[6BQ5]

Now you're comapring apples to oranges. Fuji doesn't have a FF.

Correct ... and this is where the argument can quickly fall apart. I think the best we can do is compare field of view and one easy number we can use is equivalent focal length.

[wed7]

I think it depends on your criteria for victory here.

For portability, telephoto reach, and AF-C tracking/performance the Fuji system wins.

For static subject photography, ultimate sharpness, and subject isolation the Pentax system wins.

I wish someone would combine the best of both into one lens and system. The Sony 200-600 is spectacularly sharp, like the Pentax, with the reach of the Fuji ... but it doesn’t always track as well as the Fuji in AF-C. I think here the deficiency is in the body, an A7R III. It comes close to being the perfect hybrid solution though. Maybe the A9 series would come closer to a Fuji X-T3.

Maybe Ricoh finally woke up with their upcoming APS flagship and will offer a worthy AF system. Maybe that new system will run the AF on the 150-450mm as if the lens was possessed by a demon!

Interesting observation you have there. Thank you.

[totsmuyco]

The different reviews of the 150-450 say it is a superb lens. The only negative point I would say is its weight. I think it's too heavy for me now.

[boriscleto]

The different reviews of the 150-450 say it is a superb lens. The only negative point I would say is its weight. I think it's too heavy for me now.

It's slightly heavier than the Sigma 150-500 but so much better wide open...Now Pentax just needs AF to match it.

[normhead]

This video completely confuses me as to why anyone watching it would ever buy the Fuji..

The Better IQ was possible with the Pentax. Noticeable uncorrectable CA with he Fuji not with the Pentax, poor AF with the Fuji, not with the Pentax. Poor build quality with the Fuji.

The Fuji with it's electronic shutter and black out for exposure losing AF during the blackout.

Ease of use, durability WR, better overall IQ, and less CA.

When actually watching the video, Fuji did not win the AF performance, in fact it exhibited a level of incompetence I would personally find completely unacceptable. I'd return it.I'm pretty sure the video would as well.

So what do we have for the Fuji? A few owner biases, with nothing to back them up.
I'm not going to go with an impression not born out by some side to side testing.

6BQ5, I can't figure out for the life of me what you're talking about. How did the Fuji AF get to be better when the video clearly shows it to be inferior? And given the difference in IQ, why would you use the Fuji over the Pentax.

The goal of a photographer is to produce the best possible quality images. While the Fuji might be marginally better at ƒ5.6, over all the Pentax at ƒ8 is better than the Fuji at both ƒ5.6 and ƒ8.

I guess if you just want a few reduced size images for facebook or whatever the Fuji is pretty good. I just don't understand why you'd settle, if AF, IQ and lack of CA is important to you.

I have no clue what you're going on about.

Just trying to make sense of the responses.

It would seem that rather than acknowledge the points made in the video, ( that the Pentax is almost certainly the better option) you are trying to get folks to ignore them.

[6BQ5]

Hey normhead,

My AF-C experience with the Fuji X-T3 + XF 100-400mm is the complete opposite of what is shown in the video. The focus tracking of the X-T3 is phenomenal, especially at closer distances where the focus would need to change much quicker than minor tweaks at or near infinity. I define my AF point and as long as I keep my subject and AF point aligned as the subject moves then the image will be in focus. This works for me on the tele XF 100-400mm lens for soccer games where I am far away and the wider XF 16-55mm when I'm in the middle of the action or scene. Just be sure to turn off OIS in the lens. It plays havoc with panning. I have lost countless shots and countless bursts on my K-1 because the AF-C hesitated, got confused, or simply couldn't lock on.

A simple example. Stand in one spot. Have a kid ride their bike across you, from left to right, 15 to 20 feet in front of you. Your task is to capture the burst of the rider as they go past you. The rider must fill up the whole frame. So, during your pan you will need to zoom out as they come toward you and zoom in as they leave you. My K-1 cannot keep up with the AF-C demands or frame rate required for something as simple as that whereas the Fuji can eat that for lunch and still be hungry for more. My Sony A7R III can come close to the Fuji. I honestly don't know how Fuji managed to create that kind of tech but they did.

