Pentax Facebook says K-5II will boast the widest AF range of any DSLR currently avail

Clicker · 09-12-2012, 05:30 AM

It would be fun if they released a BIG DSLR "digital 67" the full frame we all want DSLR body with 645 sensor

GreenMachine · 09-12-2012, 05:44 AM

I've been earning a living and paying my bills in this industry for over 30 years. Things slowed down a bit when digital finally became better say around 2007 and many clients were going to colleges for credit line only payment deals with students. Things have picked up more since 2010 when some of those clients found out you still need a good camera operator. I really don't know what to say about the 2 new K5 versions, maybe the s will have outstanding resolution with no AA filter, but the AF tracking should be on par with any Canon or Nikon, they should have gave it 24P video, not stay with 25P PAL, 11 AF points isn't really an issue as long as they work like a Canon or Nikon system. Sure it's APS-C but even at that the original K5 image quality was fine and the 5 foot prints I made from it looked fine it's just missing a few small important upgrades that maybe would have put a few more smiles on people instead of frowns.

Digital isn't film, it was never like film, it will never be like film. It's data converted into an image, there's issues on all levels from capture to archiving. Using multiple camera systems I was actually impressed with the high ISO images that came out of the K5 compared to cameras in the same price point. Looking at the new introduction prices, you really can't complain on an image quality level when doing a dollar for dollar comparison.

Canon and Nikon have the AP and Reuters using their gear and that's a lot of profit, they have larger R&D dollars, they larger advertising dollars and all that adds up to a larger user base.

For the working Pros who have dealt with the hush hush . . . don't talk about dust on the sensor cover ups, RAW file processing compatibility, other secret problems and bad pixels that effect all digital imaging devices no matter how expensive they are. Yep your software . . .well some software will magically map them out but it doesn't map them out of the sensor. I had a D3 delivered new and it had 27 bad pixel sites. No big deal Nikon mapped them out under warranty and with my so called Pro Service it took 10 days. Now fast forward and guess what? . . . now you have to pay for this service which they recommend you do at least once a year at $300 to $350 from what I was told. I won't be held hostage to be forced to pay for stuff like that. I never had to send in a film camera for calibration.

Now look at Pentax and Olympus. They both offer in camera pixel mapping. Don't know what that is? . . .
Go over to the Olympus web site here ( Ask Olympus: What is Pixel Mapping? ) and see what they say about it.
This happens to be a feature that outweighs a lot of other features like the crippled video and boggy AF.

OK . . . so that's not enough? . . . . Take a look at the DNG RAW format. Yeah the PEF is great, but should DNG and upload it into Lightroom and if you have a bad pixel it gets mapped out automatically. it's a good RAW format, Hasselblad and Leica have it combined with their RAW formats. Canon shooters are forever trying these mystery fix it methods like take the lens off do sensor cleaning blaa blaa blaa to map out bad pixels. Canon makes some great gear, but lets face it, this is our paycheck and image counts. It's a nightmare to use the plugins to map them out of video.

So that's my rant for the morning.

GreenMachine · 09-12-2012, 06:21 AM

Oh and has anyone tried emailing anyone over at PPS? . . emails to the 2 pro services guys and the general pro services address come back as un-deliverable, no one at this address exists. Now that's what I call being able to get in touch with Professional Services when you need them

Clicker · 09-12-2012, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by GreenMachine

Oh and has anyone tried emailing anyone over at PPS? . . emails to the 2 pro services guys and the general pro services address come back as un-deliverable, no one at this address exists. Now that's what I call being able to get in touch with Professional Services when you need them

The pro online services have to employees, Intel and AMD

GreenMachine · 09-12-2012, 08:01 AM

That's funny Clicker !!

GordonZA · 09-12-2012, 02:05 PM

Just got to play with a friends brand new Canon 1DX... Completely blown away by the autofocus on that magnificent beast!

Taking tack sharp photos hand held in moonlight with the 100-400 at full zoom!!!

Now here's my question... If the Canon has an AF range down to -2ev and performs like THAT, how good is the new K5II/s going to be in the real world with -3ev?????

I think everyone is so hyper focused on full frame we have missed the point and that is an incremental and probably not too small an upgrade to the AF system for Pentax?

JinDesu · 09-12-2012, 02:36 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by GordonZA

Just got to play with a friends brand new Canon 1DX... Completely blown away by the autofocus on that magnificent beast!

Taking tack sharp photos hand held in moonlight with the 100-400 at full zoom!!!

