[normhead]

The whole point to AF tracking is that it tracks the movement of the object past various focus points and anticipates where the focus should be when the shutter is pressed, in essence, it focusses ahead of the subject enough so the subject flies into the focal point selected as the shutter mechanism activates.

Someone posted a couple K-30 images after it was released, tracking a bird in flight, that showed the bird was consistently at the back edge of the area in acceptable focus. The camera was anticipating where the bird would go next. WIthout tracking the bird would be in the Center of the DoF when the shutter was released and would have moved to the front of the DoF by the time the image was taken.

So there's evidence out there though not at all scientific that Pentax had started to work on tracking AF with the K-30. My take (which is total speculation) is that a faster AF processor has enabled them to go up to 27 focus points which makes for way more effective predictive focussing and a tracking AF algorithm that started development with the K-30. The only question for me now, is did they hit a home run, or is it a small barely noticeable improvement like the K-30.

[thibs]

Not ignoring video is what they did in the K-5 and is a very smart move. The features are already there, and they do not bother the photographer. So why shouldn't they exploit them?

But when the photographing user is going to get disadvantages because of all the video-features, then it's a completely different thing. Flashes with dedicated video features(continuous LED light), discontinueing a perfectly good lens line to replace it with a similar one especially designed for (HD: 1024p) video, and placing giant headphone jacks on cameras is total video dedication.

What disadvantage?
What problem is continuous LED light introduces? Tell us.
What does the new coating has to do with Video? Tell us.
Giant headphone you don't even got the press release about? Explain to us.

Most photographers can't be bother with such features, and video enthusiasts will already have their dedicated tools. So I refuse to believe Pentax is THAT stupid. All the rumors must be fake.

That's where you're wrong.
Canon sells a lot of their DSLR for Video ! You get that ?

[vonBaloney]

. What disadvantage?
What problem is continuous LED light introduces? Tell us.
What does the new coating has to do with Video? Tell us.
Giant headphone you don't even got the press release about? Explain to us.



That's where you're wrong.
Canon sells a lot of their DSLR for Video ! You get that ?

As much as I'd like them to focus on photo-features (and I've had that argument on here before), the fact is that video features sell cameras, and high-quality video is a big deal these days even if I don't use it. (Heck maybe I'll start using it if it gets to pro-quality usability -- my background is more in filmmaking than still photography anyway.) I just don't want them to sacrifice limited resources in order to make video better AT THE EXPENSE OF photo quality, or causing the price to be jacked up for features I won't use. But I understand they do have to at least incrementally upgrade video, many video features will not be to the detriment of still photos, and some features will have a parallel benefit on both sides.

In any case, it is nothing to complain about until we actually see what's what. There is nothing WRONG with video upgrades per se -- they have to stay in the game at least.

[-Linus-]

# Clavius,

HD-Coating does not mean optimised for HD-Video! It was a joke from another forum member.

-Linus-

[repaap]

As much as I'd like them to focus on photo-features (and I've had that argument on here before), the fact is that video features sell cameras, and high-quality video is a big deal these days even if I don't use it. (Heck maybe I'll start using it if it gets to pro-quality usability -- my background is more in filmmaking than still photography anyway.) I just don't want them to sacrifice limited resources in order to make video better AT THE EXPENSE OF photo quality, or causing the price to be jacked up for features I won't use. But I understand they do have to at least incrementally upgrade video, many video features will not be to the detriment of still photos, and some features will have a parallel benefit on both sides.

In any case, it is nothing to complain about until we actually see what's what. There is nothing WRONG with video upgrades per se -- they have to stay in the game at least.

+1 !

I think that video is one really big selling point with top notch DSLR.s. Look at how many shot films have been done with DSLR/pro video cams. nothing wrong with that. puls that you can actually use it for making stills too. I must say that I have been tempted, of posts by Jogiba and his great Sony FF videocam(cannot remember wich model), wich is combination of both worlds. So what is going on right now with photography. it is chancing. Pentax still has superb tool for just Stils...D645.

[Asahiflex]

Let me just reiterate what Hiraku Kawauchi and Shigeru Wakashiro told us in the Pentaxforums interview made at CP+ in Yokohama, Japan:

[RobA_Oz]

Interesting. But, considering that SDM uses the same contacts as powerzoom or indeed the DC motor such as found in the 18-135, maybe these contacts just carry DC that is converted to pulses by electronics within the lens(?)

There has to be at least a basic signalling going through those contacts, because they still work to power the zoom drives on those FA lenses so equipped. You raise an interesting point, though, because having the pulse rate determined within the lens would require each lens to be separately altered to raise the drive speed. In such a case, if the rate was fixed in ROM, it would need a physical replacement. If in EEPROM, it could be externally reprogrammed, as with the SDM lens hack to convert the AF to screw-drive. The same, of course, would apply if the pulse rate was determined in the body.