When it comes to static subjects the K-1 has no problem with AF-S other than the usual front/back focus if you're not calibrated.

I honestly wish the AF-C in the K-1 was as snappy and responsive as the X-T3. The few perfectly tack sharp images that do come out from a K-1's burst are amazing! Yes, the D-FA 150-450mm is a superb lens. Period, end of statement. It beats out the Fuji XF 100-400mm at equivalent field of view in terms of optical performance. The K-1 having 36 MP only adds insult to injury for the Fuji. Oddly enough, it's only the XF 100-400 that is so weak. The XF 16-55mm and XF 50-140mm are much, much better. Makes me think a bean counter at Fuji ran the project for the XF 100-400mm whereas photographers ran the other two lens developments.

I'm going to add this disclaimer now. The X-T3's AF-C performance works perfectly for me. Maybe it won't work perfectly for others depending on the subject matter, camera settings, and the scene itself. If whatever you have doesn't work for you then change what you use. If it works then keep using it and enjoy it. I use the Fuji and Sony for action and the Pentax for static or sort of static shots. The A7R III is slowly creeping into what I consider K-1 territory but K-mount lenses still beat out a lot of the FE offering when it comes to rendering.

[normhead]

My AF-C experience with the Fuji X-T3 + XF 100-400mm is the complete opposite of what is shown in the video.

Show us, we wait with baited breath. This guy has his cameras there I think he knows what he's talking about. And why do you keep comparing to a K-1? When I'm taking the kinds of shots you're talking about I use a K-3 at 8 FPS and single point focus. You keep going on about stuff that is possibly only relevant to you. DO you want good pictures or do you want easier to take worse pictures. Your choice seems to be, I'll take the easy route and suffer with second rate. That's not a choice I encourage myself, but then, you aren't talking to me. Your shooting scenarios are so rare in my shooting I'd never buy a camera for them.

The thing for me is, the guy in the video is taking the kinds of shots I take every day. I don't even know what your comparison is based on. In my experience most on the fly AF-c images are pretty much garbage. In or out of focus.

The other on-line video showing a K-1 against Canon and a Nikon with a 24-70 saw the K-1 hold it's own in AF. What I'm seeing would be that every time someone has actually done a real test, the K-1/K-3 do really well. Every time the reviewer has done no comparisons it does really poorly. Your "review" is just another one to add to that narrative.

---

Last edited by normhead; 10-09-2019 at 01:21 PM.

[6BQ5]

Show us, we wait with baited breath. This guy has his cameras there I think he knows what he's talking about. And why do you keep comparing to a K-1? When I'm taking the kinds of shots you're talking about I use a K-3 at 8 FPS and single point focus. You keep going on about stuff that is possibly only relevant to you. DO you want good pictures or do you want easier to take worse pictures. Your choice seems to be, I'll take the easy route and suffer with second rate. That's not a choice I encourage myself, but then, you aren't talking to me. Your shooting scenarios are so rare in my shooting I'd never buy a camera for them.

The thing for me is, the guy in the video is taking the kinds of shots I take every day. I don't even know what your comparison is based on. In my experience most on the fly AF-c images are pretty much garbage. In or out of focus.

The other on-line video showing a K-1 against Canon and a Nikon with a 24-70 saw the K-1 hold it's own in AF. What I'm seeing would be that every time someone has actually done a real test, the K-1/K-3 do really well. Every time the reviewer has done no comparisons it does really poorly. Your "review" is just another one to add to that narrative.

Wows, lots of good stuff to reply to! This is why I love your posts.

You asked for pictures. Here is one from my Fuji. This is my son playing soccer. It was shot wide open if I remember correctly. This image comes from a 12 frame burst and the burst speed is set to medium. OIS is turned off. Shutter speed is 1/2000 to ensure the image is frozen.



