[RockvilleBob]

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.

I feel your view of the current state is correct. However if a larger market presence is among Pentax goals and if we believe Pentax when it has said it wants to be a leader in AF performance then I feel more optimistic about the future. The K3 marked a significant improvement within the confines of the K5 technology. My hope is that a new generation of Pentax DSLR's, designed from the ground up by the company that says it wants to be a leader in auto focus performance, delivers a product that at a minimum is comparable to the competition in AF performance. Lenses will still not be on a par with Canon and Nikon sports lenses but better AF will allow us Pentax wildlife and sports shooters to capture more action. If that happens I personally am indifferent if Pentax doesn't have a presence in worldwide televised events.

[RonHendriks1966]

There is more to it then just updating the AF module inside new camera's to be succesfull. There is no need in going into that market. Just don't expect it to come for free and without effort.

Sony stopped trying after being not succesfull. They tried at a moment their camera's wherent good enough. At least to dominate that market. I don't think Ricoh wants to dominate anything in the cameramarket.

[rawr]

sports events where Ricoh is a major sponsor, like tennis or golf,

It is ironic, considering that Ricoh even have their name on two huge sports stadiums (that I have heard of): the Ricoh Arena in Coventry in the UK [soccer], and the Ricoh Coliseum in Toronto [ice hockey].

Locally they also have some sponsorship of rugby union [Waratahs] and Australian rules football [Hawthorn]. And in Japan the Ricoh Black Rams are a top league rugby union team too.

I think Ricoh clearly have a big investment in sports sponsorship. But they just haven't tried to directly link that advertising to their cameras [yet?].

[derekkite]

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.



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 ----------



Funny, I had just addressed your points in my previous response.

If you shoot manual focus you will limit yourself to shoot you can successfully capture. Good auto focus opens opportunities. Yes, with reasonably predictable situations manual focus or techniques such as catch in focus can get work. But shots are missed.

For example, the other day I was watching an osprey bring a fish to the nest. There are three shots that I like in this situation. The bird carrying the fish, the moment of approach as it decelerates and lines up to land, and when it drops into the nest with the intently awaited meal. I had to choose which one, so I went for the third, nice shot. I had to choose because of the limitations of the hardware; I know I could follow it in and maybe get one, but the second and third wouldn't be available. I'll have other opportunities, but with some species they won't come again for years.

[starbase218]

The thing is, sure, you can use MF. But you have that option with any camera brand, be it Nikon, Canon or Pentax. You can learn to become better at it using each of those brands, because it doesn't depend on the camera. It's a little different with AF, and more specifically, tracking AF. Sure, you have to learn the system too. But not all systems offer the same capability.

[luftfluss]

You Tube

You Tube

[Nicolas06]

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.

The thing is, sure, you can use MF. But you have that option with any camera brand, be it Nikon, Canon or Pentax. You can learn to become better at it using each of those brands, because it doesn't depend on the camera. It's a little different with AF, and more specifically, tracking AF. Sure, you have to learn the system too. But not all systems offer the same capability.

If I was going MF, I'd want an EVF or a large FF view finder made for MF. Until know Perntax has no body that provide that.

[Nicolas06]

K-5 = Two generations ago.What i said, I think.

Sure but K5-II and K5-IIs had all issues except low light. Basically Pentax managed to be okish for AF on still subject less than 2 years ago...

[rawr]

Basically Pentax managed to be okish for AF on still subject less than 2 years ago...

I've noticed that suddenly many folks require Canon 1Dx AF performance for simple tasks like tracking their kids or pets [same difference ] running around the house, and blame Pentax AF for them not getting 100% of the shots in focus.

At some point, one has to accept that getting good results in photography is part gear, part user.

[thibs]

Sure but K5-II and K5-IIs had all issues except low light. Basically Pentax managed to be okish for AF on still subject less than 2 years ago...

And yet you stir the pot once more.

[starbase218]

I've noticed that suddenly many folks require Canon 1Dx AF performance for simple tasks like tracking their kids or pets [same difference ] running around the house, and blame Pentax AF for them not getting 100% of the shots in focus.

At some point, one has to accept that getting good results in photography is part gear, part user.

I don't think anyone is saying you need a 1Dx for tracking kids. I do have difficulty with my K-3 tracking kids though. My little niece on a swing? No way my K-3 and 60-250 could track her.

IMHO it's just not what Pentax is for.

edit: this may not be current anymore, but it may still hold some truth (and I think it probably does).

[Rondec]

For the same money, you won't likely find much better gear from other brands. You would pay, about 1750 for a K3 and a DA *300. I doubt for that amount of money you are going to find some ultra speedy lens/camera body combo from another maker. The 7D MK II is 1500 dollars for the body alone.

I have seen great strides with Pentax focus ability over time. It will certainly continue to improve, but the situation isn't dire like it was back when I was shooting with a K10D.

[audiobomber]

I don't think anyone is saying you need a 1Dx for tracking kids. I do have difficulty with my K-3 tracking kids though.

What settings are you using for tracking?

[mecrox]

I've noticed that suddenly many folks require Canon 1Dx AF performance for simple tasks like tracking their kids or pets [same difference ] running around the house, and blame Pentax AF for them not getting 100% of the shots in focus.

At some point, one has to accept that getting good results in photography is part gear, part user.

That isn't the point which sells cameras, alas, and selling is what it's all about for a business. No complaints here as I don't shoot sports or much wildlife anyway, but being able to market your wares as offering top-class AF is pretty darn important. If you can't then there is no point in offering costly lenses which are predicated on good AF like the 150-400mm. Thus I would expect Pentax to think that continuing to improve their AF was pretty important. AF is a work in progress for every manufacturer and development won't stop for years, if ever. And for as long as Canon insist on overcharging their customers for items like the 7D mk II, Pentax will have a good opportunity to come in below it at an attractive price.

[starbase218]

What settings are you using for tracking?

IIRC, AF-C with selective zone (I think covering all the cross-type points but not the linear-type points), center point as initial AF point, probably with SR off and focus hold enabled (don't remember which level).

---------- Post added 08-14-2015 at 02:07 PM ----------

I've noticed that suddenly many folks require Canon 1Dx AF performance for simple tasks like tracking their kids or pets [same difference ] running around the house, and blame Pentax AF for them not getting 100% of the shots in focus.

At some point, one has to accept that getting good results in photography is part gear, part user.

Anyway, are you saying that you can successfully track small kids running around with e.g. a DA* lens?

---------- Post added 08-14-2015 at 02:30 PM ----------

For the same money, you won't likely find much better gear from other brands. You would pay, about 1750 for a K3 and a DA *300. I doubt for that amount of money you are going to find some ultra speedy lens/camera body combo from another maker. The 7D MK II is 1500 dollars for the body alone.

I think Nikon is probably your best bet if you want fast tracking autofocus. The D7200 seems very capable in that respect, and it's about the same price as the K-3 II.

What's more, the user interface of e.g. the D7200 is much better for focus tracking. It is implemented better. With Pentax, you only see the active AF point if it refocuses. With Nikon, you always see what the camera thinks should be the active AF point. So you know immediately if it has lost track of your subject. Even if the actual focus speed and tracking abilities were equal, that alone would win me over if I did a lot of action photography.

e.g.

You Tube

You Tube