[Falcons]

A follow-up.
I enjoy taking pics at womens basketball games, and used 1600 speed film for
years. Some grain and a yellowish cast were common. Bought a K10D because
of the price, and I wanted to try digital. I need ISO 1600 (or higher) and an f2.8
zoom lens to make that work. I'm now at the point --> do I want to spend the money
to get a high speed motor (HSM) zoom f2.8 lens for my K10D, --> OR, do I want
to switch brands.
I don't want to shell out big bucks, $800 each, on a lens or two and then realize
that the body I have won't do what I want it to do. The info above makes me
wonder if the AF is good enough/quick enough for basketball or other sports.

If food on the table is dependant upon your basketball photos then no Pentax, currently, is not the camera for you.

If you are just a hobbyist, well only you can decide on how much you want to spend on your hobby.

As to your yellowish cast. Were you shooting in Raw? You may find that you can easily adjust this in a raw processor.

I shoot a lot of Karate using my *istDS and mainly a Pentax M 100mm F2.8 and a K 55mm F1.8 - alll in manual focus of course. Usually in gyms with low lighting and have no real problems, but if it was a serious week in week out job, well I would probably cough up for a Canon 40D and some L class lenses - just for the AF.

---

Last edited by Falcons; 04-19-2008 at 10:23 PM.

[deejjjaaaa]

Perhaps you might like to read the OP again - VERY CAREFULLY!

The test was done with top of the range lenses and the price of the outfit was given, so in this instance the D80 is 1080 Euro more expensive.
This was not a comparison of bodies only.

OK, put the cheapest kit lenses on K20D and D80... you think that all of sudden Pentax AF will shine ...

[deejjjaaaa]

Don't kid yourselves, Pentax engineers can quite easily develop a faster AF, what the cost is, I don't know. But I do know that that cost will have to be amortised over a lot smaller consumer base which means vastly more expensive cameras.

so (1) you do not know what the cost is, but nevertheless, w/o knowing it (2) you know somehow that it means VASTLY (sic) more expensive cameras ... show me the math then...

[Falcons]

OK, put the cheapest kit lenses on K20D and D80... you think that all of sudden Pentax AF will shine ...

Sorry but you'll have to point out where I said that as I don't recall ever stating that at all.

But are you implying that the D80 IQ will be on par with K20D, with each having the cheapest lens available. Noting of course that the K20D will have IS and the D80 wont.

You can put your money on the D80 if you like, but I think I would much rather have a K20D.

[deejjjaaaa]

Sorry but you'll have to point out where I said that as I don't recall ever stating that at all.

But are you implying that the D80 IQ will be on par with K20D, with each having the cheapest lens available. Noting of course that the K20D will have IS and the D80 wont.

You can put your money on the D80 if you like, but I think I would much rather have a K20D.

you said " This was not a comparison of bodies only. " - so you are implying that lenses somehow made K20D to stay behind D80 ? did ever see tests where pentax AF was able
to beat anybody ?

[Falcons]

so (1) you do not know what the cost is, but nevertheless, w/o knowing it (2) you know somehow that it means VASTLY (sic) more expensive cameras ... show me the math then...

If you need it in simple terms then.

Nikon spends $1000 on R&D has a client base of 1000 who each buy a new camera. To obtain back the investment in R&D requires an increase in price of $1 and assumes all 1000 current clients will upgrade. Or an increase of 50 cents and assume only 50% of current client base will upgrade and a further 500 customers will be attracted to the new upgrade.

Pentax spends $1000 on R&D, now compared to Nikon, Pentax has 4 customers to obtain a return on the investment the current cameras will increase in price $250, assuming all 4 customers upgrade.
Or Pentax may hope to tripple their customer base to 12 and only increase it by $83. This still assumes 100% of current Pentax consumers will upgrade.

This is very simple and doesn't take into account marketing budgets, strategic marketshare positioning etc etc.

Pentax are building marketshare by pricing, perhaps when they reach a critical mass of marketshare they will obtain the funds necessary to improve AF on the basis of increased market return.

Till then do as I do MF; it aint that hard really.

[Falcons]

you said " This was not a comparison of bodies only. " - so you are implying that lenses somehow made K20D to stay behind D80 ? did ever see tests where pentax AF was able
to beat anybody ?

Your really clutching at straws now.

[deejjjaaaa]

If you need it in simple terms then.

Nikon spends $1000 on R&D has a client base of 1000 who each buy a new camera. To obtain back the investment in R&D requires an increase in price of $1 and assumes all 1000 current clients will upgrade. Or an increase of 50 cents and assume only 50% of current client base will upgrade and a further 500 customers will be attracted to the new upgrade.