Obviously, the forum albums have restrictions on image and file size but I think the overall sharpness and quality can be conveyed. Here is a 100% crop of the face. Mind you, I already cropped the image down from 26 MP to reframe the image. So, it's a crop of a crop.



The sensor noise is pretty high and the face is in the shadows. Running the shutter at 1/2000 is kind of tough on the sensor. Still, it's generally very sharp, especially if the lens really is wide open.

Here's another shot of my son playing soccer. Different game, different camera. This was shot with the A7R III in burst mode, medium speed as well.



Here is the 100% crop of the face.



Higher ISO hurts the A7R III too but not as much as it does the X-T3. Again, the hair is very sharp .

You asked why do I compare against a K-1? A couple reasons. First, it's the best Pentax body I have. I gave away my K-3 and I don't have a KP. Second, it's the flagship camera and I want to compare flagship to flagship. The X-T3 is about $1300 new, the K-1 Mk II is $1800 new, and the A7R III is about $2500 new. The KP is about $800 new. I got these prices from Adorama.

You asked if I wanted good pictures or if I wanted it easier to take worse pictures? I want it easier to take good pictures. The route I took leverages technology where it can be leveraged to get the best picture for the scenarios I find myself in most often. My job is to know how to frame the moment and when to press the shutter button ... not what twist of the wrist I need to press the button. The camera's job is to focus, cycle the shutter, and write the image to the SD as fast as possible so it's ready for the next moment.

Why are your on the fly AF-C shots garbage? Do you mean from a technical perspective like focus accuracy or from a composition perspective like framing?

I don't mean to say the K-1 is completely incapable of capture action. It simply has a much harder time doing so. When I had a K-3 I found that it did OK but it wasn't as capable as today's modern offerings. That's progress.

I'm really looking forward to the upcoming APS flagship RIcoh could be releasing soon. There's a thread in the Rumor section with more posts than I can shake a monopod at. Maybe that body will have a powerhouse AF system with an infinite buffer that clears infinitely fast by writing infinitely fast to the SD cards.

[totsmuyco]

Wows, lots of good stuff to reply to! This is why I love your posts.

You asked for pictures. Here is one from my Fuji. This is my son playing soccer. It was shot wide open if I remember correctly. This image comes from a 12 frame burst and the burst speed is set to medium. OIS is turned off. Shutter speed is 1/2000 to ensure the image is frozen.



Obviously, the forum albums have restrictions on image and file size but I think the overall sharpness and quality can be conveyed. Here is a 100% crop of the face. Mind you, I already cropped the image down from 26 MP to reframe the image. So, it's a crop of a crop.



The sensor noise is pretty high and the face is in the shadows. Running the shutter at 1/2000 is kind of tough on the sensor. Still, it's generally very sharp, especially if the lens really is wide open.

Here's another shot of my son playing soccer. Different game, different camera. This was shot with the A7R III in burst mode, medium speed as well.



Here is the 100% crop of the face.



Higher ISO hurts the A7R III too but not as much as it does the X-T3. Again, the hair is very sharp .

You asked why do I compare against a K-1? A couple reasons. First, it's the best Pentax body I have. I gave away my K-3 and I don't have a KP. Second, it's the flagship camera and I want to compare flagship to flagship. The X-T3 is about $1300 new, the K-1 Mk II is $1800 new, and the A7R III is about $2500 new. The KP is about $800 new. I got these prices from Adorama.

You asked if I wanted good pictures or if I wanted it easier to take worse pictures? I want it easier to take good pictures. The route I took leverages technology where it can be leveraged to get the best picture for the scenarios I find myself in most often. My job is to know how to frame the moment and when to press the shutter button ... not what twist of the wrist I need to press the button. The camera's job is to focus, cycle the shutter, and write the image to the SD as fast as possible so it's ready for the next moment.

Why are your on the fly AF-C shots garbage? Do you mean from a technical perspective like focus accuracy or from a composition perspective like framing?

