is a good question.

We already know from recent tests posted via PU regarding K3 II vs a Nikon D810 FF ( on test) that it is not a given that FF will out-perform the K3 II APS sensor on IQ

I also think that the low light capabilities of an FF sensor might not not blow a 16mp APS out of the water considering the suze of individual photocells ; so it is still somewhat of conundrum.

My first digital was a 2mp Olympus compact and I produced many standard A4 images off that with very good IQ; even an Iphone on a good day produces images that make really good A4 prints ; do many people print bigger than A4 other than specialist pros ?

Read the article still posted on PU entitled "Why An Image With Technical Merit Won't Always Cut It Any More" and that will definitely add sense to this discussion.

The answer to the original question re "How much resolution do I need" ; I would say 16mp will do it for most of us but having said that I would still buy as many pixels as I can afford because the ability to selectively make large crops brings so much more flexibility to the table.

Regards

Same problem for me; done it many times but sometimes it just hangs and won't reinitialize .

It can make no difference if you exit the site and then logon again; the "insert image function" is still cycling but not accessible.

I have tried changing image size, image type, and image source; to no avail

Then curiously, another day everything goes in fine.

Regards

Great set of pictures , very well captured by a cracking photographer using Cracking glass

Regards

Daronl