Now here's my question... If the Canon has an AF range down to -2ev and performs like THAT, how good is the new K5II/s going to be in the real world with -3ev?????

I think everyone is so hyper focused on full frame we have missed the point and that is an incremental and probably not too small an upgrade to the AF system for Pentax?

Sensitivity is one thing. Number of focus points is also important - while the AF system may be more responsive at low light, it's not so tremendously helpful if it the AF points are large and clumsy.

I hope that the k-5ii's AF algorithm is smarter if the focus points are the same size. Although someone else wrote that F2.8 sensors "see" smaller than F5.6 sensors. Not so sure on what that meant... (something about how the opening and the sensor relationship defines the F number...)

soalle · 09-13-2012, 02:12 PM

Sorry for the slightly off topic question:

What's the sensitivity of k-30 sensors? f2.8 or f5.6?

Thanks!

westmill · 09-13-2012, 02:44 PM - **1 Like**

Since I use just one sensor for 95% for my work, I dont mind that there is only elleven. There has been no mention so far from pentax to say the ridiculously large sensors have been shrunk down and Ive yet to hear if the flash opperation has been corrected. Its one thing to say it will focus in low light, but there is not much point without knowing what it has focussed on. My fingers are crossed ! The fact it is still using safox 11 point is not that prommising but i wouldnt think impossable. So I await for a full review with baited breadth. These two things make the K5 very much bottom draw stuff. The only way to get correct exposure using flash with any amount of reliability is by using pre flash. In this day and age that is totaly unacceptable for a supposedly top draw camera.

Alizarine · 09-13-2012, 08:16 PM

There was someone in this thread (or was it another) who put up a mock layout of multi-AF point systems like Pentax's 11 vs. Nikon's 39 in the D7000. The wider and fewer the AF points are spread might mean they're bigger than the one with more in the same spot. Until see in-depth AF tests of the new units, that "extra AF sensitivity advantage" is moot.

sandilands · 09-16-2012, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by D4rknezz

Careful of misconception

So rather than doing R&D in darker and darker environment...I rather have pentax double their number of points. Sure it will focus on one of the 11 points...hopefully that point is hitting the eye of your subject as opposed to their nose.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that what (SEL)ective focus point is for? When I absolutely must hit the eye of the subject (most of my shots) I focus lock on the eye using the closest focus point, recompose slightly and shoot. These are situations when the "acceptable focus" DOF is less than the distance between an eye and a nose - about 4 cm. No way would I let any Auto algorithm choose the focus spot, regardless of the number of points available - in fact I would be happy having only 1.

My problem is with my own eyes. In low light I can find the subject's eye through the viewfinder but no way I can tell if it is in or out of focus. I need the camera to do what I can't do.

Hence my vehement disagreement. I need the best low light AF performance possible. More focus points give me nothing.

JinDesu · 09-16-2012, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by sandilands

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that what (SEL)ective focus point is for? When I absolutely must hit the eye of the subject (most of my shots) I focus lock on the eye using the closest focus point, recompose slightly and shoot. These are situations when the "acceptable focus" DOF is less than the distance between an eye and a nose - about 4 cm. No way would I let any Auto algorithm choose the focus spot, regardless of the number of points available - in fact I would be happy having only 1.

My problem is with my own eyes. In low light I can find the subject's eye through the viewfinder but no way I can tell if it is in or out of focus. I need the camera to do what I can't do.

Hence my vehement disagreement. I need the best low light AF performance possible. More focus points give me nothing.

Focus and recompose throws the focus plane off because when you aim at a target and recompose, most likely your focus is now behind where you actually want it to be. This may not matter when you are talking about a slower lens - but if the depth of field required for the nose and eye is 4cm, and a 50 1.4 has about 7cm of DOF (on APS-C) at 5', you need every cm to be accounted for.

Thus - what people want is to have more points and select the ones that actually land on the face instead of recomposing.

westmill · 09-16-2012, 09:26 AM

On top of what jin Desu says ( to which I agree ) Focusing on an eye is a bit of a no no with Pentax. You will get a lot of oomph pics if you do that. The focus sensors are way to large to be so selective. Those squares you see are not your focus points ! They are only good for indicating the area. If you use the centre focus point... you can use the two () marks of your spot focus. These luckily act as a good guide. The focus points reach all the way out to these. Trying to focus on an eye with such large focus points can be very hit and miss. As the eye is very close to the edge of the head, its easy for the focus point to catch anything in the surrounding area that holds more contrast. It could focus on the nose or the ear or simply miss alltogether if it spots something in the background. It is exactly this why there are so many posts with people thinking they have back and front focus issues. They have not ! You need to simply choose bigger targets IE instead of using an eye use the face ! If you really really need to be that critical then use manual focus ! There is a very simple easy test that takes just a miniute, if you have doubts to anything Im telling you. Put a dot on a piece of white paper... use centre spot focus and see for yourself where it reacts from. You woll find it zaps into focus just as it gets inside the () spot metering markings. Once you start to take this into consideration the focus system itself is fast and reliable.

rawr · 09-16-2012, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by westmill

Once you start to take this into consideration the focus system itself is fast and reliable.

