Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-16-2010, 10:33 AM   #31
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: OHIO
Posts: 211
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
I have. I used the Canon 1ds (or whatever it is called) with a 35-350 L lens. It is the slowest AF system I've ever tried!
this is too funny. 35-350L, how fast you expect the lens that covers this kind of big focus length to be? Have you tried 85 1.8 on 7d? or have you tried 70-200 IS on 1Ds serial Canon body? If you haven't, you should try.

09-16-2010, 10:55 AM   #32
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,149
QuoteOriginally posted by happygui Quote
this is too funny. 35-350L, how fast you expect the lens that covers this kind of big focus length to be? Have you tried 85 1.8 on 7d? or have you tried 70-200 IS on 1Ds serial Canon body? If you haven't, you should try.
Have you ever tried a K-7 with eg the 31 LImited, 43 Limited, or the 77 Limited or the FA* 200/4 Macro?
AF is virtually instant.....
09-16-2010, 11:03 AM   #33
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Iowa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,368
IMO, people mainly care about more focus points because it is tough for the layman to understand how autofocus systems work and how they don't work. But 11 focus points versus 51 (or 39) focus points is a numerical difference, which is a lot easier to understand, especially when glancing at a camera's specs. It's sort of like sensors, if it's the same megapixel amount, people generally assume it's the same sensor. It might be or it might not be, the main difference is more based on performance, which is something you can't necessarily know just by looking at a spec sheet.

Not that I'm poo pooing additional focus points and their role in tracking or the ability to select a precise part of the frame, it is true that people use points besides the center point. It's just that I'd rather have better autofocus with 11 points than the same autofocus with more than 11.
09-16-2010, 12:40 PM   #34
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,165
QuoteOriginally posted by happygui Quote
this is too funny. 35-350L, how fast you expect the lens that covers this kind of big focus length to be? Have you tried 85 1.8 on 7d? or have you tried 70-200 IS on 1Ds serial Canon body? If you haven't, you should try.
Don't bother, the guy is somewhat fanatical when it comes to Pentax.

The 35-350 is actually a pretty fast focusing beast considering the enormous range and amount of glass it has to shuffle around. But yeah, it is nowhere near as fast as the real good ones. I like to hand people my 7D or 1DsII set to AI servo mode, tell them to hold down the focus button and just move it around quickly pointing it at all sorts of stuff. The usual response is "whoa..." when they see that it refocuses virtually instantly when going from near to far and back.

I think Pentax produces great output, has great ergonomics, and tons of well though out little touches. But if you think Pentax AF comes anywhere near that of a high end Canon, well, then you are on crack.

09-16-2010, 01:09 PM   #35
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,149
QuoteOriginally posted by pingflood Quote
The 35-350 is actually a pretty fast focusing beast considering the enormous range and amount of glass it has to shuffle around.
The focusing group isn't enormeous in this lens. Just because a lens have lots of glass doesn't mean it all moves during focusing. And the zoom range has nothing to do with focus speed.
09-16-2010, 01:24 PM   #36
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: OHIO
Posts: 211
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
Have you ever tried a K-7 with eg the 31 LImited, 43 Limited, or the 77 Limited or the FA* 200/4 Macro?
AF is virtually instant.....
Of course I tried. I tried K7 on both my 31mm and 77mm. The AF was much better than my old k20d. However, it still cannot compare with Canon 1d body or even 7d. The worse thing is the IQ of K7 was so bad after ISO 800. I had to sell it after first week of use. I am kind of satisfied with my KX.
09-16-2010, 01:24 PM   #37
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
Indeed an explosion of AF points is quite the luxury, not to mention a distraction when looking through the viewfinder (what a mess all those AF points are in the 1D viewfinder).

With the current layout, the AF points are *juuust* close enough together to gain accurate focus on a non-central subject, and I think are very well placed within the frame. More, and there should be the same placements with either extra between them or extended to the extremes of the frame, and all made to be as accurate and efficient as the centre AF point.

Otherwise the increase in points would have little benefit IMO.
09-16-2010, 01:29 PM   #38
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,165
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
The focusing group isn't enormeous in this lens. Just because a lens have lots of glass doesn't mean it all moves during focusing. And the zoom range has nothing to do with focus speed.
I started typing up a reply here but frankly, with your recent track record of Canon having 48 focus points of which "pros use 11 for performance" and anecdotal tales of shooting slow "1Ds something" cameras it really isn't worth the trouble.

