[pathdoc]

Though I have no proof, I've always believed that Pentax's association with Honeywell was very bad for Pentax AF development, with Honeywell holding the patents on PDAF (though not developing it) - Pentax were the last of the big players to introduce AF - even though they were still a big player - and they still got sued. I think, though they wer always cautious, they might have gone in sooner, and therefore been further up in the race. if not for their marketing arrangements with Honeywell.

IIRC they were actually the first, with the ME-F, but the lens was hideously clunky (needed 70's era in-lens motors and its own batteries, big ones and lots of them) and they paid the price of all those companies which go beyond the limits of the possible only to find they aren't quite ready for the impossible yet. Then they retreated for obvious reasons, and I think that's in part what led them to be cautious about getting back in and conservative with regard to screw drive (once you have a big enough body that needs bigger batteries anyway for the film advance, move the AF drive motor inside and keep the lens size down).

[mee]

Typical Ogl-topic, really. Before any announcement of a new Pentax model: enthusiastic, positive... After the official announcement: always disappointed and down. It's what makes this forum so fantastic!

If it is, then why don't you have him on your ignore list already?

Why respond continually (not just you but in general) if he is so far off base? Wouldn't it be better to let the thread sink to the bottom if it is so wrong?

It might be our 'right' to tell someone when they are 'so wrong', but it is also our 'right' to to just move on too. I normally do, but several of the responses here to ogl, and in other threads to others, are pretty unhelpful. These responses are attacking the person, not the point. Please, stick with the points in the future, or put the person on ignore.

[ogl]

Typical Ogl-topic, really. Before any announcement of a new Pentax model: enthusiastic, positive... After the official announcement: always disappointed and down. It's what makes this forum so fantastic!

Positive before announcement? Only curiosity. I'm wingside spectator since my upgrade K-5 to K-5IIs.

I just need AF for my lenses. But it's far from the best.

I have Olympus E-420 (2008 year) and I'd like to say that it has faster and more accurate AF than K-5IIs (2012). But I can't put limiteds to E-420.

[cfraz]

As we know the most photo companies implement different new technologies in AF system.
...
When will we see something new? How do you think - could we see new AF system this year?

There was information about possibility of using SR system for better focusing, but...

I am sure Pentax could match Nikon's (or anyone else's) AF if they wanted to. It's fundamentally a matter of engineering, resources and priorities, not magic.

^This. What a consumer sees as a breakthrough in technology is often a painstaking series of iterative improvements in the R&D lab which finally, after years of effort and many failures, leads to a marketable product. I wouldn't be surprised if Nikon's AF engineering budget alone exceeds Pentax's entire engineering budget for lenses and bodies together.

Reading between the lines, my guess is that Ricoh as a corporation contributes in infrastructure and production equipment improvements to Ricoh Imaging, but in product development, RI has to pay their own way. It takes a long time to bootstrap oneself from almost dead to producing breakthrough technology.

The other route, corporate dumping lots of money into a division in hopes of future profits, is done by others, maybe Sony and Fuji. But you also get the Samsungs in that scenario as well. Someone in corporate who cares nothing for a particular product line can kill it with nothing more than a spreadsheet and a signature.

... Especially, I don't want to sell my lenses.

No one is ever going to deliver the top AF performance you are asking for using your screw drive lenses. If you really need top AF performance, you're going to have to pony up.

Though I have no proof, I've always believed that Pentax's association with Honeywell was very bad for Pentax AF development, with Honeywell holding the patents on PDAF (though not developing it) - Pentax were the last of the big players to introduce AF - even though they were still a big player - and they still got sued. I think, though they wer always cautious, they might have gone in sooner, and therefore been further up in the race. if not for their marketing arrangements with Honeywell.

Interesting. I've often wondered if some of Pentax's conservatism came out of their first digital FF effort. If they hadn't pulled the plug, it could have very well killed the company, as it did for Contax. I suspect the conservative voices in management held sway for a long time after that experience.

[mee]

In the new age of "alternative facts" we seem to be entering, or have already entered, where respect and the regard for facts seems to the in the retreat on so many fronts, I happen to value both the freedom of speech and the respect for people, institutions, and facts highly.