Absolutely agree.

But the misconceptions people have about how AF works will probably never end.

And for formal portraits, I don't understand why do people not use manual focus. Even if I had access to 128 AF points, for something like a studio portrait I'd still want the precise control of manual.

Focus-recompose also has a bad rep due to lack of technique. Even with fast primes shot wide open, if you move the camera along the same plane as the initial focus point (rather than pivot the camera on its axis), nothing moves out of focus.

westmill · 09-16-2012, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by rawr

Absolutely agree.

But the misconceptions people have about how AF works will probably never end.

And for formal portraits, I don't understand why do people not use manual focus. Even if I had access to 128 AF points, for something like a studio portrait I'd still want the precise control of manual.

Focus-recompose also has a bad rep due to lack of technique. Even with fast primes shot wide open, if you move the camera along the same plane as the initial focus point (rather than pivot the camera on its axis), nothing moves out of focus.

Yes or simply choosing a higher focus point in each of horizontal or vertical format so that the camera is repostioned to a far less extent. I have to say though, I shoot with Nikon too. The focus points are about one eighth the size of the pentax and can be relied upon for precise focus. I have learned to use the two cameras in different ways.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
An analysis of Pentax AF compared to competitors and suggestions for improvement	bwDraco	Pentax DSLR Discussion	20	08-23-2015 03:07 PM
3 FaceBook top execs resigned, is Facebook end near?	Pentaxor	General Talk	60	08-22-2012 11:36 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax LX kit with Winder Significant Price Reduction	cheekygeek	Sold Items	13	04-12-2012 08:25 PM
Improvement video with upcoming Pentax?	Anvh	Video Recording and Processing	36	02-02-2012 06:10 AM
Is the K7 a significant improvement over the K20D?	nobbsie	Pentax DSLR Discussion	15	11-27-2009 11:18 PM

09-12-2012, 05:30 AM	#151
Clicker Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,241	It would be fun if they released a BIG DSLR "digital 67" the full frame we all want DSLR body with 645 sensor

09-12-2012, 05:44 AM	#152
GreenMachine Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Photos: Albums Posts: 98	I've been earning a living and paying my bills in this industry for over 30 years. Things slowed down a bit when digital finally became better say around 2007 and many clients were going to colleges for credit line only payment deals with students. Things have picked up more since 2010 when some of those clients found out you still need a good camera operator. I really don't know what to say about the 2 new K5 versions, maybe the s will have outstanding resolution with no AA filter, but the AF tracking should be on par with any Canon or Nikon, they should have gave it 24P video, not stay with 25P PAL, 11 AF points isn't really an issue as long as they work like a Canon or Nikon system. Sure it's APS-C but even at that the original K5 image quality was fine and the 5 foot prints I made from it looked fine it's just missing a few small important upgrades that maybe would have put a few more smiles on people instead of frowns. Digital isn't film, it was never like film, it will never be like film. It's data converted into an image, there's issues on all levels from capture to archiving. Using multiple camera systems I was actually impressed with the high ISO images that came out of the K5 compared to cameras in the same price point. Looking at the new introduction prices, you really can't complain on an image quality level when doing a dollar for dollar comparison. Canon and Nikon have the AP and Reuters using their gear and that's a lot of profit, they have larger R&D dollars, they larger advertising dollars and all that adds up to a larger user base. For the working Pros who have dealt with the hush hush . . . don't talk about dust on the sensor cover ups, RAW file processing compatibility, other secret problems and bad pixels that effect all digital imaging devices no matter how expensive they are. Yep your software . . .well some software will magically map them out but it doesn't map them out of the sensor. I had a D3 delivered new and it had 27 bad pixel sites. No big deal Nikon mapped them out under warranty and with my so called Pro Service it took 10 days. Now fast forward and guess what? . . . now you have to pay for this service which they recommend you do at least once a year at $300 to $350 from what I was told. I won't be held hostage to be forced to pay for stuff like that. I never had to send in a film camera for calibration. Now look at Pentax and Olympus. They both offer in camera pixel mapping. Don't know what that is? . . . Go over to the Olympus web site here ( Ask Olympus: What is Pixel Mapping? ) and see what they say about it. This happens to be a feature that outweighs a lot of other features like the crippled video and boggy AF. OK . . . so that's not enough? . . . . Take a look at the DNG RAW format. Yeah the PEF is great, but should DNG and upload it into Lightroom and if you have a bad pixel it gets mapped out automatically. it's a good RAW format, Hasselblad and Leica have it combined with their RAW formats. Canon shooters are forever trying these mystery fix it methods like take the lens off do sensor cleaning blaa blaa blaa to map out bad pixels. Canon makes some great gear, but lets face it, this is our paycheck and image counts. It's a nightmare to use the plugins to map them out of video. So that's my rant for the morning.

