[jatrax]

How does one get to Carnegie Hall? ...

When you are good enough to get there you don't have to ask.

[starbase218]

How does one get to Carnegie Hall? ...

So you say it's equally possible with my current gear (60-250), while derekkite says Pentax lenses are nowhere near Nikon in terms of AF speed. What should I make of that?

It is my perception that Nikon is better for this stuff. I could be wrong, but in the end, my perception is all I have to go on, right?

[rawr]

with my current gear (60-250)

I'd certainly suggest a faster lens - both in terms of aperture and lens motors. The newest Sigma 70-200 (which still seem to be around) or the upcoming Pentax 70-200. Then you'd probably be on the same page as Nikon. If you tried an older Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8D ED, for instance, (which is still in their catalogue), it wouldn't perform any faster than the 60-250. Nikon has slow lenses too.

[derekkite]

L

So you say it's equally possible with my current gear (60-250), while derekkite says Pentax lenses are nowhere near Nikon in terms of AF speed. What should I make of that?

It is my perception that Nikon is better for this stuff. I could be wrong, but in the end, my perception is all I have to go on, right?

The K3 made the DA*300 like a new lens compared to the K5, along with improved resolution made shots possible that I couldn't get previously. The sigma 500 f4.5 is a fine performer on the k3, and the 1.20 firmware made it possible to consider shooting things that I ignored previously. The K3ii would be a slight improvement, and the 150-450 sounds like a fine lens that I may acquire. There may be some limitations in the Pentax offerings, but I think it will get better and give me opportunities to widen my available shooting possibilities.

So should I sell my three bodies, 15 lenses and couple flashes to get a marginal improvement in af? I shoot with others who have other brands and they miss lots of shots as well. I have regularly gotten the best shots on our jaunts. The Canon guy runs into low light quality issues, the Nikon guy was stuck with a terrible insult of the D7100 buffer. They both have multiple lenses and bodies searching for the optimum combinations. They get wonderful shots, have better skills than I do in post processing and approaching wildlife. I seem to find the locations. We have a great time.

My Nikon friend learned back button focusing and gained in his success rate more than the marginal improvement from the D7100 to D7200. And I think the K3 has a far nicer button location for that purpose.

There is no magic, and the three in this market are beating themselves up to get marginal improvements and hopefully our money. Good for us, Ricoh knows what they need to do to. I fully expect updates to the otherwise excellent long zooms and primes. And the next bodies will be better as regards af.

The 70mm sigma is excellent for low light AF.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

That's why any AF-related discussion would need an objective testing methodology to start with. Because it is lacking, its all opinions only.

Nevertheless, in reply to the above comment ... I participate in a German Nikon forum too and it is true, AF there is debated just as much as it is here. But complaints seem to be on a different level, relating to situations which most here would consider very challenging (or to AF fine tuning with 36MP at large apertures).

At the same time, in that forum, I see tons of photos which are jaw dropping and rather difficult to get (and of a kind I don't see here at PF). The group of 3 bikes in a motor bike race curve with just the middle bike in focus (ok, technically feasible w/o AF too), the flying eagle with all head feathers, the dog running towards you with everything but the dog out of focus, you name it. OTOH, I met a few of those guys in real life and some are full time pros loading gear into their cars worth more than the car ... So, results may more be a sign of passion, experience, value of gear and time invested than a brand difference in AF performance.

Nevertheless, it remains as a fact (imho) that people who depend on best AF performance for a living don't shoot Pentax as a first system. This does not mean that pros requiring good AF avoid Pentax. There are many less challenging domains which remain, such as fashion, fashion shows, studio, event, landscape etc.

I wonder why we discuss it in this thread?

The only reason I would see is if Pentax could try to do a 7Dm2 competitor. IMHO, they cannot.

I also find the consistency and accuracy that one see with very challenging conditions is easily seen, when I moved over to another brand of camera from pentax it was night and day for most of the action shooting i came acrossed

[Glorfindelrb]

One particular shot I was talking about was taken with a D7200. I don't remember which lens.



It's not that I haven't tried to get those shots with my current gear.

Your just talking about subject isolation to do this you need large sensor and expensive lenses with a low min fstop nice bokeh. Those lenses exists in pentax wold (77lim, 600f4, ...) And they does those awsome pictures in good hands but they are rather rare. I was looking for DA560 pictures recently but it's almost impossible to find. Few exists with excellent sharpness but most with a not that clean bokeh and you don't have the volume to be able to say if it's situational or a lens characteristic. You see tons of canon 500/4 pictures (twice the price of the DA) and some are awesome at f6/7 but how many do you need to get those ? What would the pictures have been with the DA ... Hard to say.
The 150-450 has more success and pics are very convincing.

Look at vcollerp birds, Shahan bugs, ... You can do those pics with pentax gears. You see less because of the small market share of pentax even smaller in sport and wildlife (more because of the lens offering than the AF) and smaller in real enthousiasts/pro in those area cause they had occasion to get either a better tele lens offering or/and a FF. What would those photographs do with your stuff ?

That's the main reason why you need the way up to the FF and premium lenses.

[starbase218]

I'd certainly suggest a faster lens - both in terms of aperture and lens motors. The newest Sigma 70-200 (which still seem to be around) or the upcoming Pentax 70-200. Then you'd probably be on the same page as Nikon. If you tried an older Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8D ED, for instance, (which is still in their catalogue), it wouldn't perform any faster than the 60-250. Nikon has slow lenses too.

