Is K5 really only 11 AF points ?

Zebooka · 09-16-2010, 10:42 PM

You guys miss very important thing - such large amount of points is needed for AF-C 3D tracking. Also their data is used when autofocusing in AF-S mode.

:ugh:

0144 · 09-16-2010, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by Zebooka

You guys miss very important thing - such large amount of points is needed for AF-C 3D tracking. Also their data is used when autofocusing in AF-S mode.

:ugh:

they could use some their 77 metering zones to help tracking. they don't provide distance info, but in many cases they can tell subject's direction.

Eruditass · 09-16-2010, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by sir_bazz

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.

How do you know they did not include add intelligent phase-tracking electronics?

Eruditass · 09-16-2010, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by fearview

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.

20 AF points (cross sensors are like two sensors, aren't they?)

paulelescoces · 09-16-2010, 11:38 PM

I personally use only the central focus point 98% of the time... for composition, normally focus and recompose... in cases of a thin DOF where focus would likely be lost through recomposition I either do manually... or focus point selection.

I am sure that others can make use of this but at least for my purposes I am unconvinced that more focus points is better.... maybe helps with focus tracking as I guess there is more visibility?

Also, I have focus tracking on my Lumix TZ7... actually works pretty well for the little I have played with it... what are the complications with implementing focus tracking on contrast detection vs. phase detection AF?

Atindra · 09-17-2010, 12:01 AM

It seems to me the old Megapixel race has now turned into a focus points race. I would love to see some really technical, credible and informative tests where number of focus points are being attributed for focus speed and focus accuracy.
There must be some physical limiting factor for a particular AF-sensor to hold a number of focus points.

If some of our well informed member can really throw some light on it-would be a great help for us novices to learn few things.

Atindra

sir_bazz · 09-17-2010, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by Eruditass

How do you know they did not include add intelligent phase-tracking electronics?

It wouldn't matter....well not for me anyway.

The current "High-precision 11-point wide-frame AF" system that we've all grown to know is perfect for stationary subjects but horrible for tracking small subjects.

More AF points would/could/should allow for different AF configurations as needed. Being able to switch between the current wide-frame and/or a tight-frame, (to assist with tracking small subjects), is why I'd like to see more AF points.

bazz.

ogl · 09-17-2010, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by sir_bazz

It wouldn't matter....well not for me anyway.

More AF points would/could/should allow for different AF configurations as needed. Being able to switch between the current wide-frame and/or a tight-frame, (to assist with tracking small subjects), is why I'd like to see more AF points.

bazz.

show proofs, please.

Sensitivity of sensors to low-contrast objects or in low-light does not depend on the number of sensors...
but depends on the sensitivity of pixel / signal processing schemes and algorithms.

Mike.P® · 09-17-2010, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by ogl

show proofs, please.

LOL

(Is it just me that sees the irony in this statement)

sir_bazz · 09-17-2010, 01:18 AM

Originally posted by ogl

show proofs, please.

Sensitivity sensors to low-contrast objects or in low-light does not depend on the number of sensors...
but depends the sensitivity of pixel / signal processing schemes and algorithms.

I don't think I was very clear with my earlier post. I'm not discussing performance but moreso the placement of the AF points.

bazz.

gawan · 09-17-2010, 01:18 AM

So 11 points in K-5 means that we are not getting any tracking AF for Pentax?

blende8 · 09-17-2010, 01:28 AM

Pentax cannot satisfy everyone.
Some want many, small, but insensitive AF points.
Others want few, but large, sensitive AF points.
What to do?

lol101 · 09-17-2010, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

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).
...

As a current Canon/Pentax user, I have to concur with what you just wrote to some extent.

It seems that AF shear speed is greatly a function of the lens/AF mechanism when used in "single shot" mode.

For example, my FA135f2.8 focused as fast on my K10 than my 70-200f4L on my 5D (and the 135 has a min focusing distance of 0.7m!).

But the 70-200L smokes the DA*50-135 for example so YMMV.

Same could be said about FA35f2 AF speed against EF 35f2... no AF speed difference to be found. Same again when comparing FA 50f1.4 to EF 50f1.4: speed is about the same.

When it comes to tracking moving targets or focus in low light, however, I always reach for the Canon... no contest here.

As for K-7 being "unusable" above ISO 800... people saying that just never print obviously.

Gimbal · 09-17-2010, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by blende8

Pentax cannot satisfy everyone.
Some want many, small, but insensitive AF points.
Others want few, but large, sensitive AF points.
What to do?

