IQ wise I think it is as good as the 50-135mm and even though it is a tad slower at f4 rather than f2.8, i haven't found that to be limiting in any way.

The 60-250mm is a superb lens.

I first switched to Eneloops when I got fed up with the self discharge issue with normal NiMh cells. Eneloops have a capacity of only 2000ma/h compared to the 2750ma/h of many NiMh cells, but they did last longer in the camera (*istD & *istDS).

I now use 2100ma/h Ready-to-Go cells from 7DayShop.com and find them very good indeed, and cheaper than Eneloop.

I've just bought a *istD from a forum member and I've ordered Ready-to-Go cells for it and the AF500FTZ flash I'll be using with it.

All I can add to this thread is the same as I have in your Dunnock topic, switch to RAW, you'll be amazed at the difference it can make.

If you are not happy using RAW, use RAW + JPG. Then you can play with the RAW version and determine for yourself if the results obtained are better than in-camera JPG conversion.

Your camera/lens combination should be capable of producing superb results.

Roger,

I can agree entirely with your points 1 & 3 above, but not 2.

Unless the light is really dire, take the shot (in RAW). If it's not recoverable in post processing, you've lost nothing except a bit of time, which in my opinion is better than not taking the shot in the first place.

Take the shot and it has a chance, leave it, and it has no chance at all.

To facilitate your point 1, you might try a 1.4x, 1.7x, or 2x teleconverter. I can personally recommend the SMCP-F 1.7X AF teleconverter. not cheap at about £200 - £250 used, but worth the investment for your hobby and probably a lot cheaper than a longer focal length lens. Decent 400mm & 500mm lenses tend to be expensive.

Good luck.

My Version, Lightroom 3 only. I have purposely not reduced noise too much because it softens the main subject a tad too much. With more time, and an original RAW file, this could be made to look quite acceptable I think.




If you shot this as JPG, change to RAW, you'll have much more scope for editing.

Could you post the entire uncropped image so that we can get an idea of how much this is cropped?

Neither of these shots looks very sharp to me, which might mean they are tightly cropped.

#1: For an ISO200 shot, I think there is rather more noise in the dark area above the starling's head than I would expect, unless it is a very tight crop.

#2: Looks a little 'odd' but I can't say what is odd about it. It looks almost like a watercolour from a Victorian book of British wild birds. I think its beautiful.

To get both a male and a female blackbird in the same shot has got to be a rarity.

Well done.

I think both images might benefit from some noise reduction and sharpening.

Did you use RAW or JPG?

You can use them together in TTL Auto flash mode.

Page 47 of the manual says so.

Manual password is "Pentax" without quotes and case sensitive.

It's a Cormorant.

The main differences in appearance between a Shag and a Cormorant are:-

1: Cormorant has a white throat
2: Shag has a crest on its head
3: Shag has a steeper forehead than a Cormorant
4: Shag is smaller than a Cormorant (but that's of little help unless you see the two species together).

Remember also that males and females of most bird species look significantly different to each other and to their respective genders at various times of the year. The breeding season produces the biggest variation in appearance.

That's what I call a 'proper' welcome message. Much better and with relevance to the user. It's also limited to one post, or at least, I can't see the other 20 or so that you've greeted within a 10 minute period.

Funny how this post never gets to the top of the list. It's still straggling on page 6, yet many of JudithAnn's posts are still on page 1. Can anybody explain why that is?