Pentax AF really need fixing

Rupert · 05-04-2011, 06:29 AM

I don't want to beat anyone up, but I have had no such problems, and have found no conditions to date where my particular K5 has not performed to my satisfaction. For those with problems, and I don't question their honesty, I hope you can get a resolution either through a new body or service. It troubles me that someone might be missing the satisfaction I am enjoying with this fine camera.
When the FF issue appeared to sour my desire for the K5, I was at the edge of buying a D700....and every day I thank my Lucky Stars I didn't. For those that live by shallow DOF, the D700 would be a good choice, no doubt, but for the vast majority of shooters, I think the K5 beats it easily. Considering the ISO abilities of the K5, the price, and the fact that you don't need a forklift to haul it around, the great IQ, and the efficient ergonomics of the K5, it is no wonder I thank those Lucky Stars!

Best Regards

Skymist · 05-04-2011, 07:00 AM

Originally posted by Fontan

Hm . . . . I am not understanding this correctly. Zeiss T* 50/1.4 is manual focus only.

Oops, I meant my Pentax F/1.9 43mm lens. Sorry. That's the one I was comparing. At any rate, most of the focusing behavior I was concerned with was also a factor with almost any indoor available light situation.

dexmus · 05-04-2011, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by Rupert

...
When the FF issue appeared to sour my desire for the K5, I was at the edge of buying a D700....and every day I thank my Lucky Stars I didn't. For those that live by shallow DOF, the D700 would be a good choice, no doubt, but for the vast majority of shooters, I think the K5 beats it easily. Considering the ISO abilities of the K5, the price, and the fact that you don't need a forklift to haul it around, the great IQ, and the efficient ergonomics of the K5, it is no wonder I thank those Lucky Stars!

Best Regards

Well, D700 is a special camera. Except for the size/weight (and price), there is no disadvantage to owning a D700 over k5. Focusing is in a whole different league - both the speed as well as accuracy (and tracking). And even though k-5 has improved high ISO, 700 has (still) cleaner high ISO. I love that camera. I think that is one camera that doesn't require any upgrade for any reason...Everyone who likes photography should use D700, at least for some time

cheers,

Abhi

DogLover · 05-04-2011, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by dexmus

Well, D700 is a special camera. Except for the size/weight (and price), there is no disadvantage to owning a D700 over k5. Focusing is in a whole different league - both the speed as well as accuracy (and tracking). And even though k-5 has improved high ISO, 700 has (still) cleaner high ISO. I love that camera. I think that is one camera that doesn't require any upgrade for any reason...Everyone who likes photography should use D700, at least for some time

cheers,

Abhi

I don't doubt what you say, but the size/weight thing, of both the camera and the lenses, would be a deal-breaker for me. That and the fact that Nikons feel "icky" when I hold them.

jstevewhite · 05-04-2011, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by Smeggypants

Actually in a lot of lighting levels and scenes narrow DOF is the way we actually see things with our own eyes and probably accounts for why it we find it pleasurable or natural.

You don't normally notice it becuase you are concentrating on the subject and your eyes AF as you flick from subject to subject at different distances.

This isn't exactly accurate; at normal distances, our eyes have pretty high DOF ( They also have terrible resolution

). Hold your thumb out at arms length and focus on it, closing one eye. You'll notice that that the background is OOF, but not so much that you can't easily identify objects - certainly nothing like the blown bokeh of a 1.2 or 1.4 focussed this closely. Outside in sunshine, when your eyes stop down, you'll notice that most everything is in focus.

But we've got a binocular vision system and an image processor that sucks every bit of detail it can out of the environment, and puts it in a "map" in our visual cortex. Because of the way we process objects, we "see" them as distinct from one another, sharply delineated. The low-DOF is the closest that a flat, 2-D image can come to replicating this 3-d+processing isolation that happens in our heads.

jstevewhite · 05-04-2011, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by garyk

I was out today with a 2.8 in low light, sunny day but under the canopy, and the Af only hit 3 times out of 20. I will see if i deleted the photos or not. If not i will post and add a link. Funny the 300mm 2.8 lens will AF all over the place. But the same setting the 500mm 4.5 is spot on. I was going to do some tests today but was to busy. As much as i hate too I agree with Croc.
It is a problem with where it focuses for sure. The larger DOF saves the shots with 4.5 and above but f 2.8 is just useless. At first i thought the same thing. Sigma is the pits, but with the 300 in the service center again. I have to throw up my hands and move on to cannon.. What a shame.

