Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-01-2019, 09:06 PM   #241
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,885
QuoteOriginally posted by rr1736 Quote
Which technology is cheapest to produce for the camera companies will have an edge as they will push that which is the most profitable
Companies haven't quite figured this out yet, but 'push' by them is less important than 'pull' from consumers; their success depends on their delivering what the customers want. I moved from Pentax to Canon in 1995 because I considered Canon's EF/USM lenses to be superior to what Pentax was trying to sell; I was not alone - the transition to AF is one of the times when Canon became a market leader {I moved back to Pentax in 2015 because I had reliability issues with Rebel bodies}. In other areas, Coke was forced by market forces to go back to "Old Coke", and IBM's fabled marketing wasn't able to maintain the company's dominant position.

06-01-2019, 09:09 PM   #242
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,484
QuoteOriginally posted by Trickortreat Quote
Seems theyve got universal praise for AF capabilities with that one...
Universal praise is like winning the elections. Some artists were very talented but never known to the public, while other artists less talents became famous thanks to their marketing skills. Perception vs reality. The Sony A9 is really really impressive for AF and burst rate, the other models from Sony benefit from the brand image from the A9, but the A9 doesn't use the same chip as the other Sony cameras. The readout speed of the A9 sensor is a lot faster thanks to stacked memory, which is not the case on other models of Sony.
06-02-2019, 02:55 AM - 1 Like   #243
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,934
QuoteOriginally posted by Trickortreat Quote
Good... nonsense again, what safe? Who is safe? from what?


I know D500 is a competent camera for AF tracking. It has D5 AF module. Bonus is - it covers smaller sensor so the af points are spread all over the image. Even A6400 has more or less same tracking capabilities as its 4 times more expensive brother.
As for video - that guy seems like hes on Nikon paycheck

ugh.. cant stand that guy

Only mirrorles i shoot with is Fuji x100 series as i dont really like EVFs. My findings are just observations from various YT videos and web sites (I never follow jut one guy and take his words as gospel, just to be clear).


I'd argue that Nikon and especially Canon have even more photographers on their paycheck. Mirrorless has momentum for other reasons too, not just hype machine (not saying there isnt any).

Hmm.. from the description they were tracking a image projection on a canvas? 2d movement? flickering from the projected image? Is there a link to the actual test?
Results discrepancies from the D810 and D7200 seem very odd... they have the same AF module and using the same lenses results should be closer to eachother...

Yes, ive said that mirrorless have greater potential for AF development. Yes, SLRs could have more processing power dedicated to AF, but so can mirrorless.
Never said mid level mirrorless beating all SLRs. You misquoted me there. Ive said only best DSLRs have comparable tracking performance as mid level mirrorless...

Yes, of course, the smaller the focus throw, the lighter the glass and the stronger and faster motor the lens will focus faster. Lens AF speed is simple engineering
I can see that you believe firmly that mirrorless are just better by design than SLRs. I think SLRs are better than you give them credit for and most mirrorless models are worse than you think. In addition, tracking auto focus isn't the Holy Grail of photography. Even if mirrorless cameras absolutely destroy every SLR model out there in regard to tracking auto focus (which they don't) that wouldn't be enough reason for most of them to throw over their current SLRs and lenses.

Dan is right in that lens design and a batch of new lenses that are smaller and sharper and have fast apertures for MILCs could shift things. The only problem with that argument is that those lenses are also really expensive -- 3000 for the 28-70 f2, 2700 for the 85mm f1.2, and 2100 for the new 50mm f1.2. They are certainly awesome lenses from what I've seen, but they also make the Pentax DFA *50 look cheap in comparison...
06-02-2019, 07:12 AM - 1 Like   #244
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,367
QuoteOriginally posted by Trickortreat Quote
..... as i dont really like EVFs. .....
This is the only sentence that matters and is one that is true for a lot of people.

It's very clear that a lot of advanced camera users get extremely high keeper rates without MILC's automagical AF. For them, MILCs hold no technological advantage, only the disadvantage of discomfort. If a pro or advanced enthusiast does not like EVFs, they will eventually try a DSLR and be likely to either switch or be a dual system user.

Moreover, MILC's AF advantage may be short-lived. A recent Ricoh patent shows how a DSLR can do image-object AF, too.

06-02-2019, 07:20 AM   #245
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 33,043
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I can see that you believe firmly that mirrorless are just better by design than SLRs. I think SLRs are better than you give them credit for and most mirrorless models are worse than you think. In addition, tracking auto focus isn't the Holy Grail of photography. Even if mirrorless cameras absolutely destroy every SLR model out there in regard to tracking auto focus (which they don't) that wouldn't be enough reason for most of them to throw over their current SLRs and lenses.

Dan is right in that lens design and a batch of new lenses that are smaller and sharper and have fast apertures for MILCs could shift things. The only problem with that argument is that those lenses are also really expensive -- 3000 for the 28-70 f2, 2700 for the 85mm f1.2, and 2100 for the new 50mm f1.2. They are certainly awesome lenses from what I've seen, but they also make the Pentax DFA *50 look cheap in comparison...
It's going to take years for them to get their investments back on these lenses. ƒ1.2 is not necessary for all but the most specialized of photographs. I know that every one thinks that ƒ1.2 is a whole lot different than 1.4, It's a half stop. Snob value only as far as I can tell. Especially since even my DA*55 1.4 is so narrow DoF wide open, most of the images I take with are ƒ2 or higher.