Back on my ignore list for the second time.

09-16-2010, 01:48 PM   #39
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,149
QuoteOriginally posted by happygui Quote
Of course I tried. I tried K7 on both my 31mm and 77mm. The AF was much better than my old k20d. However, it still cannot compare with Canon 1d body or even 7d. The worse thing is the IQ of K7 was so bad after ISO 800. I had to sell it after first week of use. I am kind of satisfied with my KX.
Are you guys making things up? My K-7 is so good that at 800 ISO that you can make large prints without seeing noise. This is at 1000 ISO cropped 50% and no noise reduction.


09-16-2010, 01:51 PM   #40
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,149
QuoteOriginally posted by happygui Quote
Of course I tried. I tried K7 on both my 31mm and 77mm. The AF was much better than my old k20d. However, it still cannot compare with Canon 1d body or even 7d.
My K-7 use under 1s to nail focus in virtually all conditions. The same does the fastest Canons I've tried. I cannot personally detect differences in the sub second level even with a stopwatch as I cannot start and stop the watch fast enough at these short time intervals...and is it really important?
09-16-2010, 02:10 PM - 1 Like   #41
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,149
QuoteOriginally posted by pingflood Quote
Don't bother, the guy is somewhat fanatical when it comes to Pentax.
Nothing to do with fanaticism but being fed up with people reading specs sheets and pixel peep instead of taking images and use them in real life.
The fact of matter is that unless you are a dedicated sports photographer that want AF at 8fps, all AF cameras on the market do the job provided the photographer know how to use it. The latter is sadly lacking as some seem to think that AF is some magic feature where all you need to do is to point the camera at the general direction of the subject and then whatever the photographer want to be in focus will be in focus. AF doesn't work that way. Like metering, AF is basically good enough and it boils down to knowing how it works. After 15 years of whining on various forums of slow AF I haven't seen single example where the culprit has not eventually turned out to be user error (ie used in the wrong way).
We all want noisefree images but discarding a camera because someone see noise at magnification level approaching a 1km sized print is ridiculous (I know I am exagregating but you get the picture). 1000ISO is more than usable, it is indeed good enough for fine art prints, and would have been pure science fiction a few years ago. Dedicated astro photographers better find a better tool but they are a minority.
Someone even dismissed the validity of the 645D because one could see som fringing at huge magnification.
Why not take photograps and be pleased with the progress. The idea that tne camera you have is useless and suck is nonsense....
09-16-2010, 08:18 PM   #42
Site Supporter
jpzk's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Québec
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,258
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
Are you guys making things up? My K-7 is so good that at 800 ISO that you can make large prints without seeing noise. This is at 1000 ISO cropped 50% and no noise reduction.

This is an excellent shot!

You are absolutely right: this photo deserves to be in the "Gallery" of th best pics.
By the way, this must have been quite some work to get it this close and this perfectly exposed!

I will be honest with you: I still use my K20D for wildlife shots ... maybe I should give the K7 more useage.

Cheers!

JP
09-16-2010, 09:07 PM   #43
Senior Member
scole's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 216
I don't need 51 or 39 focus points but I would like another 4 focus points. I'd like to add points above & below the outer most AF points so that there's a grid of points 3 high by 5 across. In other words, I'd be happier with a more even spread of focus points across the frame.

I shoot nature / landscapes and it always seems like I want to set focus in those 4 areas, especially when I rotate to shoot portrait. I think it would be too tedious to scroll between 51 or 39 focus points.

All that being said, the 11 AF points on my K10 have served me well so I should be just fine with 11 on the K-5.
09-16-2010, 09:08 PM   #44
Pentaxian
fearview's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Jakarta
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,067
11 is enough, but since K-x and K-r have similar numbers of AF points. Pentax need to add some more just for marketing cliche.

09-16-2010, 09:57 PM   #45
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 184
Dang I wanted more AF points.

When will Pentax throw some real R&D dollars at a new AF system rather than just updating the algorithms?

bazz.
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!
af, k5, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AF points....what are they? D4rknezz Pentax DSLR Discussion 10 09-12-2010 08:09 PM
Why different reputations for same points? GeneV Site Suggestions and Help 40 08-25-2010 12:34 PM
Kx AF Points tradixionales Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 11 07-18-2010 07:25 AM
More talking points Nesster General Talk 3 06-30-2010 10:26 AM
K-7 Focus Points jolinjo Pentax DSLR Discussion 3 11-11-2009 01:41 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:11 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