Wise words.

Get back behind that viewfinder asap, be strong.

+1 to that. Even if I (god forbid) eventually ended up buying a different brand for the ff and wide angle zoom.

It isn't. The African plains don't slope and neither do cloud bases.

+1. Unforgivable.

These may be of interest as they are similar subjects taken with a similar setup and at similar settings. Pentax K5 and DA55-300. Respectively 1/1600th, 1/1000th and 1/800th. I certainly think the 55-300 is an adequate lens, especially for the price. Autofocus has improved since my K5 but nonetheless I think it's ok - I found the opposite to you, the keeper rate being high. I mostly use my camera on manual setttings in any case now, as I think I can guess the settings better than the camera can. My advice would be to use whatever you are most comfortable with as that plays a big part. If you think what you are using is inferior then the results will be inferior as frustration will override technique. I have though seen a few photographers switch brand because of frustration for one reason or another. They invariably think that the new kit is much better. Sometimes it is, especially where a vast injection of cash is involved. Mostly though I think they are under a misapprehension and their results remain about the same. In the worst case the 'upgrade' leads to more frustration and the hobby goes out the window.













Here's a 100% crop for those that enjoy a little pixel peep. It could be better, but how much better does it need to be? Incremental benefits get very expensive so for regularly incomed amateur togs there has to be a 'that'll do' point.





I found that at 300mm then the 55-300 didn't handle strong contrast that well - it gave smeary edges with bright whites so that could be an issue for bird photography. So my that'll do point came with the DA*300. It gives me excellent results that I don't see need to be any sharper - they are simply good enough, certainly for what my eyes can resolve.

Good luck with whatever you end up using.

I am pretty sure that the FALtds will be no bigger, no more expensive and no heavier on a full frame camera.

Very interesting, thanks for that.

No-one ever said that APS-C or 4/3 or whatever format wasn't capable of great images. In fact for telephoto work then smaller formats have a crop factor advantage. Most arguments for full frame are a lot more rational than 'it's better'.

It depends what you mean by competition. There are cameras with larger sensors and lower pixel density which trounce the low light iso performance of the K5. In relative terms the K5 is very good, but in absolute terms there are big improvements available. Hopefully the Pentax full frame will provide a sensible balance between pixel count and low light noise.

Gary, I would really like to hear of the experiences that you outline above so if you get a chance to outline these somewhere I will be watching. In the light of the official ff acknowledgement I think your views are very valuable.