[Davidparis]

Those of us who started with no AF don't take AF quite as seriously. I'm pretty much amazed at what i get with my AF.

K-3, AF.S, 23 frames with the first 20 in focus, the last three, the dog was too close to the camera for the AF to keep it in focus. Shots were selected for their composition. Every now and then I do this just to remind myself... there are other factors besides the camera's AF system that are stopping most people from getting the images they want.





What camera are you comparing it to?

AF is kind of like low light. You can get some really bad pictures where it's not the fault of the AF. It's the expectation that a candid action picture will be as good as a more posed still picture. I really don't understand people thinking unposed, thoughtlessly taken images where you are just tracking someone will be as good as images where you actually prepared, took time to make sure you had a background good light etc.. There's this imaginary world where you can shoot in burst mode with no preparation and produce studio quality images.

But honestly I have no clue what the situations are. 99% of the time people who say stuff like what i quoted above, are really just saying, "I have a problem and I blame the camera." That's all I know. But I got my suspicions.

A guy who posts in the 300 plus club went Nikon a while ago for Birds in Flight. I think he said he increased his keeper rate about 4/10 to 6 out of 10. My numbers are almost certain to be wrong but, the point is he got some keepers with Pentax, he got more with Nikon. Personally, most f the time I'm looking for 3 or 4 good images, so 4/10 instead of 6/10 or 8/10 is just fine with me. I'm not willing to pay for better. Others who want better should switch brands. It's not like anyone really cares what brand you use. But seriously, if you're getting nothing, it's not the camera, it's you.

Personally if AF was even remotely important to me i would have switched back in the 90s when a friend showed me his Nikon F4, with AF and 6 fps. People in this day and age 30 years later complaining about Pentax AF just makes me yawn. "Pentax has bad AF" is a catch phrase for every wannabe expert with a blog on the internet, to the point that you can almost rate the knowledge of these self appointed experts, by how quickly they dismiss Pentax. Announcing Pentax AF is inadequate for your needs seems to be a fad, a fad, that I'm really tired of. Rather than earn credibility it earns my instant disgust. It's poor workman that blames his tools.

We have to listen to you whine about your bad choices. That's not fair. Man up.

We're you living under rock?

Uh-huh. So you’re saying I should try removing the lens cap?

[normhead]

Uh-huh. So you’re saying I should try removing the lens cap?

No I'm saying complaining about Pentax AF to people who get along fine with it is pretty pointless.

What are you hoping for?

[quant2325]

In a competitive marketplace, everything generally evens out. If someone comes out with a "better" laptop with faster processing speed, the others will immediately drop in price to remain competitive. The same thing goes for most segments of the camera marketplace. Pentax does have a slower continuous autofocus system than others (it is still pretty good) making it less competitive for shooting sports, but it sells for less money, too. So, don't use it for professional sports if you want to remain leading edge. For landscape? You can't beat Pentax for value and until recently no one beat it for IQ (the new Nikon D850 came out for $3,300, far more than the $1,900 K-1). For astrophotography? Pentax is a leader. Lenses? What Pentax has is fine but others have more. So, Pentax cameras (not the lenses) sell for less to reflect this. The same thing happens in the medium format market, but it happens slower there. What's the big deal? We can b_____ and moan all we want, but no system will ever be optimal for everyone when there is competition. Therefore, enjoy what you have, lobby for Pentax (or anyone else) to make it better, and switch systems if something else is more optimal.

[WPRESTO]

As to innovation, follow the military dictum when requesting congressional funding: "If it's operational, it's obsolete."

[normhead]

As to innovation, follow the military dictum when requesting congressional funding: "If it's operational, it's obsolete."

Or,if it's operational, your contractors have already sold the plans to your enemies. That's arms manufacturers business model.

[leekil]

Or,if it's operational, your contractors have already sold the plans to your enemies. That's arms manufacturers business model.

If Nikon or Canon sold their plans to their enemies, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[normhead]

If Nikon or Canon sold their plans to their enemies, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Arms dealers can claim the enemy "somehow" caught up and we need to develop new systems. If Nikon or Canon do that. it just costs them sales.

[Wheatfield]

I found this link at DPreview and found it interesting since I've been reading a lot of whining regarding Pentax lately. An open letter to my beloved Canon - What happened to your innovation? - Project RAWcast . This guy has mega bucks sunk in his Canon gear. Now I don't feel so bad.


Larry Mc

Poor guy has a serious case of First World Problemitis.

[monochrome]

Buy what you need, don't look back.

Corollary:

Shoot with what you have, not with what you dream about.

[Wheatfield]

Ya, they did the Sony thing there. I also have a Q and can't look at it as a complete system until it gets macro-capability. The lesson there. Don't go by what they announce, go for the best system where you can buy everything you want today.

