[BruceBanner]

New vid (in response to Snappiness); Pentax, it's PLM or Die!

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

<runs and hides>

[shyrsio]

It's great pentaxians are doing this now, we really need the reviews and conversations as a community.

[The Squirrel Mafia]

Many of us want revamped DA* lenses with faster focusing AF motors that are reliable in the long term. We got the K-3III we've been clamoring for. Now we want the fast focusing lenses to go with it.

[ehrwien]

But with the plethora of manual focus lenses available (and also being in use!), doesn't that make Pentax the undead camera brand for all eternity?

What is (un)dead may never die!

[GUB]

I get it that PLM makes for faster focusing but you are bemoaning lack of focus accuracy in your portrait situation. (portraits are not demanding of focusing speed) Surely focusing accuracy is a function of the in-body sensors or is there something I don't understand?
And if we get better accuracy from those in-body sensors then it is going to be applicable to screw drive and catch in focus. Surely that is a more worthy aim instead of just more crappola repeated in every lens purchase as in PLM.

[BruceBanner]

I get it that PLM makes for faster focusing but you are bemoaning lack of focus accuracy in your portrait situation. (portraits are not demanding of focusing speed) Surely focusing accuracy is a function of the in-body sensors or is there something I don't understand?
And if we get better accuracy from those in-body sensors then it is going to be applicable to screw drive and catch in focus. Surely that is a more worthy aim instead of just more crappola repeated in every lens purchase as in PLM.

Actually, arguably the entire camera industry has decided to embrace MILC technology as a way to improve what would I think be a typically core criteria for users, improved ease of nailing focus for people (i.e portrait). Stuff like AF.C with F/E D (Face/Eye Detection) for example, it seems to be a really important feature for camera users. F/E D was developed first, then came animals, cars, trains, planes, objects etc. Portraits come in all shapes and sizes from stationary poses to capture the moment stuff at weddings (moving couple, confetti in the air etc).

This wasn't a video about portraits per se, but just connecting the dots between the relationship of new camera body tech with lens tech. As Fuji release new camera bodies they also revamp their lens line up to take advantage of that new tech that the body contains, and that's really all this video's message was about. The K3III really shines with the 55-300PLM for example, whereas its not really a very different experience with a FA Ltd.

I really wish Pentax would announce some intention here. We have some great prime lenses both crop (DA) and FF (FA) that really do need modernized. Whilst improving the focus motor to being quieter they could also give them the weather sealing they deserve, but simply adding some HD coating and rounding the blades is really actually devastating news. It speaks volumes if you pay attention.

[RobA_Oz]

No need to run and hide for clearly expressing your views, Eddy.

Although I have all the Pentax lenses I need (how many times have I said that, in the past?) it would give everyone greater confidence in the future of the brand if there was a clear road map showing lens updates as well as new lenses.

The only hesitation I have with shifting everything over to PLM drives (or any in-lens drives, come to that) is the future availability of spares, even though that can be a concern with other components, as I realised when the aperture mechanism in my DFA100 macro gave up the ghost (the whole module had to be replaced). That hesitation, though, isn’t a block to me buying the new lenses – it’s just something in the back of my mind.

Aside from all that, Eddy’s comments about the importance of having confidence in achieving critical focus (presumably, rapidly for some styles and subjects) neatly summarise a case for shifting the best lenses across to the newest technology. It will mean though, that one characteristic of the older FA and DA Limiteds will be lost as the size of the lens will undoubtedly increase. On the other hand, the DFA21 actually matches the size of the K-1 quite well, if aesthetics count for anything, and the * lenses have never been the most svelte of their kind.

[BruceBanner]

No need to run and hide for clearly expressing your views, Eddy.

Although I have all the Pentax lenses I need (how many times have I said that, in the past?) it would give everyone greater confidence in the future of the brand if there was a clear road map showing lens updates as well as new lenses.

The only hesitation I have with shifting everything over to PLM drives (or any in-lens drives, come to that) is the future availability of spares, even though that can be a concern with other components, as I realised when the aperture mechanism in my DFA100 macro gave up the ghost (the whole module had to be replaced). That hesitation, though, isn’t a block to me buying the new lenses – it’s just something in the back of my mind.