I don't mean to say the K-1 is completely incapable of capture action. It simply has a much harder time doing so. When I had a K-3 I found that it did OK but it wasn't as capable as today's modern offerings. That's progress.

I'm really looking forward to the upcoming APS flagship RIcoh could be releasing soon. There's a thread in the Rumor section with more posts than I can shake a monopod at. Maybe that body will have a powerhouse AF system with an infinite buffer that clears infinitely fast by writing infinitely fast to the SD cards.

Nice pics. I sure do hope that the new APSC camera will handle this lens well.

I still find it heavy that's why I don't plan to get.

[bdery]

This thread is turning into a heated argument. I think part of the answer is this.

Just be sure to turn off OIS in the lens. It plays havoc with panning. I have lost countless shots and countless bursts on my K-1 because the AF-C hesitated, got confused, or simply couldn't lock on.

It's fantastic that you found the exact settings which let you take wonderful pictures with your equipment.

The key seems to be to disable image stabilisation. It sounds plausible that the video guy didn't do that. In that case, his observations and yours align.

With that in mind, it doesn't seem reasonable to expect AF and image stabilisation to be mutually exclusive. With my cameras, I fully expect to have access to both at the same time, and to not have to bother turning SR off when tracking AF.

So there. I think that's the explanation. And to me it says the Fuji system is lacking.

[normhead]

I didn't ask for pictures. I would expect any camera to take pictures. My favourite action shot of myself was taken by a press reporter in 1966 with a view camera. I asked for side by side comparisons demonstrating the lack of utility of the K-1 or K-3, preferably a K-3.

It's your assertion that you can't do the same with preferably a K-3 that I question. Several points, the frame rate of the K-1 is too slow for action. The K-3 in AF-s at 8FPS is more than adequate. You aren't shooting side by side and comparing. The funny thing reading your stuff is with a K-1 and a K-3 I find the K-1 less satisfactory for sports or action. So even if you Fuji is better than a K-1 which I don't doubt for action, the K-1 is field camera, you're still not using the Pentax that would be best for that purpose.

This has been pointed out repeatedly, and you seem to have blind spot as far as that's concerned.

So my point is, you comments are relevant only to those shooting with a K-1 and a Fuji.

So you've shown what you can do with your Fuji.

But I shoot a K-3 and a K-1, and I don't see how your info is relevant to anyone but a person with the same hardware as yourself. And I would expect someone shooting a Canon or a Nikon to have a similar bias towards their equipment.

You showed what the Fuji could do. You didn't show what the Pentax could do. But there's a whole thread on that.

The question is not can you take good images with a Fuji. The question for me is why couldn't you take them with your K-3. Lots of other people can.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/38-photographic-technique/275291-sports-...ml#post4725573

I always scratch my head when people tell me they can't do what others seem to do every day.

[6BQ5]

The key seems to be to disable image stabilisation. It sounds plausible that the video guy didn't do that. In that case, his observations and yours align.

With that in mind, it doesn't seem reasonable to expect AF and image stabilisation to be mutually exclusive. With my cameras, I fully expect to have access to both at the same time, and to not have to bother turning SR off when tracking AF.

So there. I think that's the explanation. And to me it says the Fuji system is lacking.

I agree 100% here. Fuji's image stabilization in its lenses is extremely lacking when it comes to action. The SR inside a Pentax is awesome! Sony's comes close and sometimes I wonder if there's some sort of tech licensing agreement between Ricoh and Sony. Sony accommodates for panning without any need to turn off image stabilization.

I don't know how well or not the in-body stabilization inside the X-H1 works. Living in Nevada and being surrounded by casinos, I wouldn't bet on the X-H1 coming close to what you find in the K-1. I've lost a few shots on the X-T3 because I forgot to turn off the OIS in the XF 100-400. It feels like the lens element in the barrel oscillates left to right super fast and the resulting image is blurry/smeared horizontally. Kind of a weird effect. Once OIS is turned off the images are perfectly frozen when using high shutter speeds.