[Kunzite]

Please, stop spamming the forum - it's enough if we read about that thread only 10 times. Thank you.
And it's not like everything is revealed there, actually there are more detailed rumors.

[normhead]

Let me just reiterate what Hiraku Kawauchi and Shigeru Wakashiro told us in the Pentaxforums interview made at CP+ in Yokohama, Japan:

I guess it would be wrong of me to point out that they did become #1 in low light auto-focus, just one of those facts pentax users simply cannot allow themselves to acknowledge, and it also begs the question, what is the use of having the fastest auto-focus in conditions where you can't focus at all? What is the point in having the best hi ISO performance, if your camera can't focus at all?

I don't think those questions have been asked on the forum before. You heard them here first.

[kadajawi]

Well, if it has a headphone jack, then the K-3 must be more centered around video then. And then option E will probably have something to do with those added video capabilities. Which, no matter how impressive those capabilities may be, are just not very interesting to photographers. So I hope Asahi man is just full of it.

Edit 1: Not only the headphone jack indicates more video-centricity. The new line of HD lenses does that too. HD is a video term for 1024p video! And the continuous LED light on the new flashes is only usefull for video. Ah no! The K-3 is really going to be a camcorder.

Then my personal prediction is that the bulge has something to do with a very quiet screwdrive motor, so the typical screwdrive noise doesn't end up in the movies.

Now... How on earth can the entire Pentax userbase of PHOTOGRAPHY enthusiasts NOT be disappointed when they are given something they're not interested in at all? Yes I know, there must be some that are interested in both, but I would guess they would prefer to use dedicated gear.

Edit 2: I have no idea why this came out as a new post.

Limiting Pentax to photographers only would put them into a niche they may not want to be in. Professional photographers sometimes need to shoot video for example, and dedicated gear that gives the image quality of a DSLR typically costs at least $3000-4000... consumer or prosumer gear won't do it.

Continuous LED light would also help for focus assist, it can help against red eyes, and it can give you a preview (big studio flashes tend to have continuous light too, AFAIK).

A quiet screwdrive motor? And you're telling me that wouldn't be good for photographers? The K-5 is very quiet... but the AF is very noticeable, and that can be a big disadvantage. Imagine having to shoot at a quiet place, and then suddenly it sounds like a dentist is at work! A Canon USM like AF noise would be a big advantage to some.

Btw., name me a brand that puts less focus on video than Pentax. Canon? Yeah right, Canon DSLRs were used to film The Avengers. Nikon puts some emphasis on video. Sony has built their DSLTs around video. Panasonic's mFT offerings are great for video and popular for that reason. Olympus maybe not so much... but still more than Pentax. Oh, Leica doesn't put much emphasis on video... good luck competing with Leica, then.

@Asahiflex: 4K video would require some significant hardware changes, so I can't see that coming. But if Pentax were to offer it, and implemented it right, then good luck buying the K-3... it will be constantly sold out.

And Clavius, get a brain. Naming the new lens coating HD doesn't mean they are designed for video! It means the marketing folks (well, the one guy at Pentax responsible for marketing) thought HD is THE word these days standing for quality and sharpness these days, and thus named it that way. Heck, I've seen literally everything being named HD... and most of these things don't have any relation to video or video production whatsoever. Window cleaners call themselves high definition (HD) window cleaners for crying out loud. What do clean windows have to do with HD?! It's just a term.

Canons sell in big amounts, because they can shoot good video. Panasonic is also doing well, BECAUSE they shoot good video. Just because some hobbyists don't like video it doesn't mean there is no need for it. And why on earth are TV shows and movies, documentaries etc. shot on DSLRs? There are plenty of dedicated video cameras out there, professional ones too, but they chose to shoot on a DSLR instead!

Why do you even want a new camera? What is there to gain? The K-5 should serve you well. Btw., I picked the K-5 because it was better at video than the K-30, and if it weren't for my lenses (and a general dislike for the way Canons are designed) I may very well have gone for a Canon instead.

Btw., most of the times video features benefit still photography too. LiveView is great for still photography when working on a tripod. It helps you get the focus better, it helps you get angles you wouldn't be able to get (without guessing where you are actually aiming at). For commercial work (architectural) I almost exclusively shoot using LiveView, because I have to get the quality right. Improved video AF (or video AF at all) would also be usable for still photography, for example by being able to track better. Imagine having a PDAF system like the 70D has, which uses the whole sensor to focus, even in LiveView. The software can then track your subject that you pick on the sensor in LiveView mode, and the camera can use the PDAF system all the time to keep exactly the subject in focus using a smoother, video centric AF motor, predicting the movement along the way, and taking stills out of the running stream at full resolution and the right exposure level. No need to move the mirror (during which the subject can move), no need to move the shutter, ... just perfect focus, every time.
Oh, and people have complained about the center AF sensor being too big? Guess what, if the whole sensor is an AF sensor, every single pixel is a PDAF sensor, you can have the center AF sensor be as big or small as you want to. There are lots of things that would be great for still photographers that could be done with this tech, eventhough it was developed for video.

