All the pictures here do actually have EXIF data. (I use the FxIF extension in Firefox to show it if available.)

I've had a look through them myself. A mixed bunch, if I may say so!

They all look to have been taken at full aperture which doesn't offer the sharpest resolution, and limits the depth of field so the images must be focussed spot on at those focal lengths.

I think your sharpness concern could be partly down to camera shake. I presume you have the shake option turned on if you were hand holding? Telephoto shots are prone to suffer from this. Ways to overcome it are either to use a tripod and/or up the ISO. You were only using ISO 200 so could have gained a stop or two going up to 400 or even 800. Using f8 would have been better than using f5.6 and halving the shutter speed would have overcome some of the camera shake. If you needed more depth of field then stop down even further - you have to decide as the camera hasn't really got a clue what you are doing, despite all the electronics in it.

I think the dog and white swam head pictures have suffered from camera shake. More practice at holding the camera steady at 1/400 sec required! However the black swan looks sharp (at least the bill does), just lacks a bit of depth of field and critical focussing on the eyes.

The football photos are interesting. Good action shots and look sharper than the animal photos. Not sure what the footballer in the first one in the yellow top would think about his head being chopped off though! The second football one looks quite good to me. Reasonably sharp and good composition. I'm not sure what to make of the third one with the hoody looking on at the lone player. Shame you cut their feet off, otherwise it would be really good.

For the runner photo you managed a slighly faster exposure of 1/640 sec and it looks a lot sharper - I suspect less camera shake!

Maybe it was your intention, but the lion statue just looks to be a silhouette unless its my monitor set a bit dark. If you have a RAW file for that you may find you can bring out some more detail in it, if you so wish.

The last duckling picture looks to have the mother duck in focus, but not the duckling which I presume is the subject of the photo. This is probably due to allowing the camera to select the focus point rather than doing it yourself. The bill on the duck does look to be sharp though, but probably not what you intended.

It can be quite tricky to get sharp pictures with normal lenses but it often doesn't show up so much. Put on a long telephoto and it is much harder to get sharp photos. If you have the auto pattern focussing turned on consider trying the centre spot setting instead. You can control the point of focus better. So focus first, and then recompose and take the picture. The camera is likely to choose something other than what you want for its focus point, like when it missed the duckling completely!

Hope that helps a little.

John

Pleased you had a good night.

John

Thanks for that update. They are amazingly sharp - spot on. Mind the lens would have good DOF (it's not like the Sigma for that) and a good way of getting the close ups along with your bags of seeds and peanuts and other treats!

I think you might find an RF remote useful so you can get even further away.


I thought that but wasn't going to say it!!

Yes, you're really lucky having those on your doorstep.

John

Looking at comments on that www.sirimo.co.uk site, linked to above, is one by their expert, Linda where she is confirming where it is OK to take photos, she states, "if the people involved are in a public place and not engaged in an activity of an essentially private nature....."
The implication being that if the activity is of a private nature then it could infringe their right to privacy. I suspect that isn't the case here, given its taking place a public park, but could it have been? Could members of the public sit and watch unhindered? If it was private as he said then surely no one would be welcomed to watch - photographers or otherwise!

Perhaps they need to get a new venue if they wish to play unsighted.

Just think of all the cricket matches that get played on village greens all round the country each weekend - can you imagine a ban on taking photos at these?

Perhaps that chap is after a job at Golden Wonder? Must come from the same ilk.

John

So that's what the red dot/button on top of it is for - to make it eligible for the Red Dot award! Cunning.

It might win the Green Dot award as well in that case, whenever that is.

John

I thought that too when I looked earlier. They're all very nice photos, well done that author.

John

Some may see it as whinging, others may see it as dropping hints

John

According to here it is Full Frame but as I haven't a Full Frame Pentax DSLR to try it on I cannot confirm that.

John

Google shopping seems to have SRS showing the best price for one at present, apart from Jessops who, as you say, are showing it as being unavailable! You shouldn't go wrong buying it from SRS and it will have a two year guarantee whereas only one year from Jessops.

You might find someone here who purchased several before Christmas from Amazon (who were doing a really good deal on them at the time) and now wishes to part with one. I actually bought just one myself and do not wish to part with it!

John

If the Pentax PR lady is still viewing - and was pleased to see she posted here again today - I feel sure she should know the best contacts within the company to feed that sort of information back to. Certainly better (I suspect) than any of us would. It would be helpful if the site also gave contact details for their Web Team to deal with such issues.

John