I didn't ask for pictures. I would expect any camera to take pictures. My favourite action shot of myself was taken by a press reporter in 1966 with a view camera. I asked for side by side comparisons demonstrating the lack of utility of the K-1 or K-3, preferably a K-3.

Norm!

I haven't used my K-1 to take action shots of kids running since I got the Fuji X-T3 so I will need to dig through my archive. Unfortunately, I trashed almost all the duds from the K-1 so my chances of finding fuzzy photos is slim. It's been even longer since I gave away my K-3 and those images could be just as hard to find. Let me see what I can dig up and show. Now, if you want to send me a K-3 via overnight mail for tomorrow's Walk-a-Thon then I'm all game for another side-by-side.

It's your assertion that you can't do the same with preferably a K-3 that I question. Several points, the frame rate of the K-1 is too slow for action. The K-3 in AF-s at 8FPS is more than adequate. You aren't shooting side by side and comparing. The funny thing reading your stuff is with a K-1 and a K-3 I find the K-1 less satisfactory for sports or action. So even if you Fuji is better than a K-1 which I don't doubt for action, the K-1 is field camera, you're still not using the Pentax that would be best for that purpose.

Hmmm ... "assertion" may not be the right words. It's been my "experience" that a K-3 or a K-1 cannot do the same like a Fuji X-T3 or A7R III. Going further, I should preface this applies to my type of photography in my particular settings.

You mentioned the K-1 is a field camera. As field camera, I found the AF-S and initial AF-C focusing performance in the K-1 to be superior to that in the K-3. There was less hesitation to lock and confirm focus in the K-1. I still felt there was too much latency in lifting the mirror and cycling the shutter but that is probably just me being me and a DSLR being a DSLR. Unfortunately, the latency and cycle time gave enough time for my subjects to move out of focus. I mean, you can't focus while the mirror is going up, right? It was enough time such that even if focus was locked on the face at 10 feet that the face proceeded to move out of focus to 8 feet and now the feet/knees are at 10 feet. So, I had quite a number of shots where the face is fuzzy and the knees and footwear are perfectly focused. Shots of people further way, like 20 - 30 feet turned out better because DoF is increased.

I would use the D-FA 24-70mm f/2.8 which didn't help. The DA 18-135mm focuses noticeably faster and I heard the PLM power 55-300mm zoom is even faster.

I also noticed that the AF-C algorithm in the Pentax bodies need a significant amount of "out of focus" detection before triggering a new focusing movement. I could work around this by goosing the AF button constantly and forcing a manual triggering of the focusing. That helped quite a bit.

The focal length would average between 40-50mm and I would typically shoot at f/5.6 or so.

That was not a front/back focus issue. Group shots of kids standing still together are perfect, perfect, perfect. A K-1 with the FA 43mm makes for magical shots that printed beautifully!

This has been pointed out repeatedly, and you seem to have blind spot as far as that's concerned.

Nope, no blind spot here ... just a fuzzy images somewhere in my C1 archives.

So my point is, you comments are relevant only to those shooting with a K-1 and a Fuji.

Perhaps ... and, to those who shoot fast moving, unpredictable action up close.

So you've shown what you can do with your Fuji.

Actually, that's what the Fuji can do by itself. It's almost self-aware.

But I shoot a K-3 and a K-1, and I don't see how your info is relevant to anyone but a person with the same hardware as yourself. And I would expect someone shooting a Canon or a Nikon to have a similar bias towards their equipment

You showed what the Fuji could do. You didn't show what the Pentax could do. But there's a whole thread on that.

The question is not can you take good images with a Fuji. The question for me is why couldn't you take them with your K-3. Lots of other people can.
Sports photography - single images - Page 35 - PentaxForums.com

Lots of good pictures in there! So, in that thread, post # 511, shows a football player in white reaching out to a player in blue. Looks like he grabbed the other player's helmet. I would consider that shot to be a technical failure where the AF goofed. Why are the bleacher in perfect focus? When performing a burst I would get a lot of images looking like that.