There have been so many threads here initiated by people who have seen some spec on a new camera, who think everyone should buy it. Then when the camera comes out and it's disadvantages become apparent, they all disappear into the wood work. Never once have I seen a thread where on of them comes back and apologizes for putting down anyone who didn't share their boundless enthusiasm for stuff they didn't own, hadn't tried etc. It's a forum fault. It's OK if anyone says anything, but no one is accountable for what they say. Which is why I consider it a social site with the added bonus of a bit of technical expertise, which often gets shouted down.

I bought the Q thinking there would be a decent macro for it. There is nothing on the whole Q system that brings me as much joy as walking around with the 100 macro (or any macro) on the K-1. I can handle the weight. I can't handle not getting the images I see.

I just hate leaving images on the table.

Buying the Q with no macro available was a huge mistake. I put about $700 into a system that doesn't meet my basic needs. It is more portable, which is what I bought it for, but that's useless if it doesn't do what you want. Live and learn. Could have had second hand 77ltd. for $750 at the same time. I made the wrong call. but hey, I think everyone does from time to time.

Just imagine how the people who bought into Canon in the early 1980s felt in 1987 when their system was completely abandoned by the manufacturer.

[twilhelm]

Just imagine how the people who bought into Canon in the early 1980s felt in 1987 when their system was completely abandoned by the manufacturer.

Yes... I'm one of those people. All of my FD lenses became obsolete with the new bodies. It was then that I started looking at other systems, bought into Nikon and Pentax at the same time. When the K10d came out, it had everything I was looking for in a digital body. Including complete backward compatibility with some amazing old lenses.

[Pioneer]

Somehow I just can't generate any empathy for this poor Canon sufferer. It must be really rough to be saddled with some of the finest photographic equipment ever made.

Chasing the next newest thing is a sure way to be dissatisfied with what you have.

[twilhelm]

Somehow I just can't generate any empathy for this poor Canon sufferer. It must be really rough to be saddled with some of the finest photographic equipment ever made.

Chasing the next newest thing is a sure way to be dissatisfied with what you have.

You're absolutely right, there was no reason for me to "suffer" with my Canon FD equipment. I had two bodies and 6 lenses, 2 zooms and 4 primes. Everything I needed. In the early days of autofocus, I found I had more keepers with my manual focus than most of the people who relied on their autofocus. I played with several systems, and while I liked them, I found the plastic bodies felt cheap compared to my metal.

Of course, then I needed to upgrade my equipment due to the advancements of digital and, I had a photography business. Lo and behold, my Canon gear was useless.

I don't have many issues with the Pentax autofocus, but that's probably because I've shot many things for many years utilizing manual focus.

[normhead]

I don't have many issues with the Pentax autofocus, but that's probably because I've shot many things for many years utilizing manual focus.

Those of us who shot 30-40 years of manual focus before we got auto-focus seem to have much lower standards than those who expect auto-focus to do everything for them. I hear the stuff about Pentax AF not being fast, and think "well how much faster could it actually be?" My experience with a D800 with a fast lens on it did nothing to change that

[lesmore49]

I never could figure out why some said the Pentax system wasn't great with AF. I started photography in 1968 with my Pentax S1a, then continued with different SLR Pentax models, medium format, Leica Rangefinder, etc...till 2007 when I got my first digital DSLR, a K10D.

I didn't have an AF lens at first, used my MF 35-105 A Macro Zoom on it and all was well. After a few months I got a Pentax 16-45 , my first AF ever. I was astounded at how fast the AF worked, but then I had nothing to compare it AF wise. I've used Pentax AF for wild birds...which can be a challenge..at first....till I spent a morning or two by a wild bird feeder with lots of Chickadees and Pine Siskins, etc. Those small, fast , darting birds really upped my ability to anticipate, pan, track, focus on their eye...and eventualy I got better to the point where it's not that big of a deal to get flying birds.

The key for me, seems to be the more I practice, the more of a thing I do...eventually I get better at it. It's like manually shifting a car/truck/motorcycle. At first I was lousy...but the more I did it ...and I did it a lot...when I was younger...I became good at snapping off fast, quick , accurate shifts in just about any vehicle. But practice, practice and more practice...even with shifter mechanisms that are renowned for accuracy...like the old Hurst aftermarket shifter. In other words it can be a fantastic mechanism...ie; AF, Hurst manual shifters...but you still have to work at it...to improve your abilities.

You're competing against yourself...to improve yourself...refine your muscle memory, your 'eye'...the way you hold/position the mechanical device, etc. It's not quickly a situation where you plunk down your money and takes your choice to paraphrase Dickens...you have to understand that AF like everything else...is a tool....and a tool when you use that you are still going to have to learn to use that tool to the best of your ability. AF maybe be 'automatic'....but that doesn't mean that you don't have any role to play. You still have to learn to use it.

Ok, ramble from an old guy over.

BTW the best manual focus I've ever used is my very old Leitz Elmar 50mm lens on my old Leica llf rangefinder. Think the lens is from the '40's and the body is a 1951. This RF focusing system in the camera, coupled with this old lens and it's fast little focus lever on the lens...is still the fastest, most accurate system I've ever used to manually focus on a subject. It's not AF, but boy is it good, accurate and fast...and a satisfying pleasure to use.