Is it really necessary to routinely single out certain forum members and use slurs like boriscleto v. (even if only in jest) for them when this forum prides itself to be the "Friendly Pentax Camera Forum" (which normally it is)? Why is that user constantly picked upon when it is obvious, and only natural, I guess, that many of us have our foibles and idiosyncrasies, including those disseminating such terms?

Just something I couldn't help noticing, and I don't think it is anything to do with political correctness. It's about respect.

Wholeheartedly agreed. We all have our flaws and should learn to get along a lot better than we currently are.

Yet that behavior has been ongoing for years. For all the niceties presented here (by the many), if you cross the invisible/unspoken line you are knocked to the ground and kicked (by the few).

[ogl]

No one is ever going to deliver the top AF performance you are asking for using your screw drive lenses. If you really need top AF performance, you're going to have to pony up.
.

Is there any chance that Hybrid AF could help the old screw drive lenses to be always accurate?
Or only lenses with PLM motors will be the new level of AF?

Anyway, Ricoh could go Nikon's way - more points and more crosses + better software.

I don't care speed too much.

To say honest - my dream is simple - never back or front focus with my camera and lenses.

[biz-engineer]

It's not about your or my own experience. My K-5IIs can reach 50% missing focus shots in lower light (depends on lenses).

I'm not too rich man to sell all my lenses and buy another system. Especially, I don't want to sell my lenses.

You'd have to change your lenses.

Some people got a D500, they have more keepers, since they were not selling their photos, I would say , they have more keepers, hummm more keepers on the SD cards, more SD cards at home, more stuff that no one care about. With a K3, you have up to 8.3 FPS , you can shoot sport games the whole afternoon non stop until the K3+grip is hot, and go home with 2000 shots, even with 50% keepers, that's 1000 photos to play with... hope you have a lot of free time to do this. With a D500, it's worse, you buy expensive SD cards (because the normal SD card aren't fast enough) you can shoot at 10 FPS the whole afternoon and come back home with 3000 photos and 70% keepers. You have to realize that AF keepers does not mean a keeper because some photos aren't frames correctly etc, other photos you missed the subject and the camera did not guess the subject for you... so , even if you have a D5, you won't get 100% and you'll have to go through each image to sort them out.

If you get a K3 and use it like I say... then you'll realize you have already more good photos than you can use, you'll not want a D500 anymore.

[mee]

No one is ever going to deliver the top AF performance you are asking for using your screw drive lenses. If you really need top AF performance, you're going to have to pony up.



Interesting. I've often wondered if some of Pentax's conservatism came out of their first digital FF effort. If they hadn't pulled the plug, it could have very well killed the company, as it did for Contax. I suspect the conservative voices in management held sway for a long time after that experience.

I think screwdriven lenses have been continued by whomever has owned Pentax at any given time (in the past decade) because no one wanted to invest in conversion to in-motor designs. That has got to cost a ton since they're essentially redesigning a new lens with each in-motor replacement lens.

However, Ricoh seems rather dedicated to the brand (at the moment). At least, more dedicated than anyone has to the Pentax brand in a long time. What I think I'm seeing out of Ricoh today is a desire to make the brand competitive (PLM, continuous AF on video, high ISO/low noise IQ) and innovative (astrotracer, pixel shift).

Yet, I still am not sure if Ricoh is sure of where Pentax, as a whole, really sits in the market. They seem to fish with different designs in order to see what is attractive to the buyer vs what is not by launching whole cameras (think K-S1/K-S2 or maybe even KP) that go against the grain of the rest of their traditional lineup.

So perhaps we are in a transitioning period where Ricoh is trying to both find a solid place/niche for Pentax while also making the lineup attractive as a baseline to the rest of the market... as the camera market shifts right now. That is to say, it seems to me the market is really unsure and thus Ricoh is as well as to where to place Pentax.

Canon and Nikon are sort of 'stuck' in their deep entrenched lines.. it is hard to turn them around. Pentax is running much lighter but seems to throw in a jab where it can, when it can (K-1 for instance).. timing them out as best as it deems possible.