I've been critical about testing. but this is getting just funny how bad Pentax is. For me only I have no choice. It is either switch or not post quality photos.

I've said it before but again. I will not buy another Pentax lens. But will pray for a good camera.

Um... I'm not sure what you're shooting, but at the same operating distance, your 500 f4.5 should have very similar DOF to your 300 f2.8.

rfortson · 05-04-2011, 10:30 AM

Not sure if the OP is just having problems with very wide apertures, but I have hundreds of shots like this taken with the K20D and the K5 using the DA*200 at f/2.8. I've always been impressed with it for action shots. I was assuming the OP's problem was with apertures wider than f/2.8.

You can go to my Flickr site and see the original size if you want. I just haven't experienced the problems the OP has.

Click here for the full sized image

Here are more shots with the K20D and DA*200

Tommot1965 · 05-04-2011, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by dexmus

Well, D700 is a special camera. Except for the size/weight (and price), there is no disadvantage to owning a D700 over k5. Focusing is in a whole different league - both the speed as well as accuracy (and tracking). And even though k-5 has improved high ISO, 700 has (still) cleaner high ISO. I love that camera. I think that is one camera that doesn't require any upgrade for any reason...Everyone who likes photography should use D700, at least for some time

cheers,

Abhi

I hope your wrong..as I want one ..im hoping the D700 replacement that will have a 20Meg something sensor will get the up-graders all sweaty and twitchy ..that way I can swoop in and get a decent used D700 for peanuts...least thats my theory for now ..LMAO....mind you id like a D800 with a 21Meg sensor too

awaldram · 05-05-2011, 07:13 AM

Well that was a fun read

A bit topsy turvy example all my lens are calibrated in daylight and then predominately shot in mixed Sodium/Fluorescent and daylight.

I don't have any issue like the OP states

Rupert · 05-05-2011, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by dexmus

Well, D700 is a special camera. Except for the size/weight (and price), there is no disadvantage to owning a D700 over k5. Focusing is in a whole different league - both the speed as well as accuracy (and tracking). And even though k-5 has improved high ISO, 700 has (still) cleaner high ISO. I love that camera. I think that is one camera that doesn't require any upgrade for any reason...Everyone who likes photography should use D700, at least for some time

cheers,

Abhi

I can't agree less......It is like saying everyone that loves women should try a fat wife......except for the size, the weight and the price of food.

I have a friend that has two D700's and a D3X, and I have used them, and they are excellent, but not as good as my K5 for what I do. If I did all studio work as he does, I might consider you having a valid argument, but I need a smaller lighter camera, and I need the crop factor that the K5 provides along with the higher resolution, since I am a habitual cropper. I can crop my K5 images and still have tons of pixels to work with....that matters to my subjects and shooting needs. Size and weight matter......if you have to use a forklift to take you wife dancing....you don't go dancing all that often. Same with big cameras. I may be biased, Mrs Rupert weighed 118 lbs when I married her 45 years ago, weighs the same today......a fat wife has never tempted me, neither has a fat camera, although I admit the 645D might catch my eye!

Best Regards!

dgaies · 05-05-2011, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by Rupert

I can't agree less......It is like saying everyone that loves women should try a fat wife......except for the size, the weight and the price of food.

I wouldn't have thought to put it quite like that

Rupert · 05-05-2011, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by dgaies

I wouldn't have thought to put it quite like that

It was Otis' idea.....

Best Regards!

