Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-13-2015, 11:11 AM - 1 Like   #256
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Nelson B.C.
Posts: 3,267
What Pentax lacks is fast focusing lenses. The Nikon long lenses are lightning fast, as well as the canon. The DA*300 is too slow.

I don't hear to many complaints about the 150-450. The K3 can't keep up with really fast action, but it is competent. Misfocus is not the main reason for missed shots.

08-13-2015, 12:43 PM   #257
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 362
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Shooting sports is expensive. So is wildlife photography. And it isn't just the camera (although those aren't exactly cheap), but the glass that is involved. You need something fast that will focus really fast and is long enough for the purpose.

I think too many people base their analysis of Pentax focus capabilities on how it functions with the kit lens, or one of the various SDM lenses out there. On the other hand, newer lenses with DC motors or the 150-450/70-200 lenses do quite a bit better and can keep up with the logic that Pentax has put into the K3 and K3 II.

But it isn't like you buy a D5200 and get a 70-300 variable aperture zoom and go out shooting sport with Nikon. Neither the body nor the lens would be up to it.
What about DA 560 HD ED WP... with DC AF ? Pentax only lacks the >10k$ lens serie but who cares ?
The problem is that people shooting occasionally are bullying the camera AF for their own mistakes. AF tracking is the only aspect where Pentax body are lagging behind but that's a pretty specific use. Pentax can do great outside of compact limited lenses. Even if they shine.
08-13-2015, 01:10 PM - 1 Like   #258
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,880
QuoteOriginally posted by Glorfindelrb Quote
The problem is that people shooting occasionally are bullying the camera AF for their own mistakes.
Exactly. Nailing focus and using the proper shutter speed are more important than the measured sharpness of a lens.

Also, manual focus. There would be fewer AF "issues" if people could competently MF their lenses.
08-13-2015, 01:30 PM   #259
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Nelson B.C.
Posts: 3,267
QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
Exactly. Nailing focus and using the proper shutter speed are more important than the measured sharpness of a lens.

Also, manual focus. There would be fewer AF "issues" if people could competently MF their lenses.
That is like saying that your tires will last about longer if you don't drive.

The issues with autofocus occur in situations where it is impractical or impossible to manual focus. Fast moving targets, sports, etc. The bodies have improved each iteration and the newer lenses seem to be quicker. It isn't an easy problem.

08-13-2015, 01:48 PM   #260
Pentaxian
Wired's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,524
QuoteOriginally posted by derekkite Quote
That is like saying that your tires will last about longer if you don't drive.

The issues with autofocus occur in situations where it is impractical or impossible to manual focus. Fast moving targets, sports, etc. The bodies have improved each iteration and the newer lenses seem to be quicker. It isn't an easy problem.
old school it. catch in focus.

ie baseball. Focus on the base, use enough DOF to get the player in focus when he goes in for the slide, but a high enough shutter to freeze it (1/1000, f4, iso 400 maybe?) and then when he goes for the slide time it and snap it. One amazing phone.
08-13-2015, 02:16 PM   #261
Veteran Member
starbase218's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe
Posts: 1,110
QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
Exactly. Nailing focus and using the proper shutter speed are more important than the measured sharpness of a lens.
Err.. they're talking about focus, not measured lens sharpness.

QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
Also, manual focus. There would be fewer AF "issues" if people could competently MF their lenses.
Maybe, but most APS-C DSLR's aren't exactly designed with MF in mind. Smaller viewfinders, no focusing aids in the standard focusing screen. You'd almost have to use liveview. But if you do that, why get a DSLR in the first place?
08-13-2015, 02:16 PM   #262
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,423
The only legit complainers are shooters who want fast tracking and fast focus super tele. But everyone who hears Pentax AF ISN'T 'as good as' assumes that's all situations. I defy anyone to prove a K-3 isn't competitive indoor low light AF with a same-brand f/2.8 zoom.

Last edited by monochrome; 08-13-2015 at 03:40 PM.
08-13-2015, 02:19 PM   #263
Veteran Member
starbase218's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe
Posts: 1,110
QuoteOriginally posted by Wired Quote
old school it. catch in focus.

ie baseball. Focus on the base, use enough DOF to get the player in focus when he goes in for the slide, but a high enough shutter to freeze it (1/1000, f4, iso 400 maybe?) and then when he goes for the slide time it and snap it. One amazing phone.
iPhone?

Anyway, maybe this is the case, but then baseball is not the most difficult sport to anticipate where the player will be, especially in the situation you described.

Try ice hockey. Not a chance manual focus is going to cut it there.