Even adding a headphone jack, while not benefitting still photography use (perhaps as an additional way to trigger a flash? i.e. have, with an adapter, two or three ports you can plug in a flash) would cost so little that really, why bother? Just leave it, it makes others happy and sells the camera.

As much as I'd like them to focus on photo-features (and I've had that argument on here before), the fact is that video features sell cameras, and high-quality video is a big deal these days even if I don't use it. (Heck maybe I'll start using it if it gets to pro-quality usability -- my background is more in filmmaking than still photography anyway.) I just don't want them to sacrifice limited resources in order to make video better AT THE EXPENSE OF photo quality, or causing the price to be jacked up for features I won't use. But I understand they do have to at least incrementally upgrade video, many video features will not be to the detriment of still photos, and some features will have a parallel benefit on both sides.

In any case, it is nothing to complain about until we actually see what's what. There is nothing WRONG with video upgrades per se -- they have to stay in the game at least.

DSLR video is at a pro level (apart from 4K and RAW, both of which basically require camera makers to add a SSD slot to their cameras... or at least something like a USB 3.0/SATA output that goes to a SSD raid drive). The problem is getting it to a consumer level. Pros are fine using external microphones, they use them anyway, together with an external recorder and a person hired to only care about getting good audio. Pros are fine using manual focus, they have an assistant named focus puller who takes care of getting the focus right. It is consumers who demand better quality audio from within the camera, who demand proper autofocus cause they don't want to be bothered focusing manually, which is pretty hard.

[thibs]

There has to be at least a basic signalling going through those contacts, because they still work to power the zoom drives on those FA lenses so equipped. You raise an interesting point, though, because having the pulse rate determined within the lens would require each lens to be separately altered to raise the drive speed. In such a case, if the rate was fixed in ROM, it would need a physical replacement. If in EEPROM, it could be externally reprogrammed, as with the SDM lens hack to convert the AF to screw-drive. The same, of course, would apply if the pulse rate was determined in the body.

They may be power only. Remember one of the contact of Kmount is a digital communication contact.
What exactly can or cannot transit over that contact, good question but probably:
* MTF, aperture and focus distance (theses are features of KAF/KAF2 mount) including non powerzoomed FA lenses.
* pulse rate if any
* lens EEPROM including corrections metadata (since they are built in lenses).
* more ?

[Clavius]

# Clavius,

HD-Coating does not mean optimised for HD-Video! It was a joke from another forum member.

-Linus-

Linus, way before Pentax invented HD coating "HD" always stood for 1024p video. Naming it HD obviously is good marketing for the enhance video capabilities of their new LTD lineup, flash lineup and now the new body. Just a pity that the first still from the new ltds that have been surfacing are not very good at all. But a decent comparison has to be made first to really judge that, of course.

[vonBaloney]

Linus, way before Pentax invented HD coating "HD" always stood for 1024p video. Naming it HD obviously is good marketing for the enhance video capabilities of their new LTD lineup, flash lineup and now the new body. Just a pity that the first still from the new ltds that have been surfacing are not very good at all. But a decent comparison has to be made first to really judge that, of course.

First, there is no such thing as *1024p* video! 1080p! 1080p!

Second, it doesn't matter what the term "always stood" for -- the fact is it is now being appropriated by marketing people for everything under the sun in order to sound good on anything remotely optical or visual. (They call SUNGLASSES "HD" nowadays -- are they also "optimized for video"?) There is simply no arguing that. Where in the Pentax marketing materials do they claim these lenses are now optimized for video? And what would that even mean? Good lenses are good lenses.

[timcatn]

He probably refered to the 1080P/24 standard, and got it a bit mixed up.

And HD Video with its approx 2.1MP is not very high, compared to stills.

[Kunzite]

First, there is no such thing as *1024p* video! 1080p! 1080p!

Second, it doesn't matter what the term "always stood" for -- the fact is it is now being appropriated by marketing people for everything under the sun in order to sound good on anything remotely optical or visual. (They call SUNGLASSES "HD" nowadays -- are they also "optimized for video"?) There is simply no arguing that. Where in the Pentax marketing materials do they claim these lenses are now optimized for video? And what would that even mean? Good lenses are good lenses.

I always thought HD stands for high density floppy disks, for Harley Davidson motorcycles, or was it the Haagen-Dasz ice cream? I can't remember, too many possibilities
Anyway, can I have my HD Limiteds with cocoa syrup and vanilla?