**NaClH2O** · 05-05-2011, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by dexmus

Well, D700 is a special camera. Except for the size/weight (and price), there is no disadvantage to owning a D700 over k5. Focusing is in a whole different league - both the speed as well as accuracy (and tracking). And even though k-5 has improved high ISO, 700 has (still) cleaner high ISO. I love that camera. I think that is one camera that doesn't require any upgrade for any reason...Everyone who likes photography should use D700, at least for some time

cheers,

Abhi

Well considering that I can get two!! K-5s for the price of one D700, I would expect the D700 to have a few more features. But even tho it is twice the price of a K-5 it is NOT twice the camera. And...I can't use my 43mm f1.9 on it either.

NaCl(a deal breaker that last point)H2O

Eruditass · 05-05-2011, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by jake14mw

Eruditass,

Those pics you posted are great. Not sure if I got your grammer correct. You meant that you used the Brenzier method for those pictures which gave much shallower DOF than one photo at 1.4 could give, correct? Thanks for posting, I never heard this term before, and looked it up quickly. So, the summary of the method is, if you want a wide shot with shallow DOF, since DOF is shallower at longer focal lengths, use a longer focal length lens and take multiple shots, and stitch them together to get the wider perspective but take advantage of the shallow DOF?

Those photos were created (by others) with the Brenzier method, which is simply being closer than you would normally be standing, and stitching together shots. The closer you are, the shallower depth of field, but of course you won't get everything in frame. Yes, it is shallower than one photo at f1.4 at a normal framing distance.

You typically use a telephoto because it is easier to stitch together, as when you get closer, the camera is more sensitive to rotations that are not around the no-parallax point.

**manishved** · 05-05-2011, 09:02 AM

A new slogan for Pentax "We strive to stay focused"

05-05-2011, 07:13 AM	#114
awaldram Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Hampshire Photos: Gallery Posts: 732	Well that was a fun read A bit topsy turvy example all my lens are calibrated in daylight and then predominately shot in mixed Sodium/Fluorescent and daylight. I don't have any issue like the OP states Last edited by awaldram; 05-22-2014 at 04:20 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Fixing a Pentax AF540FGZ hot shoe.	Peter Zack	Flashes, Lighting, and Studio	24	09-03-2019 01:20 AM
Fixing ZX-5n	GerryL	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	2	03-08-2011 10:41 PM
Help fixing this Pentax-M 50mm F2	protocold	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	08-13-2009 07:23 PM
fixing signature	oatman911	Site Suggestions and Help	3	06-25-2009 09:00 AM
Fixing Times	Venturi	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	11	05-04-2009 02:20 PM

05-04-2011, 06:29 AM	#106
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	I don't want to beat anyone up, but I have had no such problems, and have found no conditions to date where my particular K5 has not performed to my satisfaction. For those with problems, and I don't question their honesty, I hope you can get a resolution either through a new body or service. It troubles me that someone might be missing the satisfaction I am enjoying with this fine camera. When the FF issue appeared to sour my desire for the K5, I was at the edge of buying a D700....and every day I thank my Lucky Stars I didn't. For those that live by shallow DOF, the D700 would be a good choice, no doubt, but for the vast majority of shooters, I think the K5 beats it easily. Considering the ISO abilities of the K5, the price, and the fact that you don't need a forklift to haul it around, the great IQ, and the efficient ergonomics of the K5, it is no wonder I thank those Lucky Stars! Best Regards

05-04-2011, 07:00 AM	#107
Skymist Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Monterey Bay, Callifornia Posts: 107	Originally posted by Fontan Hm . . . . I am not understanding this correctly. Zeiss T* 50/1.4 is manual focus only. Oops, I meant my Pentax F/1.9 43mm lens. Sorry. That's the one I was comparing. At any rate, most of the focusing behavior I was concerned with was also a factor with almost any indoor available light situation.