Pentax spends $1000 on R&D, now compared to Nikon, Pentax has 4 customers to obtain a return on the investment the current cameras will increase in price $250, assuming all 4 customers upgrade.
Or Pentax may hope to tripple their customer base to 12 and only increase it by $83. This still assumes 100% of current Pentax consumers will upgrade.

This is very simple and doesn't take into account marketing budgets, strategic marketshare positioning etc etc.

you do not know what it costs to get AF... you are arbitrary, oh well - in fact intentionally, using "$1000" and "4" to come up
with "$250"... we can as well use "4000" instead of "4" and come up w/ increase of just "$0.25"... the point is - you do not know the cost, you just assuming that it is big... we can
as well assume that Pentax just lacks the skill in AF department

PS: "If you need it in simple terms then." - yes, please... but stop cooking numbers first to suit your needs.

[Falcons]

you do not know what it costs to get AF... you are arbitrary, oh well - in fact intentionally, using "$1000" and "4" to come up
with "$250"... we can as well use "4000" instead of "4" and come up w/ increase of just "$0.25"... the point is - you do not know the cost, you just assuming that it is big... we can
as well assume that Pentax just lacks the skill in AF department

PS: "If you need it in simple terms then." - yes, please... but stop cooking numbers first to suit your needs.

Ahhh, now I understand. You have absolutely no understanding of marketing and economics. No point having a discussion then.

[nosnoop]

Result (Test #4 -- Relative ratio of out-of-focus shots, central AF):

1. A700: 2.1 %
2. 40D: 6.4 %
3. D3: 9.2 %
4. D300: 10.0 %
5. 1D: 11.7 %
6. 1Ds: 14.3 %
7. E3: 17.8 %
8. D80: 23.2 %
9. K20: 25.6 %

Don't forget that such test is inherently biased towards camera with high FPS. Consider the fact that out of focus shots typically occurs at the start (CPU may need the first shot or two to calculate the tracking) or at the end (out of range, too close etc).

So if all the cameras take the first shot or two to achieve tracking, K20D would automatically have the lowest score as it shoots the fewest frames. And if you take a look at the actual number of out of focus shots in each test run, yes it is only 1 to 2 shots per run.

(for some reason, your quoted results are quite different from another users' quote in dpreview, where he said 1DSMkIII came out on top with 94% accuracy).

[nosnoop]

Stats can be interpreted in so many ways. For instance, with test #4, one way to interpret the results is that for every day use, you are more than 4 times as likely to get an out-of-focus image with the K20D as compared to the 40D, and more than 10 times as compared to the A700. If only considering AF, in absolute terms, the K20D even with its improved AF performance, is far behind the field.

On the other hand, if you take a look at the absolute number of out of focus shots, it is only 1 to 2 shots per test run for K20D.

[nosnoop]

it can't even beat D80 which costs ~40% less

[shrug] And 1DSMkIII and D3 costs 570% & 350% more than A700 and got beaten by it.

And you point?

[mutley]

If you need the accuracy of photographing cars coming at you 100 kph then a camera already exists for you the Sony Alpha 700 - wipes the floor with the D300.


Pentax engineers can quite easily develop a faster AF, what the cost is, I don't know. But I do know that that cost will have to be amortised over a lot smaller consumer base which means vastly more expensive cameras.

Oh, Pentax engineers should just take apart a D300 and A700 to see exactly how their autofocus works, and what parts are involved, then just combine and change it enough to avoid copyright issues. The actual chips, and wires are cheap. Even simply faster processing capacity hardware won't add HUNDREDS per camera. The technology has already been figured out. The K30D doesn't have to be the FASTEST, just close...

[Falcons]

Oh, Pentax engineers should just take apart a D300 and A700 to see exactly how their autofocus works, and what parts are involved, then just combine and change it enough to avoid copyright issues. The actual chips, and wires are cheap. Even simply faster processing capacity hardware won't add HUNDREDS per camera. The technology has already been figured out. The K30D doesn't have to be the FASTEST, just close...

The hardware is probably quite cheap and I have no doubt that if they put their mind to it Pentax engineers could produce an AF system to blow your socks off - but how much will it cost in patents, software and time etc?
I have no idea of $$ value but remember a fast AF has to be combined with a fast fps or Pentax would never hear the end of it.

Does anyone here know the R&D costs associated with this?

[GaryM]

Stats can be interpreted in so many ways. For instance, with test #4, one way to interpret the results is that for every day use, you are more than 4 times as likely to get an out-of-focus image with the K20D as compared to the 40D, and more than 10 times as compared to the A700. If only considering AF, in absolute terms, the K20D even with its improved AF performance, is far behind the field.

Hey, I can play this game too! Nikon D300 users are 5 times more likely to get an out-of-focus image than Sony A700 users - are about to see a mass exodus from Nikon to Sony?