Of my 1000 keepers so far this year, 18 are taken between ƒ1.4 and ƒ2.4. 2 of those 18 are shot at ƒ1.4.

I'm using keepers here because I don't care how many I shot, I care about how many I liked enough to keep. I might have used ƒ1.2 for .2% of my images. And that's still a "might have", not a "would have."

Clearly investing in expensive 1.2 glass for me would be a total waste of money. And there are a lot of similar photographers out there. So those lenses are for a very small segment of a very small segment of the market. Of the 60 odd people I follow on flicker, 1 makes good use of really wide aperture glass.

Clearly not an attempt to make money, bragging rights only. Almost as if ordered by the marketing department to keep the brand name on the front pages of the blog sites, more than part of an actual plan to sell a lot of lenses.

Expensive to design, expensive to produce, limited market in a shrinking market.


QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
It's very clear that a lot of advanced camera users get extremely high keeper rates without MILC's automagical AF.
Even with a moving subject, my keeper rate is well over 90% and probably closer to 95%. Most days, my keepers are selected on pose and framing. SO better AF could increase my keeper rate by at most 5% of my images. Given those odds, if I nail 19/20 now and could get say 39/40, then the increase would be 1/40. Since my selection rate is one of 10 the probablitily of getting a better image with better AF would be 0.25%. My Pentax will probably more than make up for that with it's faster focus confirm.

And as a corollary to that, using multiple focus points makes first frame capture even slower on systems with a large number of focus point.

I will not be buying a different camera for better AF. The possibility of any return at all on such an investment is way to small, so far no one has presented any evidence that cameras with AF judged better by internet bloggers actually increase your keeper rate, except for a very small series of circumstances. And there is certainly no evidence that cameras configured for fast AF tracking outperform my set up using a single focus point and AF.s And it's not like my camera can't handle tracking...I'm sure there's a line out there where a faster AF camera with better tracking would outperform my Pentax, but to date, I've done OK. I'm guessing better tracking might be better for those raptor sanctuary shots with captive birds, but I can't think of anywhere else I'd ever benefit from it. The thing about great tracking, is you have to go someplace special to make good use of it. Unless you live near one of those places it's going to cost you to buy it, and it's going to cost you more to use it. For those of us who don't get out much it would be waste of money.

These cameras are for folks with a lot of money and a lot of time. Designed for the 1%. Yet they are discussed by wannabe's everywhere.

If there was forum rule saying you can't discus a lens or camera body you own, or one you are looking at buying because you already have the money in the bank and are finalizing your decision, these fast AF cameras and lenses would almost never be discussed. It's all theoretical projection with no actual performance data. It's tough talking to folks who only know what some company's marketing department wants them to know. Actual users always have a more balanced opinion.

Last edited by normhead; 06-02-2019 at 08:17 AM.
06-02-2019, 07:31 AM   #246
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 452
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I can see that you believe firmly that mirrorless are just better by design than SLRs
Not at all - like i said i only use DSLRs it terms of ILCs, my only mirrorless is Fuji X100 line and for 2 reasons:
1. it has OVF
2. it has a lens that Pentax lacks
06-02-2019, 04:49 PM   #247
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,885
QuoteOriginally posted by Trickortreat Quote
Yes, of course, the smaller the focus throw, the lighter the glass and the stronger and faster motor the lens will focus faster. Lens AF speed is simple engineering
Yes, and in lenses like the 55-300mm PLM, Pentax demonstrates mastery over that "simple engineering".
06-18-2019, 10:25 PM   #248
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Nelson B.C.
Posts: 3,688
>Hmmm.. but -2ev is something like moonlit scene...

You should get out and about and shoot some wildlife before opining. Seriously.

The K1 focuses at about -4ev. What that means is I can put on my 150-450 f5.6 lens and shoot at dusk and dawn. With my 500 f4.5 i can focus in conditions where i can't see what I'm photographing. It also means that i can shoot in the forest in the winter around here. -2ev means that i need to wait another half hour at dawn and miss that magic time when wildlife is very active. Winter here is very dark, and the high iso quality and autofocus allows me to shoot in the conditions. It also means that low contrast scenes get focus, dark subject against a dark background.

Do you know why people but 400 f2.8 lenses for $10k plus and needing a sherpa to pack it around? Because they can shoot at dawn and dusk and focus the thing. Better sensors and af modules mean lighter and less expensive lenses.

I have a friend who has a Parkinson's tremor and he shoots with the D500 and 300mm f4. The crazy thing will focus birds in flight while his hand is shaking. I know my K1 wouldn't work for him. I doubt if there are many systems that would.

Every system has advantages and disadvantages. 3/4 of the system are the lenses. I haven't shot with a quality mirrorless but i understand that I'd have to spend twice as much as i did on my K1 to get an equivalent vf and af experience.

Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, composition, computer, dont, english speaker, evfs, exec, eye, k-1, light, market, milc, mirrorless, nikon, ovf, pentax, people, photo, photo industry, photography, photos, post, reasons, research, screens, slr, technology, viewfinders
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The shocking truth about our Australian members. It's all a sham!! gaweidert General Talk 416 09-03-2018 01:22 AM
Travel Truth In Advertising LOU16 Post Your Photos! 11 08-12-2018 01:01 PM
Heartland Institute Climate Denial Fraud leaked: Ratmagiclady General Talk 57 03-13-2012 04:52 PM
What Denial Will Getcha' shooz General Talk 18 10-21-2011 07:27 AM
Pre-x, denial is OK... jeffkrol General Talk 9 09-21-2010 08:14 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:48 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top