08-13-2015, 02:25 PM   #264
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,880
QuoteOriginally posted by derekkite Quote
That is like saying that your tires will last about longer if you don't drive.
I don't get that analogy at all. A car without tires is not a drivable car at all; a camera without AF can still make photos.

QuoteQuote:
The issues with autofocus occur in situations where it is impractical or impossible to manual focus. Fast moving targets, sports, etc. The bodies have improved each iteration and the newer lenses seem to be quicker. It isn't an easy problem.
I don't shoot sports, but I shoot wildlife all the time, and for the majority of it I use MF, including for wildlife that is moving. Sure, great AF would sometimes make things easier, but a lot of practice with MF and some thinking about what your subject is attempting to accomplish (like Wired's example with baseball) will put you in a position to get good captures.
08-13-2015, 02:30 PM - 1 Like   #265
Veteran Member
starbase218's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe
Posts: 1,110
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
The only legit complainers are shooters who want fast tracking and fast focus super tele. But everyone who hears Pentax AF ISN't 'as good as' assumes that's all situations I defy anyone to prove a K-3 isn't competitive indoor low light AF with a same-brand f/2.8 zoom.
The same-brand aspect could be pretty significant here though. There aren't too many third party options with ring-type ultrasonic AF motors, and of those options, there's maybe 1 or 2 available in Pentax mount? If you get a Canon or Nikon body, you can mount lots of (admittedly higher priced) name-brand lenses with ring-type ultrasonic, or many third-party options, also with ring-type ultrasonic.

edit: Yes, I'm playing the devil's advocate again. Deal with it.

---------- Post added 08-13-2015 at 11:39 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
I don't get that analogy at all. A car without tires is not a drivable car at all; a camera without AF can still make photos.



I don't shoot sports, but I shoot wildlife all the time, and for the majority of it I use MF, including for wildlife that is moving. Sure, great AF would sometimes make things easier, but a lot of practice with MF and some thinking about what your subject is attempting to accomplish (like Wired's example with baseball) will put you in a position to get good captures.
Agreed. But aren't you then working around the problem? I mean, sure, a workaround could do fine, but - and I may sound like a spoiled person saying this - wouldn't you prefer to have the option of reliable tracking autofocus, so that you can focus on other things, like composition, capturing the moment, etc? Wouldn't this translate into more keepers in the end?

Not that AF is always the solution. It's a tool. But a more refined tool can help you get better shots in some circumstances. Right?
08-13-2015, 02:43 PM   #266
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,880
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
Err.. they're talking about focus, not measured lens sharpness.
Yes, I admit I was stating that somewhat tangentially. Slightly fuller thought: a less-sharp lens focused properly will produce more resolution than an improperly focused high-end lens. I see a lot of photos posted here on PF and elsewhere taken with great tele glass where focus is either missed or the shutter speed is not sufficient to cleanly capture the subject, yet these same poepl are obsessed with lens sharpness.

QuoteQuote:
Maybe, but most APS-C DSLR's aren't exactly designed with MF in mind. Smaller viewfinders, no focusing aids in the standard focusing screen. You'd almost have to use liveview. But if you do that, why get a DSLR in the first place?
I agree, the smallish OVF of APS-C is a problem. But one does get accustomed to it with much practice, as well as using liveview.

I practice MF a lot, almost constantly. Maybe more than most people want to. But I can't afford a DA 300/4, so I use several long Taks and a lot of effort.

Anyway, I probably shouldn't have derailed the thread like this. I guess I just get a little tired of people constantly blaming the equipment, rather than working on certain skills that maybe could ameliorate some shortcomings.

---------- Post added 08-13-15 at 05:45 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
Agreed. But aren't you then working around the problem? I mean, sure, a workaround could do fine, but - and I may sound like a spoiled person saying this - wouldn't you prefer to have the option of reliable tracking autofocus, so that you can focus on other things, like composition, capturing the moment, etc? Wouldn't this translate into more keepers in the end?

Not that AF is always the solution. It's a tool. But a more refined tool can help you get better shots in some circumstances. Right?
Funny, I had just addressed your points in my previous response.
08-13-2015, 02:47 PM - 1 Like   #267
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
The only legit complainers are shooters who want fast tracking and fast focus super tele. But everyone who hears Pentax AF ISN't 'as good as' assumes that's all situations I defy anyone to prove a K-3 isn't competitive indoor low light AF with a same-brand f/2.8 zoom.
K5 AF was not good for shallow deph of field. it was not good for large appertures. It was not good for low light. It was not good for tracking and fast moving subjects. It mainly performed great on well lit still subjects using the center AF point, a not too fast apperture.