09-12-2012, 06:21 AM	#153
GreenMachine Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Photos: Albums Posts: 98	Oh and has anyone tried emailing anyone over at PPS? . . emails to the 2 pro services guys and the general pro services address come back as un-deliverable, no one at this address exists. Now that's what I call being able to get in touch with Professional Services when you need them

09-12-2012, 07:39 AM	#154
Clicker Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,241	Originally posted by GreenMachine Oh and has anyone tried emailing anyone over at PPS? . . emails to the 2 pro services guys and the general pro services address come back as un-deliverable, no one at this address exists. Now that's what I call being able to get in touch with Professional Services when you need them The pro online services have to employees, Intel and AMD

09-12-2012, 08:01 AM	#155
GreenMachine Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Photos: Albums Posts: 98	That's funny Clicker !!

09-12-2012, 02:05 PM	#156
GordonZA Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Planet Earth Photos: Albums Posts: 351	Just got to play with a friends brand new Canon 1DX... Completely blown away by the autofocus on that magnificent beast! Taking tack sharp photos hand held in moonlight with the 100-400 at full zoom!!! Now here's my question... If the Canon has an AF range down to -2ev and performs like THAT, how good is the new K5II/s going to be in the real world with -3ev????? I think everyone is so hyper focused on full frame we have missed the point and that is an incremental and probably not too small an upgrade to the AF system for Pentax?

09-12-2012, 02:36 PM - 1 Like	#157
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Originally posted by GordonZA Just got to play with a friends brand new Canon 1DX... Completely blown away by the autofocus on that magnificent beast! Taking tack sharp photos hand held in moonlight with the 100-400 at full zoom!!! Now here's my question... If the Canon has an AF range down to -2ev and performs like THAT, how good is the new K5II/s going to be in the real world with -3ev????? I think everyone is so hyper focused on full frame we have missed the point and that is an incremental and probably not too small an upgrade to the AF system for Pentax? Sensitivity is one thing. Number of focus points is also important - while the AF system may be more responsive at low light, it's not so tremendously helpful if it the AF points are large and clumsy. I hope that the k-5ii's AF algorithm is smarter if the focus points are the same size. Although someone else wrote that F2.8 sensors "see" smaller than F5.6 sensors. Not so sure on what that meant... (something about how the opening and the sensor relationship defines the F number...)

09-13-2012, 02:12 PM	#158
soalle Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Italy -> Canada -> Belgium -> Switzerland Photos: Gallery Posts: 233	Sorry for the slightly off topic question: What's the sensitivity of k-30 sensors? f2.8 or f5.6? Thanks!

09-13-2012, 02:44 PM - 1 Like	#159
westmill Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Stoke on Trent Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,146	Since I use just one sensor for 95% for my work, I dont mind that there is only elleven. There has been no mention so far from pentax to say the ridiculously large sensors have been shrunk down and Ive yet to hear if the flash opperation has been corrected. Its one thing to say it will focus in low light, but there is not much point without knowing what it has focussed on. My fingers are crossed ! The fact it is still using safox 11 point is not that prommising but i wouldnt think impossable. So I await for a full review with baited breadth. These two things make the K5 very much bottom draw stuff. The only way to get correct exposure using flash with any amount of reliability is by using pre flash. In this day and age that is totaly unacceptable for a supposedly top draw camera.

09-13-2012, 08:16 PM	#160
Alizarine Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Manila Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,185	There was someone in this thread (or was it another) who put up a mock layout of multi-AF point systems like Pentax's 11 vs. Nikon's 39 in the D7000. The wider and fewer the AF points are spread might mean they're bigger than the one with more in the same spot. Until see in-depth AF tests of the new units, that "extra AF sensitivity advantage" is moot.