05-04-2011, 07:57 AM	#108
dexmus Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 392	Originally posted by Rupert ... When the FF issue appeared to sour my desire for the K5, I was at the edge of buying a D700....and every day I thank my Lucky Stars I didn't. For those that live by shallow DOF, the D700 would be a good choice, no doubt, but for the vast majority of shooters, I think the K5 beats it easily. Considering the ISO abilities of the K5, the price, and the fact that you don't need a forklift to haul it around, the great IQ, and the efficient ergonomics of the K5, it is no wonder I thank those Lucky Stars! Best Regards Well, D700 is a special camera. Except for the size/weight (and price), there is no disadvantage to owning a D700 over k5. Focusing is in a whole different league - both the speed as well as accuracy (and tracking). And even though k-5 has improved high ISO, 700 has (still) cleaner high ISO. I love that camera. I think that is one camera that doesn't require any upgrade for any reason...Everyone who likes photography should use D700, at least for some time cheers, Abhi

05-04-2011, 08:18 AM	#109
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by dexmus Well, D700 is a special camera. Except for the size/weight (and price), there is no disadvantage to owning a D700 over k5. Focusing is in a whole different league - both the speed as well as accuracy (and tracking). And even though k-5 has improved high ISO, 700 has (still) cleaner high ISO. I love that camera. I think that is one camera that doesn't require any upgrade for any reason...Everyone who likes photography should use D700, at least for some time cheers, Abhi I don't doubt what you say, but the size/weight thing, of both the camera and the lenses, would be a deal-breaker for me. That and the fact that Nikons feel "icky" when I hold them.

05-04-2011, 08:54 AM	#110
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by Smeggypants Actually in a lot of lighting levels and scenes narrow DOF is the way we actually see things with our own eyes and probably accounts for why it we find it pleasurable or natural. You don't normally notice it becuase you are concentrating on the subject and your eyes AF as you flick from subject to subject at different distances. This isn't exactly accurate; at normal distances, our eyes have pretty high DOF ( They also have terrible resolution ). Hold your thumb out at arms length and focus on it, closing one eye. You'll notice that that the background is OOF, but not so much that you can't easily identify objects - certainly nothing like the blown bokeh of a 1.2 or 1.4 focussed this closely. Outside in sunshine, when your eyes stop down, you'll notice that most everything is in focus. But we've got a binocular vision system and an image processor that sucks every bit of detail it can out of the environment, and puts it in a "map" in our visual cortex. Because of the way we process objects, we "see" them as distinct from one another, sharply delineated. The low-DOF is the closest that a flat, 2-D image can come to replicating this 3-d+processing isolation that happens in our heads.

05-04-2011, 08:59 AM	#111
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by garyk I was out today with a 2.8 in low light, sunny day but under the canopy, and the Af only hit 3 times out of 20. I will see if i deleted the photos or not. If not i will post and add a link. Funny the 300mm 2.8 lens will AF all over the place. But the same setting the 500mm 4.5 is spot on. I was going to do some tests today but was to busy. As much as i hate too I agree with Croc. It is a problem with where it focuses for sure. The larger DOF saves the shots with 4.5 and above but f 2.8 is just useless. At first i thought the same thing. Sigma is the pits, but with the 300 in the service center again. I have to throw up my hands and move on to cannon.. What a shame. I've been critical about testing. but this is getting just funny how bad Pentax is. For me only I have no choice. It is either switch or not post quality photos. I've said it before but again. I will not buy another Pentax lens. But will pray for a good camera. Um... I'm not sure what you're shooting, but at the same operating distance, your 500 f4.5 should have very similar DOF to your 300 f2.8.

05-04-2011, 10:30 AM	#112
rfortson Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Houston TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,129	Not sure if the OP is just having problems with very wide apertures, but I have hundreds of shots like this taken with the K20D and the K5 using the DA200 at f/2.8. I've always been impressed with it for action shots. I was assuming the OP's problem was with apertures wider than f/2.8. You can go to my Flickr site and see the original size if you want. I just haven't experienced the problems the OP has. Click here for the full sized image Here are more shots with the K20D and DA200