So maybe us as Pentax customers need to realize that the brand itself is changing from an old way of thinking to, at least partially, a different one?

[ogl]

I'd like to talk not about me, but the way of Ricoh could go with AF system...


Is there any problem to avoid 11 AF points system at all forever and add to SAFOX 13 more AF sensors and use faster CPU in K-3 and K-1's upgrade. K-1's upgrade needs more than 33 AF points. Really.

And stay with SAFOX12 as the base AF system for all rest cameras? It will be competitive solution.

[Kunzite]

The first SDM lenses were designed and launched by Pentax Corporation (that was before the hostile takeover, when they were independent); they didn't had the chance to find an affordable solution for the other lenses. The DA Limiteds (planned by the same Pentax Corporation) can be explained by the decision to keep them small; and under Hoya it was cost cutting all over so I guess your reasoning about not wanting to invest in conversion to in-motor designs applies here.

Ricoh... well, they converted the kit lens (18-50, awful build) and the still affordable 55-300 (RE PLM, well done!)

[biz-engineer]

I'd like to talk not about me, but the way of Ricoh could go with AF system...

I think Pentax has no market share in sports. They have overall about 5% market share, 99% o the 5% not captured in sports users. Pentax covers 5% of which 99% is for stills. If they'd do a D500 like camera, it would be for non Pentax users. And the D500 is there already. So, IMO, Ricoh imaging won't redo a D500. I guess they'll improve their AF (like they did between the K5 and the K3), it will be better and it will enable a lot of good photography, and they'll do it when they'll have time and when it makes sense.

[boriscleto]

Ooh. A thread where I'm ignoring almost everyone already. I love these.

[Kunzite]

I'd like to talk not about me, but the way of Ricoh could go with AF system...

Is there any problem to avoid 11 AF points system at all forever and add to SAFOX 13 more AF sensors and use faster CPU in K-3 and K-1's upgrade. K-1's upgrade needs more than 33 AF points. Really.

And stay with SAFOX12 as the base AF system for all rest cameras? It will be competitive solution.

As long as progress is recognized and encouraged - as a necessary condition to have a discussion and not the old PentaxIsDoomed nonsense.

Canon is using several grades of AF, from the 9-point still found in the less than a year old 1300D, to a 61-point in their flagship. Nikon is using several grades of AF, from the 11-point still found in the 5 months old D3400, to a 153-point AF in their flagship.
See the pattern? Ricoh Imaging needs several grades of AF. Right now they have the 11-point used in K-70, and the 27/33-point used in KP, K-3II and K-1.

[afan137]

As long as progress is recognized and encouraged - as a necessary condition to have a discussion and not the old PentaxIsDoomed nonsense.

Canon is using several grades of AF, from the 9-point still found in the less than a year old 1300D, to a 61-point in their flagship. Nikon is using several grades of AF, from the 11-point still found in the 5 months old D3400, to a 153-point AF in their flagship.
See the pattern? Ricoh Imaging needs several grades of AF. Right now they have the 11-point used in K-70, and the 27/33-point used in KP, K-3II and K-1.

Indeed. If anyone really want advanced AF system such as D500, then get ready to spend 2000 USD for one body. But I doubt many Pentaxian would do.
The only solution for OP is upgrading his beloved K-5II to the recently introduced Pentax KP and see himself the AF improvement.

[ogl]

As long as progress is recognized and encouraged - as a necessary condition to have a discussion and not the old PentaxIsDoomed nonsense.

You think in wrong way. Don't compare marketing moves of different companies.
There's nothing to prevent Ricoh to drop 11 AF points system.

---------- Post added 01-29-2017 at 10:45 AM ----------

Indeed. If anyone really want advanced AF system such as D500, then get ready to spend 2000 USD for one body. But I doubt many Pentaxian would do.
The only solution for OP is upgrading his beloved K-5II to the recently introduced Pentax KP and see himself the AF improvement.

There are 7D Mark II for 1350 USD with 65 AF points (all cross-type) and Canon 80D for 1100 USD with 45 AF points (all cross-type) + Dual AF system

My facts