I could do a burst of 15 to 20 shots at close distance with the XF 16-55mm or farther distance with the XF 100-400mm and every single one of them are pin point sharp, like the samples I showed above. I don't have to worry about missing an awesome shot like the football player I mentioned above. Yes, that would be a missed shot in my book. The only thing I have to worry about is facial expressions and picking the perfect moment within the burst. In some ways, I wonder if the bursts of shots are now blurring the line between photography and "still videography". I can almost play those shots back and see a quasi-movie. It's actually kind of weird to see.

I always scratch my head when people tell me they can't do what others seem to do every day.

I never said it was impossible. Your referenced thread proves it. I'm just saying it's harder to do with a Pentax than with a competitor's body.

And, I want to say here that I'm not trying to be argumentative for the sake of arguing. The older CCD sensors in the *ist bodies and the CMOS sensors in the K-30 are super special. I do regret letting go of my K-3 because it was a fun camera to photograph static subjects with. Honestly, I hope the upcoming APS flagship catches up to the modern day offerings from competitors when it comes to SD card write performance, bugger depth, shutter cycle times, AF-C tuning, etc. Pentax bodies are built like none other. They, along with cockroaches and Kodachrome film, will be all that survives a nuclear war. Fuji and Sony bodies are nowhere as tough and well built and they will be part of the ash the surviving members of the human race walk on.

[normhead]

I could do a burst of 15 to 20 shots at close distance with the XF 16-55mm or farther distance with the XF 100-400mm and every single one of them are pin point sharp, like the samples I showed above. I don't have to worry about missing an awesome shot like the football player I mentioned above. Yes, that would be a missed shot in my book. The only thing I have to worry about is facial expressions and picking the perfect moment within the burst. In some ways, I wonder if the bursts of shots are now blurring the line between photography and "still videography". I can almost play those shots back and see a quasi-movie. It's actually kind of weird to see.

Ya, we do the same thing.

But you're still missing what I'm asking for.
Side be side, taken in the same circumstances, like the posted video that showed Fuji AF to be inferior to Pentax AF.

Why are the bleacher in perfect focus?

SO what you're saying is is you never have the camera focus on the background instead of the foreground. Ever.

You don't have to aim the camera, it just knows what you're thinking. As long s the subject is in the frame the camera focuses on the guy you want.

I've never heard such a claim before from anyone with any camera.

[6BQ5]

Ya, we do the same thing.

But you're still missing what I'm asking for.
Side be side, taken in the same circumstances, like the posted video that showed Fuji AF to be inferior to Pentax AF.

Let me see what I can pull together between my K-1 and the X-T3 over the next week or so. Maybe I can pull it off.

SO what you're saying is is you never have the camera focus on the background instead of the foreground. Ever.

Yes, it will never focus accidentally on the background instead of the foreground. The camera has some configuration settings available to you so you can customize how it interprets 3D space. It can be set to focus on the closest object it finds. I found that Pentax's AF system seems to default to focusing on the furthest point or to infinity. The football player shot I referenced in the thead you linked us to is a perfect example. As long as I can pan and generally keep my subject and AF points align the camera will never focus on the background. I've even lost alignment a few times but recovered fast enough to keep focus. Of course, the AF-C sensitivity can be configured to your taste.
I believe Nikon and Canon have had this too for a long time under their own moniker.

You don't have to aim the camera, it just knows what you're thinking. As long s the subject is in the frame the camera focuses on the guy you want.

Well, I do have to aim the camera. While it may be somewhat self-away like a Terminator, it's not a self propelled flying drone. I don't use the AF-A or Auto Zone settings. Supposedly they are pretty good.

I've never heard such a claim before from anyone with any camera.

There's a first time for everything.

[surfar]

like the posted video that showed Fuji AF to be inferior to Pentax AF.

All his video shows is that "WHATSUPYOUTUBE" doesn't know how to use a Fuji!