Nobody wants insensitive AF points. Small doesn't mean insensitive. Small means higher precision when aiming, but it also means you need more to cover a certain area when tracking.

ogl · 09-17-2010, 02:01 AM

19 AF points in 7D is not worse than 51 AF in Nikon D300. And maybe better. Why?

09-17-2010, 12:01 AM	#51
Atindra Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bhavnagar (Gujarat),India Photos: Gallery Posts: 375	MP race turned into Focus points race!!! It seems to me the old Megapixel race has now turned into a focus points race. I would love to see some really technical, credible and informative tests where number of focus points are being attributed for focus speed and focus accuracy. There must be some physical limiting factor for a particular AF-sensor to hold a number of focus points. If some of our well informed member can really throw some light on it-would be a great help for us novices to learn few things. Atindra

09-17-2010, 12:22 AM	#53
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by sir_bazz It wouldn't matter....well not for me anyway. More AF points would/could/should allow for different AF configurations as needed. Being able to switch between the current wide-frame and/or a tight-frame, (to assist with tracking small subjects), is why I'd like to see more AF points. bazz. show proofs, please. Sensitivity of sensors to low-contrast objects or in low-light does not depend on the number of sensors... but depends on the sensitivity of pixel / signal processing schemes and algorithms. Last edited by ogl; 09-17-2010 at 01:57 AM.

09-17-2010, 02:01 AM	#60
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	19 AF points in 7D is not worse than 51 AF in Nikon D300. And maybe better. Why? Last edited by ogl; 09-17-2010 at 03:02 AM.

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

09-16-2010, 10:42 PM	#46
Zebooka Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Russia, Siberia, Novosibirsk Posts: 323	You guys miss very important thing - such large amount of points is needed for AF-C 3D tracking. Also their data is used when autofocusing in AF-S mode. :ugh:

09-16-2010, 11:05 PM	#47
0144 Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Lithuania Posts: 38	Originally posted by Zebooka You guys miss very important thing - such large amount of points is needed for AF-C 3D tracking. Also their data is used when autofocusing in AF-S mode. :ugh: they could use some their 77 metering zones to help tracking. they don't provide distance info, but in many cases they can tell subject's direction.

09-16-2010, 11:10 PM	#48
Eruditass Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,207	Originally posted by sir_bazz 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. How do you know they did not include add intelligent phase-tracking electronics?

09-16-2010, 11:10 PM	#49
Eruditass Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,207	Originally posted by fearview 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. 20 AF points (cross sensors are like two sensors, aren't they?)

09-16-2010, 11:38 PM	#50
paulelescoces Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Switzerland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 252	I personally use only the central focus point 98% of the time... for composition, normally focus and recompose... in cases of a thin DOF where focus would likely be lost through recomposition I either do manually... or focus point selection. I am sure that others can make use of this but at least for my purposes I am unconvinced that more focus points is better.... maybe helps with focus tracking as I guess there is more visibility? Also, I have focus tracking on my Lumix TZ7... actually works pretty well for the little I have played with it... what are the complications with implementing focus tracking on contrast detection vs. phase detection AF?

09-17-2010, 12:18 AM	#52
sir_bazz Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 184	Originally posted by Eruditass How do you know they did not include add intelligent phase-tracking electronics? It wouldn't matter....well not for me anyway. The current "High-precision 11-point wide-frame AF" system that we've all grown to know is perfect for stationary subjects but horrible for tracking small subjects. More AF points would/could/should allow for different AF configurations as needed. Being able to switch between the current wide-frame and/or a tight-frame, (to assist with tracking small subjects), is why I'd like to see more AF points. bazz.

09-17-2010, 12:33 AM	#54
Mike.P® Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Milton, Hampshire, UK Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,154	Originally posted by ogl show proofs, please. LOL (Is it just me that sees the irony in this statement)

09-17-2010, 01:18 AM	#55
sir_bazz Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 184	Originally posted by ogl show proofs, please. Sensitivity sensors to low-contrast objects or in low-light does not depend on the number of sensors... but depends the sensitivity of pixel / signal processing schemes and algorithms. I don't think I was very clear with my earlier post. I'm not discussing performance but moreso the placement of the AF points. bazz.

09-17-2010, 01:18 AM	#56
gawan Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Helsinki Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,400	So 11 points in K-5 means that we are not getting any tracking AF for Pentax?

09-17-2010, 01:28 AM	#57
blende8 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Bremen, Germany Photos: Albums Posts: 1,521	Pentax cannot satisfy everyone. Some want many, small, but insensitive AF points. Others want few, but large, sensitive AF points. What to do?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-17-2010, 01:32 AM	#58
lol101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Garennes sur Eure France Photos: Gallery Posts: 899	Originally posted by Pål Jensen 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). ... As a current Canon/Pentax user, I have to concur with what you just wrote to some extent. It seems that AF shear speed is greatly a function of the lens/AF mechanism when used in "single shot" mode. For example, my FA135f2.8 focused as fast on my K10 than my 70-200f4L on my 5D (and the 135 has a min focusing distance of 0.7m!). But the 70-200L smokes the DA*50-135 for example so YMMV. Same could be said about FA35f2 AF speed against EF 35f2... no AF speed difference to be found. Same again when comparing FA 50f1.4 to EF 50f1.4: speed is about the same. When it comes to tracking moving targets or focus in low light, however, I always reach for the Canon... no contest here. As for K-7 being "unusable" above ISO 800... people saying that just never print obviously.

09-17-2010, 01:41 AM	#59
Gimbal Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,106	Originally posted by blende8 Pentax cannot satisfy everyone. Some want many, small, but insensitive AF points. Others want few, but large, sensitive AF points. What to do? Nobody wants insensitive AF points. Small doesn't mean insensitive. Small means higher precision when aiming, but it also means you need more to cover a certain area when tracking.