[derekkite]

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.

[Glorfindelrb]

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.

[luftfluss]

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.

[derekkite]

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.

[Wired]

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.

[starbase218]

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.

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?

[monochrome]

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.

[starbase218]

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.

[luftfluss]

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.

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.

[starbase218]

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 ----------

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?

[luftfluss]

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.

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 ----------

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.

[Nicolas06]

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.

[RonHendriks1966]

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.

[monochrome]

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.

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.

[monochrome]

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?