I agree. Doubt it can be beaten on that budget.

-----------------------------------------
I think with a car you know where it is coming from and going to and it is big. If the falcon is close or is semi-captive again it is predictable to an extent. The biggest problem I get - and it happened today in good light is a Kestrel appears in the sky, a fair way distant, you point the camera at it and press autofocus (Continuous, but same in other modes) and you just get a hunt through blue sky, you then have to look again to see where it has gone, now out of frame and try again - if you get lucky and it finds it you can usually track it.

Thanks everyone I'll pass this on to him. I missed the K5 and K7 on the route to my K3 via other K series cameras so couldn't best advise him. I think to sum up if he wants to keep similar "feel" and features with better AF, ISO and IQ go for K5 ii or if budget is more limited then K50 will give improvements in resolution, ISO performance and Af but won't quite have the advanced features and "feel" of the K7.

A friend of mine who doesn't have money to throw around and has had a K7 for a long time is considering upgrading. I think the benefits of a K3 are fairly obvious and he is considering that but bearing in mind the price differences I was wondering if he got a K50 what would be the benefits and what might he miss compared to his K7?
Dave

I find my set up with a K3 and 300DA* great for everything except this. I have tried lots of recommended settings that I've read for continuous focus for BIF and frankly I've found it hopeless. My friend standing next to me with a Canon 700D does better every time with a SIgma 150-500 on it. The problem is that it usually can't find anything in the sky for so long it's gone. If it does find it it is slightly better than Pentax DSLR's up to K30 but not significantly. Only proviso is friend is 40 not 65 and I find that combination pretty heavy but my failure rate is so high, that if BIF were a priority of mine I would change to one of the ones that are known to be good at it. Aeroplanes - different kettle of fish - easy, works well.
I'm not giving up and there is a slight possibility that my DA* 300 doesn't have as snappy focusing as it should, although the Kingfisher pic in my gallery shows it is capable at times.
Dave

AT least Photokina gives an opportunity for DPreview to practice its anti-Pentax sarcasm!
" As you can see, there wasn't a long wait for the K-3."
... and we always bite as this poster did!

"Sorry - was that humour? True I see no people, but I don't think anyone climbing the waterfall would get to stay long - assuming you are serious. And if you're being funny it's rather sad. Why does Pentax continue to get a disproportionate number of dismissive throwaway lines from DPR staff?"

Nevertheless they did apparently completely fail to report on the Pro stand which had the 645z as well as other high end lenses and was apparently quite a crowded stand.

Thanks.

Well at least you've got some nice birds in East Suffolk at the moment to make it all worthwhile!
Dave, S.Essex

-----------------------
Nooo! I don't want parity unless it's downward! I love my Q body at your Ebay giveaway price
Dave

-------------------------------
I'm being a bit lazy but could you remind me of the theory behind this. Does this also imply that say a 300mm will give more than 3/4 the magnification that a 400mm would at the minimum focus distance?
Dave