09-16-2012, 07:37 AM	#161
sandilands Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Lewiston, NY Posts: 108	Originally posted by D4rknezz Careful of misconception So rather than doing R&D in darker and darker environment...I rather have pentax double their number of points. Sure it will focus on one of the 11 points...hopefully that point is hitting the eye of your subject as opposed to their nose. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that what (SEL)ective focus point is for? When I absolutely must hit the eye of the subject (most of my shots) I focus lock on the eye using the closest focus point, recompose slightly and shoot. These are situations when the "acceptable focus" DOF is less than the distance between an eye and a nose - about 4 cm. No way would I let any Auto algorithm choose the focus spot, regardless of the number of points available - in fact I would be happy having only 1. My problem is with my own eyes. In low light I can find the subject's eye through the viewfinder but no way I can tell if it is in or out of focus. I need the camera to do what I can't do. Hence my vehement disagreement. I need the best low light AF performance possible. More focus points give me nothing.

09-16-2012, 07:57 AM	#162
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Originally posted by sandilands Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that what (SEL)ective focus point is for? When I absolutely must hit the eye of the subject (most of my shots) I focus lock on the eye using the closest focus point, recompose slightly and shoot. These are situations when the "acceptable focus" DOF is less than the distance between an eye and a nose - about 4 cm. No way would I let any Auto algorithm choose the focus spot, regardless of the number of points available - in fact I would be happy having only 1. My problem is with my own eyes. In low light I can find the subject's eye through the viewfinder but no way I can tell if it is in or out of focus. I need the camera to do what I can't do. Hence my vehement disagreement. I need the best low light AF performance possible. More focus points give me nothing. Focus and recompose throws the focus plane off because when you aim at a target and recompose, most likely your focus is now behind where you actually want it to be. This may not matter when you are talking about a slower lens - but if the depth of field required for the nose and eye is 4cm, and a 50 1.4 has about 7cm of DOF (on APS-C) at 5', you need every cm to be accounted for. Thus - what people want is to have more points and select the ones that actually land on the face instead of recomposing.

09-16-2012, 09:26 AM	#163
westmill Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Stoke on Trent Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,146	On top of what jin Desu says ( to which I agree ) Focusing on an eye is a bit of a no no with Pentax. You will get a lot of oomph pics if you do that. The focus sensors are way to large to be so selective. Those squares you see are not your focus points ! They are only good for indicating the area. If you use the centre focus point... you can use the two () marks of your spot focus. These luckily act as a good guide. The focus points reach all the way out to these. Trying to focus on an eye with such large focus points can be very hit and miss. As the eye is very close to the edge of the head, its easy for the focus point to catch anything in the surrounding area that holds more contrast. It could focus on the nose or the ear or simply miss alltogether if it spots something in the background. It is exactly this why there are so many posts with people thinking they have back and front focus issues. They have not ! You need to simply choose bigger targets IE instead of using an eye use the face ! If you really really need to be that critical then use manual focus ! There is a very simple easy test that takes just a miniute, if you have doubts to anything Im telling you. Put a dot on a piece of white paper... use centre spot focus and see for yourself where it reacts from. You woll find it zaps into focus just as it gets inside the () spot metering markings. Once you start to take this into consideration the focus system itself is fast and reliable.

09-16-2012, 10:58 AM	#164
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by westmill Once you start to take this into consideration the focus system itself is fast and reliable. Absolutely agree. But the misconceptions people have about how AF works will probably never end. And for formal portraits, I don't understand why do people not use manual focus. Even if I had access to 128 AF points, for something like a studio portrait I'd still want the precise control of manual. Focus-recompose also has a bad rep due to lack of technique. Even with fast primes shot wide open, if you move the camera along the same plane as the initial focus point (rather than pivot the camera on its axis), nothing moves out of focus.

09-16-2012, 11:29 AM	#165
westmill Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Stoke on Trent Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,146	Originally posted by rawr Absolutely agree. But the misconceptions people have about how AF works will probably never end. And for formal portraits, I don't understand why do people not use manual focus. Even if I had access to 128 AF points, for something like a studio portrait I'd still want the precise control of manual. Focus-recompose also has a bad rep due to lack of technique. Even with fast primes shot wide open, if you move the camera along the same plane as the initial focus point (rather than pivot the camera on its axis), nothing moves out of focus. Yes or simply choosing a higher focus point in each of horizontal or vertical format so that the camera is repostioned to a far less extent. I have to say though, I shoot with Nikon too. The focus points are about one eighth the size of the pentax and can be relied upon for precise focus. I have learned to use the two cameras in different ways.