Aside from all that, Eddy’s comments about the importance of having confidence in achieving critical focus (presumably, rapidly for some styles and subjects) neatly summarise a case for shifting the best lenses across to the newest technology. It will mean though, that one characteristic of the older FA and DA Limiteds will be lost as the size of the lens will undoubtedly increase. On the other hand, the DFA21 actually matches the size of the K-1 quite well, if aesthetics count for anything, and the * lenses have never been the most svelte of their kind.

Thanks Rob.

[GUB]

Actually, arguably the entire camera industry has decided to embrace MILC technology as a way to improve what would I think be a typically core criteria for users, improved ease of nailing focus for people (i.e portrait). Stuff like AF.C with F/E D (Face/Eye Detection) for example, it seems to be a really important feature for camera users. F/E D was developed first, then came animals, cars, trains, planes, objects etc. Portraits come in all shapes and sizes from stationary poses to capture the moment stuff at weddings (moving couple, confetti in the air etc).

And what does any of this have to do with the extra expense (and increased potential of failure) of putting the motor in the lens (PLM).

Actually, arguably the entire camera industry has decided to embrace MILC technology as a way to improve what would I think be a typically core criteria for users, improved ease of nailing focus for people (i.e portrait). Stuff like AF.C with F/E D (Face/Eye Detection) for example, it seems to be a really important feature for camera users. F/E D was developed first, then came animals, cars, trains, planes, objects etc. Portraits come in all shapes and sizes from stationary poses to capture the moment stuff at weddings (moving couple, confetti in the air etc).

This wasn't a video about portraits per se, but just connecting the dots between the relationship of new camera body tech with lens tech. As Fuji release new camera bodies they also revamp their lens line up to take advantage of that new tech that the body contains, and that's really all this video's message was about. The K3III really shines with the 55-300PLM for example, whereas its not really a very different experience with a FA Ltd.

I really wish Pentax would announce some intention here. We have some great prime lenses both crop (DA) and FF (FA) that really do need modernized. Whilst improving the focus motor to being quieter they could also give them the weather sealing they deserve, but simply adding some HD coating and rounding the blades is really actually devastating news. It speaks volumes if you pay attention.

And this post really demonstrates a different philosophy between you and me Eddie.
I see the concept of new lens for a new body (at times no backward compatibility) as a simple marketing ploy to maximise profits from those influenced by marketing novelties.
And possibly - just possibly - Pentax may be stepping back from that and offering what is fast becoming a unique user experience.

[BruceBanner]

And what does any of this have to do with the extra expense (and increased potential of failure) of putting the motor in the lens (PLM).



And this post really demonstrates a different philosophy between you and me Eddie.
I see the concept of new lens for a new body (at times no backward compatibility) as a simple marketing ploy to maximise profits from those influenced by marketing novelties.
And possibly - just possibly - Pentax may be stepping back from that and offering what is fast becoming a unique user experience.

I can assure you it's no marketing ploy. You can test for example the AF success of an older Fuji lens compared with their newer Fuji lenses on their new bodies. For instance here's an example;

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

There is no marketing ploy here, new camera tech in new bodies need paired with lenses that compliment this tech. There is tech in the lens and the camera, it is not just glass in a lens.

We don't even need to go outside Pentax to see how much different the results can be with new tech in lenses, the 55-300PLM is night and day difference for AF performance compared to older versions. Do we credit the camera for the AF only? Or do we also credit the lens. This was the point of the video, it is of course both.

So my question is, if any new camera released by Pentax is something to be excited about... then why are you actually getting excited? Is it because of perhaps possible improvements in AF (such as what the K3III specs has tried to address?), if so we also need that complimented in the lens line up also. Should a new K1-iii emerge then how many lenses in their current line up is really going to compliment whatever advancements the new body has? A handful of crop glass and some premium DFA primes? eek... (and hence this video).

