[sandilands]

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.

Yes, I understand your reasoning. That's why I mentioned only slight recomposing (within the available DOF). I've gotten fairly skilled at recomposing only along the X-Y axis. Adding more points for selective autofocus would be a minor improvement and perhaps going from 11 to say 16 would be sufficient. When dealing with such short DOF I need a tripod anyway, so X-Y axis recomposing is pretty easy. That's why I could live with only one focus point.

But my main concern and where the R&D dollars should be spent is in low light situations. Even when I have a focus point spot directly on the subject's eye, it still won't lock. I need the camera to lock and focus where I select it to focus and not continue to hunt. More focus points are unlikely to improve that (please correct me if that is a misconception). Even the focus assist light is insufficient - I often provide the model with a small flashlight and ask her/him to shine it on his/her face, obtain a focus lock, then switch to MF for the shot (to avoid re-hunting). For me the recomposition error is less of a problem than the system's failure to focus & lock.

So while more autofocus points would be nice to have, lower light functionality is a must and should be where the $ are spent.

[westmill]

Yes, I understand your reasoning. That's why I mentioned only slight recomposing (within the available DOF). I've gotten fairly skilled at recomposing only along the X-Y axis. Adding more points for selective autofocus would be a minor improvement and perhaps going from 11 to say 16 would be sufficient. When dealing with such short DOF I need a tripod anyway, so X-Y axis recomposing is pretty easy. That's why I could live with only one focus point.

But my main concern and where the R&D dollars should be spent is in low light situations. Even when I have a focus point spot directly on the subject's eye, it still won't lock. I need the camera to lock and focus where I select it to focus and not continue to hunt. More focus points are unlikely to improve that (please correct me if that is a misconception). Even the focus assist light is insufficient - I often provide the model with a small flashlight and ask her/him to shine it on his/her face, obtain a focus lock, then switch to MF for the shot (to avoid re-hunting). For me the recomposition error is less of a problem than the system's failure to focus & lock.

So while more autofocus points would be nice to have, lower light functionality is a must and should be where the $ are spent.

You need to read my second post me thinks lol

[illdefined]

it's all really annoying.

not moving the K5 to 24mp or even a Prime III makes the K5II with it's improved AF outwardly seem like a "fix" of the K5, simultaneously somehow admitting the K5 was flawed in some way. meanwhile a cheaper entry level D3200 has 24mp and fixes lens corrections and CA in realtime without having to slow down and 'think'.

this just cements Pentax has a 2nd or 3rd tier brand always playing catchup vs. doing its part to move the industry forward; leaving its R&D dept to the very questionable side projects like the Q and K-01.

on the other hand, leaving the K5 at 16mp makes perfect sense if it meant leaving room for, and avoiding market confusion for an imminent 24mp FF body..

[Medium FormatPro]

Maybe the AF lamp will assist at -3EV and that the lamp will actually DO WORK this time

One of the most accurate focusing lamps I've ever seen was in a (somewhat advanced for the time) Sony V1 P&S. It used a type of cross haired grid "what appears to be" a laser - but may very well not be. I'm quite suprised that it never was adopted in many cameras outside of that; especially considering how effective it was.

[monochrome]

If it's the flagship, it should be the flagship. It should not have less video features than the K-01/K-30. It should have focus peaking. Did time stop for the K-5 in 2010?

IIRC Ned stated in an interview after CP+ the K5 would stay in production until December, 2012. If I am correct in my recollection then a tweaked K5 (II/IIs) is exactly what he said.

And there is an implication by omission that something will be produced starting in January, after the K5II ends production. Logic says that will be a K3 APSc camera announced at CP+, and that potential FF sensor production holdbacks would make a FF Pentax with a new naming convention a possibility in the spring of 2013.

[snake]

One of the most accurate focusing lamps I've ever seen was in a (somewhat advanced for the time) Sony V1 P&S. It used a type of cross haired grid "what appears to be" a laser - but may very well not be. I'm quite suprised that it never was adopted in many cameras outside of that; especially considering how effective it was.

Probably blinded people permanently.

The K-5's lamp is ridiculously bright.

[monochrome]

What makes a pro isn't the gear, but the eye. A pro can shoot better weddings with a P&S than most amateurs can with FF. You hire the brains and the aesthetic sense, as well as the personal skills and experience; not just the camera.

