[bxf]

I have found the LV focus to be slower but more accurate than using the focusing screen.

I have difficulty getting used to holding a camera at arms' length. I suppose this would work for me when using a tripod.

AF on my Olympus OM-E M10 is far more accurate and just as fast than than the one on my K-3

This is a surprise, as I've been surmising that with Pentax, AF speed is the problem, not accuracy.

MF using the green light is not more reliable than AF.

And this is mainly the info what I was after, and also what I expected.

Get some Pentax DA primes, they don't have to be limited primes but you will like them if you get them. The FA primes tend to have lower focus accuracy than their DA counterparts

Too late...

[bxf]

I have O-ME53 diopter on my viewfinder.

I have an O-ME53 and a S-Type focussing screen.

I've had the very high quality Hua Guang 1.3x VF magnifier on my cameras for several years - permanently attached.

Does one see the entire frame with these gadgets?

---------- Post added 04-09-15 at 03:07 ----------

(I wasn't as good at it as Brandenburg, but my comedic excuse is I was in northern New Mexico at the time, not Minnesota.

Yeah, that is surely it

---------- Post added 04-09-15 at 03:11 ----------

magnification on the screen is (said) much better on k3 or ks2. Adam confirmed new pentad cameras magnifies the image from what sensor sees, not just enlarge the small JPG generated for review, as all older pentax cameras do. That is one of the reasons I bought KS2. still waiting for delivery...
But, I still like to hold the camera close to my face and use OVF. I don't feel steady enough without the extra support from my forehead and nose. reaching the camera out at ram distance is still point and shoot style for me.
I found the EES screen is very fast, and split screen is very accurate if you calibrate them. Little bit challenging for very wide lens because everything is so small, but AF or focus peeking struggles here also. DOV is larger though.

I'm with you on preferring to hold the body against my face. I'm still on the K-5, so a bit out of date. I can't wait to see what Pentax springs on us with the the upcoming FF, and perhaps the rumoured APS-C next year, maybe...

[hks_kansei]

Autofocus I find sometimes gets confused, and often focusses just off what I want (more so with a fast lens)

I can't stand multipoint AF, I find that it does nothing but focus on everything you dont care about, so I always have my camera set to centre point AF if I use it.


Generally though I prefer manual focus, since the lenses feel nicer to use (most AF lenses are a bit plasticy..)
I only own one AF lens, the Sigma 18-50 kit lens that came with my *istDS

Everything else is manual focus

[aldorp]

This is a surprise, as I've been surmising that with Pentax, AF speed is the problem, not accuracy.

I guess it depends on the type of photography you do. I do portraits and weddings so speed is not nearly as important as accuracy (most of the time at least). Now if I were a sports photographer I would want 100 fps and super accurate C-AF but I would also have the fastest and longest lenses I could get by donating some part of my anatomy.

Sure, there are moments in a wedding that you want a lot of pictures but is all about that ONE picture. For me not missing that ONE is all I care about. I have lost count of how many pictures looked good on the preview screen only to go to Lightroom and see things were no in perfect focus.

I guess what I'm saying is that MF is better but it takes me too long to properly setup for the pictures I shoot. On the other hand I can live with the delay of LV.

I will also say that the implementation of MF on the micro 4/3 is much better BUT most of their lenses focus by wire (no tactile feedback). On the other hand you can set them up to just "touch" the focus ring and they go into manual focus and an enlarged image shows on the screen. It is SOO much better and so seamless. Ironically I don't use it as much because my Olympus can also focus on 1 or 2 of the eyes of your subject, no, not only the face, a single freaking EYE. I love Pentax but it is the their AF system is what makes me shoot weddings with both Pentax and Olympus cameras. I just need the best AF for those can't miss moments.

[Bromberger]

Does one see the entire frame with these gadgets?

For me, with the O-ME53 i see the whole frame, just barely.
But i can imagine that if you have a little more protruding eyebrow or longer nose that it might be different.

The S-Type screen has no effect on how much of the frame you can see.

[jbondo]

I am a heavy manual focus shooter in available light. I do a lot of low light, concert, astro, and and nature photography. Sometimes I use AF for a moment to rapidly get focus close and then start working in MF. I typically use live view to achieve critical focus, and then once focused, turn off the live view and shoot through the OVF.

For me, with the O-ME53 i see the whole frame, just barely.

Me too. I stopped using it because it requires exact eye placement to see the whole frame.

Originally posted by aldorp Quote MF using the green light is not more reliable than AF. And this is mainly the info what I was after, and also what I expected.

Same here.

The S-Type screen has no effect on how much of the frame you can see.

These are a godsend for lenses like a 50/1.2 85/1.4 or 135/1.8 S-Type screens are extremely helpful for manual-only focusing with very fast lenses, but they are of no help with lenses =>F2.8 due to the way the work.

[ChristianRock]

I love focusing manually. Having said that, when taking pictures of people, I need AF. They just move too fast, I can't keep up

And I use my K20D's standard screen for focusing manually. I find that my eyes are probably still good enough to use it - some lenses are easier than others. I tend to get rid of the ones that aren't easy to focus. My M 50 1.7, the A 70-210 f4, the Rikenon 50 1.4 and the Rikenon 28 2.8 are all easy to focus. My Sears (Ricoh) 50 1.7 was the easiest to focus because the picture just became "3D" when it was in focus - I already regret having sold it recently - I always ended up preferring the other 50s due to the harsh bokeh of the Sears.

My Sears (Ricoh) 50 f2 was particularly hard to focus due to the short throw and neutral contrast wide open (even though it was very sharp). So I sold it. K 55 f2 is not that easy to focus in bright light either, I don't know why, probably also lack of contrast wide open. I keep it to use it stopped down where it is phenomenal.

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

Does one see the entire frame with these gadgets?[COLOR="Silver"]

Regarding the more generic 1.3x (Hua Guang) OVF magnifier, you see the entire screen area pretty easily assuming you aren't wearing glasses. The magnifier actually gives you some relief from nose against rear screen, and the eyecup is far more ergonomic than the standard one. This unit is considerably superior optically, in coatings, and a more useful magnification than the Pentax version (which I used to sell decades ago). I can't think of an under-$50 accessory having anywhere need as much added value as the 1.3x (not the variable magnifier, and avoid the KPS).

[Bromberger]

Me too. I stopped using it because it requires exact eye placement to see the whole frame.

Ok. Myself, i have no problem seeing the whole frame.

---------- Post added 09-04-15 at 10:35 PM ----------

Regarding the more generic 1.3x (Hua Guang) OVF magnifier

a more useful magnification than the Pentax version

Interesting. But isn't the Pentax magnifier also 1.3x? Then how is the magnification of the Hua Guang more useful?

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

Ok. Myself, i have no problem seeing the whole frame.

---------- Post added 09-04-15 at 10:35 PM ----------




Interesting. But isn't the Pentax magnifier also 1.3x? Then how is the magnification of the Hua Guang more useful?

I generally see the O-ME53 specified at 1.2x. At one time, I recall it was estimated at 1.23x. The Hua Guang is noticeably more magnification, a larger eyepiece, and has almost no edge distortion. Of course, that recollection of the Pentax was from several years ago, and I'm yet to hear from anyone who has both for direct comparison purposes. Bromberger, you could be the one!

[bxf]

Thanks guys for all the input.