With K3, AF performance on still subjects is now great. Even in low light, even with fast appertures, even if you focus on an off center point. So the AF of still subjects is a solved problem for Pentax.

There a start of tracking capability but still not predictive AF. That's why we are so dependant on very expensive fast lenses that are barely available for now.

Hopefully the next Pentax (maybe the FF?) will have great tracking and at least some basic predictive AF so that we can say it' is great for AF-C too. When this is put in next APSC body, it will give a secon life to all theses slow SDM lenses, and to the screw drive ones too.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 08-13-2015 at 02:52 PM.
08-13-2015, 03:25 PM   #268
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
Ricoh Imaging has no interest in sports photography. There are no images to show the capabilaty's in this area from Pentax camera's (not users, but representing the brand). No K-3 ambassador that makes serious sports images. Most reviews writing the Pentax camera's lak in Af doesn't sell them. No images of sports shown in the boot of Ricoh at the last Photokina. So with no images to show and no photographer hired to do such work at sports events where Ricoh is a major sponsor, like tennis or golf, there is simply no serious photographer thinking about Pentax for sports images.

Sports photography is expensive. Not only gear. To be at the last Sochi Winter Olympic photographers needed to invest 20.000 euro to be able to work there. So only serious work is doen there by photographers who know their gear and can trust it. With no money invested in this area, there simply will never be any serious work done with Pentax camera's. Amature photographer like to buy camera gear that is used by pro's. They buy Canon and Nikon and will do so for some time to come.
08-13-2015, 03:42 PM   #269
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,423
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
K5 AF was not good for shallow deph of field. it was not good for large appertures. It was not good for low light. It was not good for tracking and fast moving subjects. It mainly performed great on well lit still subjects using the center AF point, a not too fast apperture.
K-5 = Two generations ago.
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
With K3, AF performance on still subjects is now great. Even in low light, even with fast appertures, even if you focus on an off center point. So the AF of still subjects is a solved problem for Pentax.

There a start of tracking capability but still not predictive AF. That's why we are so dependant on very expensive fast lenses that are barely available for now.

Hopefully the next Pentax (maybe the FF?) will have great tracking and at least some basic predictive AF so that we can say it' is great for AF-C too. When this is put in next APSC body, it will give a secon life to all theses slow SDM lenses, and to the screw drive ones too.
What i said, I think.
08-13-2015, 03:45 PM   #270
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,423
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
Ricoh Imaging has no interest in sports photography. There are no images to show the capabilaty's in this area from Pentax camera's (not users, but representing the brand). No K-3 ambassador that makes serious sports images. Most reviews writing the Pentax camera's lak in Af doesn't sell them. No images of sports shown in the boot of Ricoh at the last Photokina. So with no images to show and no photographer hired to do such work at sports events where Ricoh is a major sponsor, like tennis or golf, there is simply no serious photographer thinking about Pentax for sports images.

Sports photography is expensive. Not only gear. To be at the last Sochi Winter Olympic photographers needed to invest 20.000 euro to be able to work there. So only serious work is doen there by photographers who know their gear and can trust it. With no money invested in this area, there simply will never be any serious work done with Pentax camera's. Amature photographer like to buy camera gear that is used by pro's. They buy Canon and Nikon and will do so for some time to come.
So -- in order to compete Ricoh needs to solve the Sports/Action problems, invest millions of dollars in a tiny slice of a small market segment, and buy leading professional photographers, all so consumers will ask B&M retailers to compare Canon and Nikon to Pentax - otherwise PentaxIsDoomed™?

Why does Sony get a pass?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
a7000, aps, aps-c, apsc pentax, budget, camera, delay, dollar, dslr, ff, frame, generations, glass, info, k-3, k-5, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, people, photography, product, quality, release, replacement, request, ricoh, rumor, sensor, sony, sources, sub, time, weight
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Pentax 645D2014 also uses the 50MP Sony CMOS sensor! ElJamoquio Pentax News and Rumors 442 03-21-2014 12:57 AM
Using 67 lenses on Pentax APSC bodies-focal length setting cleffa Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 2 11-26-2013 05:22 AM
K-3 with 24mp Sony A77 sensor will be announced in early October jogiba Pentax News and Rumors 35 10-01-2013 02:07 PM
Behold! Sony's new trojan horse DSLR, the A7000 Z-shift JohnBee Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 4 09-02-2013 06:26 AM
New APSC/FF sensor news beginning to take shape... JohnBee Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 4 07-06-2011 04:11 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:27 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top