My son was recently married so of course my wife and I were photographed in the church. The bride's family used the "hot" (in the local money-to-burn-in-their-50's set) wedding photography combine in our market. The young lady (by my standards of age - she was probably in her 30's) used a 5DMkII, 24~70, Canon flash on a frame, tripod - and was bored silly.

We got 2 DVD's; 1550 images. Not ONE of the interior images was exposed the same as the next, most were mis-framed, fully 15% of them were delivered with Red-Eye, for heaven's sake. The dress was completely blown highlights. They couldn't possibly have PP'ed anything in the interiors. The exteriors were exposed OK but there wasn't a thought given to facial shadows and highlights from the sun on half the images. I swear, there were maybe 15 decent images in the whole lot!!

I know for a fact they charged $15,000 for the Engagement / Rehearsal Dinner / Wedding / Reception and never brought a second shooter.

Allison, they can take their 5DMkII's, which they advertise, and shove them.

I just paid for a proper, formal studio shoot by a real portrait artist. The bride's mother and father were pretty offended but I convinced them it was a post-wedding gift and I'd buy the prints.

I didn't order a single print from her photographer and I refuse to buy a copy of the "book." I'll be damned if I'm opening jpeg's and correcting Red-Eye myself.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 09-16-2012 at 04:17 PM.

[rawr]

That wedding photog story is too common.

One of the 'hot' wedding photogs in my area only picked up a camera for the first time in 2009, and now has a full order book. She doesn't even have a flash...

[Docrwm]

That wedding photog story is too common.

One of the 'hot' wedding photogs in my area only picked up a camera for the first time in 2009, and now has a full order book. She doesn't even have a flash...

When we were at St. Simons a couple weeks ago I watched a wedding photog work with her clients. I was amazed. No flash, no second body, no lens bag, one reflector, poor use of natural lighting (although she did shoot right before and at sunset), etc. I know she's a "pro" because her White Yukon had her magnetic sign on it. I googled her from the hotel that night - wow, expensive.

[monochrome]

That wedding photog story is too common.

One of the 'hot' wedding photogs in my area only picked up a camera for the first time in 2009, and now has a full order book. She doesn't even have a flash...

When we were at St. Simons a couple weeks ago I watched a wedding photog work with her clients. I was amazed. No flash, no second body, no lens bag, one reflector, poor use of natural lighting (although she did shoot right before and at sunset), etc. I know she's a "pro" because her White Yukon had her magnetic sign on it. I googled her from the hotel that night - wow, expensive.

I'm not going to hunt it up right now but I posted last winter about another wedding we attended - daughter of our best friends, quasi-niece - 2 photogs, Nikons, wireless stand flashes, 1 click per person or set, dark suits and ties, hardly knew they were even in the room.

I spoke to the lead briefly - guy in his 50's, promised 750 images, PP'ed and cropped. By demeanor and behavior I'd consider him a Professional (with the capital P) and nearly every image presented was worthy of selection for printing. Cost less by a third.

I have two daughters. I know what to do.

[gebco]

One of the most accurate focusing lamps I've ever seen was in a (somewhat advanced for the time) Sony V1 P&S. It used a type of cross haired grid "what appears to be" a laser - but may very well not be. I'm quite suprised that it never was adopted in many cameras outside of that; especially considering how effective it was.

My Sony V3 has it too; I still use that camera for the quick snapshots. Rumour back in the day was that the laser assist was no longer allowed by most countries. The nice thing with the grid laser is that you can focus on a flat white surface in the dark.

[gebco]

I took my Sony V3 to a family wedding years ago; a friend of the family took pics with his (then) high end Canon. He had no clue about photography, but he looked impressive. ALL of his photos had white balance issues, and he took them all at less than 1 megapixel, so even 4X6 prints were pixelated. My family ended up using my V3 pics.

[sandilands]

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.

Oh yes, but unfortunately these old eyes aren't great at manual focus, particularly in low light. I was better with my old ME F with ground glass and split prism focusing. But overall AF is a topic for another thread.

[JohnBee]

Sure . Pay close attention to the right arm here - its flat. Greyish. Worse, pay attention to the edges of the highlights around that right arm. Image came straight out of camera. Exif is on the flickr site

Overexposed scenes withbacklit subjects don't usually result in very good image fidelity.

[rawr]

these old eyes aren't great at manual focus, particularly in low light.

Me too, I must admit.
But in a studio, you can do your manual focus using LV - or a field monitor