05-04-2011, 02:58 PM	#113
Tommot1965 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Perth Western Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,026	Originally posted by dexmus Well, D700 is a special camera. Except for the size/weight (and price), there is no disadvantage to owning a D700 over k5. Focusing is in a whole different league - both the speed as well as accuracy (and tracking). And even though k-5 has improved high ISO, 700 has (still) cleaner high ISO. I love that camera. I think that is one camera that doesn't require any upgrade for any reason...Everyone who likes photography should use D700, at least for some time cheers, Abhi I hope your wrong..as I want one ..im hoping the D700 replacement that will have a 20Meg something sensor will get the up-graders all sweaty and twitchy ..that way I can swoop in and get a decent used D700 for peanuts...least thats my theory for now ..LMAO....mind you id like a D800 with a 21Meg sensor too

05-05-2011, 07:26 AM	#115
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	Originally posted by dexmus Well, D700 is a special camera. Except for the size/weight (and price), there is no disadvantage to owning a D700 over k5. Focusing is in a whole different league - both the speed as well as accuracy (and tracking). And even though k-5 has improved high ISO, 700 has (still) cleaner high ISO. I love that camera. I think that is one camera that doesn't require any upgrade for any reason...Everyone who likes photography should use D700, at least for some time cheers, Abhi I can't agree less......It is like saying everyone that loves women should try a fat wife......except for the size, the weight and the price of food. I have a friend that has two D700's and a D3X, and I have used them, and they are excellent, but not as good as my K5 for what I do. If I did all studio work as he does, I might consider you having a valid argument, but I need a smaller lighter camera, and I need the crop factor that the K5 provides along with the higher resolution, since I am a habitual cropper. I can crop my K5 images and still have tons of pixels to work with....that matters to my subjects and shooting needs. Size and weight matter......if you have to use a forklift to take you wife dancing....you don't go dancing all that often. Same with big cameras. I may be biased, Mrs Rupert weighed 118 lbs when I married her 45 years ago, weighs the same today......a fat wife has never tempted me, neither has a fat camera, although I admit the 645D might catch my eye! Best Regards!

05-05-2011, 07:46 AM	#116
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by Rupert I can't agree less......It is like saying everyone that loves women should try a fat wife......except for the size, the weight and the price of food. I wouldn't have thought to put it quite like that

05-05-2011, 07:56 AM	#117
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	Originally posted by dgaies I wouldn't have thought to put it quite like that It was Otis' idea..... Best Regards!

05-05-2011, 08:04 AM	#118
NaClH2O Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bronx NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,631	Originally posted by dexmus Well, D700 is a special camera. Except for the size/weight (and price), there is no disadvantage to owning a D700 over k5. Focusing is in a whole different league - both the speed as well as accuracy (and tracking). And even though k-5 has improved high ISO, 700 has (still) cleaner high ISO. I love that camera. I think that is one camera that doesn't require any upgrade for any reason...Everyone who likes photography should use D700, at least for some time cheers, Abhi Well considering that I can get two!! K-5s for the price of one D700, I would expect the D700 to have a few more features. But even tho it is twice the price of a K-5 it is *NOT* twice the camera. And...I can't use my 43mm f1.9 on it either. NaCl(a deal breaker that last point)H2O

05-05-2011, 08:13 AM	#119
Eruditass Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,207	Originally posted by jake14mw Eruditass, Those pics you posted are great. Not sure if I got your grammer correct. You meant that you used the Brenzier method for those pictures which gave much shallower DOF than one photo at 1.4 could give, correct? Thanks for posting, I never heard this term before, and looked it up quickly. So, the summary of the method is, if you want a wide shot with shallow DOF, since DOF is shallower at longer focal lengths, use a longer focal length lens and take multiple shots, and stitch them together to get the wider perspective but take advantage of the shallow DOF? Those photos were created (by others) with the Brenzier method, which is simply being closer than you would normally be standing, and stitching together shots. The closer you are, the shallower depth of field, but of course you won't get everything in frame. Yes, it is shallower than one photo at f1.4 at a normal framing distance. You typically use a telephoto because it is easier to stitch together, as when you get closer, the camera is more sensitive to rotations that are not around the no-parallax point.

05-05-2011, 09:02 AM	#120
manishved Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: N. Calif Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,651	A new slogan for Pentax "We strive to stay focused"