Extra Reach Of The K5

[Ron Kruger]

I was driving home from bow hunting the other morning and spotted a couple of eagles sitting on the far side of a lake. I pulled over to watch them a bit. It was raining, and they were way too far for my 200mm, so I was scouting their movements and possible places to set up over there for a future shot. Then it occurred to me to test the extra MPs and noise capabilities of the K5. Even though the light was low, I was able to get 500th sec. and F-3.5 by bumping the ISO to 400. The original shot is the first one below.
Then I cropped that shot quite a bit, probably equalling the FL of 400mm or more--and I'm quite impressed with how well it held up.

[Pacerr]

Oh, surely not ISO 400?! say it ain't so, Ron.  You're on a slippery slope.

That eagle pix would make one heck of a jigsaw puzzle.

H2

[Ron Kruger]

I know. I'm almost embarrassed. But 400 on the K5 is as good as 100 on the K20D--maybe better. I was actually willing to go as high as 800, but I got a good shutter speed and apature without getting too silly. The detail and lack of noise at this serious crop and higher ISO is very impressive. I've also noticed from this and other shots with it, that the K5 does a better job of producing quality images in low light than any camera I've owned, which is probably due to the expanded DR range.

[davidhampshire]

nice ,   ron;     i think you could even go way past iso 400 with this camera

[Ron Kruger]

I agree David, but from tests I conducted, for the purposes of publications, which are much more demanding than posting to the internet, I consider 800 about the max. My practice is to shoot everything at the lowest ISO possible according to available light. It's not just noise, but everything is better at lower ISOs.

[davidhampshire]

ron,   i think we each need one of those da*300 f4's   ......     i've seen a lot of great shots with that lens,   i wonder which is more practical,  that or the da 60-250.   expensive stuff though.      dave

[tcom]

Nice photos, Ron.

You are right, with the 16MP the K-5 allows some more cropping if needed and the high iso capabilities have been greatly improved. These two points together do allow some extra reach or at least possibilities to take photos where you would not have been able to take with a previous model.

I do have to say that I do now use the K-5 for a year and it truly is a wonderful camera. It will be the first time that Pentax would need to bring really good arguments to get me on the K-5 replacement. The K-5 fits my needs perfectly and when I do really need a fast AF or even better high ISO performance, I can still use the D3s, but I do much prefer to use the K-5, lighter, better user interface, lighter lenses, quieter and most of all, better image quality (at lower iso).

[spyglass]

Holly Crap T-man....... 400 ISO...... what were you thinking man    You must be like the "Evel Knievel" of the Nature Magazine Publishing world, making the jump from small curb sized ISO values to large bus sized ISO. What's next, the Snake River Canyon of ISO.... 51200 ISO 



Spyglass

[blackcloudbrew]

Spyman, 1) that's very funny, and 2) you have too much time on your hands...

Earl

[Frogfish]

ron,   i think we each need one of those da*300 f4's   ......     i've seen a lot of great shots with that lens,   i wonder which is more practical,  that or the da 60-250.   expensive stuff though.      dave

I tried a head to head between those two lenses before I bought the 300 (for birding). Both are superb lenses but the 300 is simply stunning. The 60-250 gets a little softer at 250 and it's noticeably sharper at 220-230 so you are better off cropping from 220-230 to the FoV of 250 if that is what you need. The 300 is a touch faster focusing and sharper and works wonderfully with the AFA x1.7.

That said I'm still thinking of adding the 60-250 for my trip down to NZ to visit my sister next year, it's still a superb lens.

[kshapero]

Hellicious cool, man.

[Ron Kruger]

I tried a head to head between those two lenses before I bought the 300 (for birding). Both are superb lenses but the 300 is simply stunning. The 60-250 gets a little softer at 250 and it's noticeably sharper at 220-230 so you are better off cropping from 220-230 to the FoV of 250 if that is what you need. The 300 is a touch faster focusing and sharper and works wonderfully with the AFA x1.7.

That said I'm still thinking of adding the 60-250 for my trip down to NZ to visit my sister next year, it's still a superb lens.

There are a couple of reasons I chose the 200 over the 300 when I switched to Pentax. The most important was f-2.8. I shoot real wildlife, not backyard stuff or zoos or guided trips to Africa, so most of my opportunities come during lower light situations. F-4 just isn't fast enough. The other is that I learned from a lot of experience that the closer you get to your subject the better. I know how to get close and enjoy the hunting part of it.
However, I might reconsider the 300 now, because I'm getting about two extra stops with the K5. That sort of levels the playing field, but, and this is a big but, despite the K5 making the 300 more practical for me, I still can get one more stop with the 200 over the 300 and shoot even further into fading light. The 200 is great at f-2.8, but it is stellar when stopped down one or two, and the extra ISO capabilities of the K5 let me do that more often.
And thank you Ksharpero.