[GUB]

So my question is, if any new camera released by Pentax is something to be excited about... then why are you actually getting excited? Is it because of perhaps possible improvements in AF (such as what the K3III specs has tried to address?), if so we also need that complimented in the lens line up also. Should a new K1-iii emerge then how many lenses in their current line up is really going to compliment whatever advancements the new body has? A handful of crop glass and some premium DFA primes? eek... (and hence this video).

If I manage to get myself excited about a new manifestation of my K1 it will be about image quality and further aids in focusing my existing lens.

And you haven't clarified how PLM can contribute to your list of novelty features apart from focusing speed.

[RobA_Oz]

And you haven't clarified how PLM can contribute to your list of novelty features apart from focusing speed.

I thought it was focussing accuracy, more than speed, even though speed comes into it. The speed and accuracy of an AF system is like any other electro-mechanical system that relies on feedback loops. At some point, the system has to decide if its target is being met with acceptable accuracy. Slow speed systems rely less on a damping mechanism to address over or under-shoot, but the faster the speed, the more time (potentially) might be spent in correcting that, as the system hunts back and forth attempting to match the target. In the case of the K-3iii’s autofocus, as with other modern systems, it’s not just a simple single-point target, but there are options for multiple targets plus an overlay of shape recognition.

All of that matters not a whit for some subjects and styles, but for others, it does, so Eddy’s quite right when he talks about the need to have lenses that match the body’s capabilities. At one time, it was perfectly reasonable to have several ranges of lenses to suit different situations, but with the small market for new Pentax lenses, I think there’s less opportunity for that, in future.

[GUB]

I thought it was focussing accuracy, more than speed, even though speed comes into it. The speed and accuracy of an AF system is like any other electro-mechanical system that relies on feedback loops. At some point, the system has to decide if its target is being met with acceptable accuracy. Slow speed systems rely less on a damping mechanism to address over or under-shoot, but the faster the speed, the more time (potentially) might be spent in correcting that, as the system hunts back and forth attempting to match the target. In the case of the K-3iii’s autofocus, as with other modern systems, it’s not just a simple single-point target, but there are options for multiple targets plus an overlay of shape recognition.

All of that matters not a whit for some subjects and styles, but for others, it does, so Eddy’s quite right when he talks about the need to have lenses that match the body’s capabilities. At one time, it was perfectly reasonable to have several ranges of lenses to suit different situations, but with the small market for new Pentax lenses, I think there’s less opportunity for that, in future.

Thank you for that - I haven't studied the PLM system much as it is not the direction I am going. So I guess the slop in the shaft drive is the precluding factor that this can not be achieved in the in-body motor design

In the case of the K-3iii’s autofocus, as with other modern systems, it’s not just a simple single-point target, but there are options for multiple targets plus an overlay of shape recognition.

But once more isn't this a not feature of PLM but rather a feature more achievable via the sensor ie mirrorless?

[RobA_Oz]

Thank you for that - I haven't studied the PLM system much as it is not the direction I am going. So I guess the slop in the shaft drive is the precluding factor that this can not be achieved in the in-body motor design

The longer the drive drain, the more opportunity for discontinuities, certainly, but also the in-body drive has to be either big enough to cope with the heaviest focussing group it might encounter, or else it’s a compromise between size and power (and, ultimately, speed). In-lens drives can be tailored to match the individual lenses’ characteristics, as can the associated circuitry.

But once more isn't this a not feature of PLM but rather a feature more achievable via the sensor ie mirrorless?

Not just PLM, of course, but any drive motor. On-sensor versus dedicated AF sensor is probably another matter, although, as far as I can see, the major difference is in the positioning accuracy of the dedicated AF sensor.

[Fogel70]

PLM AF is nice to have on some lenses, but not something I would like to have on all lenses. Focus-by-wire would be really bad on macro lenses IMO, and on most prime lenses I would prefer to have a mechanically connected focus ring. So on them I would prefer DC or SDM ring motors.

And also if a PLM motor fail you will not even be able to manually focus the lens. So if you are on an important job you probably want backup on PLM lenses, just like you want backup on the camera.