I don't think I'm going to get the new 70-200, because a) it's way too expensive for me to justify the expense, and b) it's way too heavy too. 60-250 is already borderline, and in some cases more than I want to carry with me. I know that faster lenses will autofocus better, but doing a quick search leads me to believe a lens like the 70-300 L also is not too shabby.

But anyway, maybe this is something for a different topic, or no topic at all.

---------- Post added 08-17-2015 at 12:52 AM ----------

Your just talking about subject isolation to do this you need large sensor and expensive lenses with a low min fstop nice bokeh. Those lenses exists in pentax wold (77lim, 600f4, ...) And they does those awsome pictures in good hands but they are rather rare. I was looking for DA560 pictures recently but it's almost impossible to find. Few exists with excellent sharpness but most with a not that clean bokeh and you don't have the volume to be able to say if it's situational or a lens characteristic. You see tons of canon 500/4 pictures (twice the price of the DA) and some are awesome at f6/7 but how many do you need to get those ? What would the pictures have been with the DA ... Hard to say.
The 150-450 has more success and pics are very convincing.

Look at vcollerp birds, Shahan bugs, ... You can do those pics with pentax gears. You see less because of the small market share of pentax even smaller in sport and wildlife (more because of the lens offering than the AF) and smaller in real enthousiasts/pro in those area cause they had occasion to get either a better tele lens offering or/and a FF. What would those photographs do with your stuff ?

That's the main reason why you need the way up to the FF and premium lenses.

I'm not going to go fullframe, primarily because I can't justify it. And the picture I had in mind was taken with the D7200, which is APS-C.

Anyway, subject isolation? I shot my 60-250 at the MotoGP races at f/8 or f/11 (admittedly with the TC), hoping that would help mitigate focus errors. At this point, subject isolation is a luxury.

[Na Horuk]

I was looking for DA560 pictures recently but it's almost impossible to find. Few exists with excellent sharpness but most with a not that clean bokeh and you don't have the volume to be able to say if it's situational or a lens characteristic.

Really? From the photos I saw of that lens, it seems very sharp. You can check the sample photo gallery: Pentax Camera & Lens Sample Photo Search Engine - PentaxForums.com
In-depth PF review: Pentax-DA 560mm F5.6 ED AW Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews
Quick review: Pentax 560mm Hands-On Video Review - Hands-on Reviews | PentaxForums.com
(I remember some user threads with photos from this lens, as well, but I can't find them atm. They are out there, though)
It seems to be sharp enough wide open, but as pretty much all lenses, it gets sharper stopped down one or two stops. Of course, this is extreme telephoto, so things like shallow DoF, atmospheric haze, heat, camera shake will all play a much bigger role than usual

Edit: Actually, now after looking for a bit, I do see your point. But there are some birders using Pentax gear, sometimes with Sigma lenses, other times the Pentax lenses with TC. Stick around on this forum and you will eventually see almost all genres done well with Pentax gear

[BATMON]

I don't think I'm going to get the new 70-200, because a) it's way too expensive for me to justify the expense, and b) it's way too heavy too. 60-250 is already borderline, and in some cases more than I want to carry with me. I know that faster lenses will autofocus better, but doing a quick search leads me to believe a lens like the 70-300 L also is not too shabby.

But anyway, maybe this is something for a different topic, or no topic at all.

---------- Post added 08-17-2015 at 12:52 AM ----------



I'm not going to go fullframe, primarily because I can't justify it. And the picture I had in mind was taken with the D7200, which is APS-C.

Anyway, subject isolation? I shot my 60-250 at the MotoGP races at f/8 or f/11 (admittedly with the TC), hoping that would help mitigate focus errors. At this point, subject isolation is a luxury.

After checking the K-3 and the K-3II, I wondering if I should just wait until 2016 for an articulating screen wifi combo added to a K3 type body w the 24 megapixels.

[Glorfindelrb]

AF will never enable the possibility to do a picture. It may makes it easier and more reliable tho and we already discuss this point enough about sport and wildlife exigence. The sensor, a lens, a light and a processing does the picture. You have good cropsensor (d7200 is a little better but not visible on a web jpg pic), if you have a similar lens you're not limited by the material and it's a bad thing to accuse your stuff, you should better work on your technique, lighting and processing.

[Nicolas06]

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).

We can think here in europe that most American drivers don't know how to drive and we have even different driver licence for lessers guys that are forbidden to use manual cars. I'am not sure that saying to everybody that Americans don't know how to drive and that's the problem will help to sell manual cars in United States that much through.

And well Formula 1 car are not fully manual neither.

If you refuse to improve AF because REAL photographers don't need it, you find yourself in a place like Pentax were you get single digit market share because most of the market think that if they spend a lot on the gear, the gear should be good.

If it is just a matter of me being a better photographer, I'll not buy anything more and the company will go bankrupt.

The 1Dx of APSC is already here from an AF point of view. It is called D7200, even D7100 or D7000 do it too. Theses are not more expensive than K3 / K3-II.

[starbase218]

We can think here in europe that most American drivers don't know how to drive and we have even different driver licence for lessers guys that are forbidden to use manual cars. I'am not sure that saying to everybody that Americans don't know how to drive and that's the problem will help to sell manual cars in United States that much through.

And well Formula 1 car are not fully manual neither.

If you refuse to improve AF because REAL photographers don't need it, you find yourself in a place like Pentax were you get single digit market share because most of the market think that if they spend a lot on the gear, the gear should be good.

If it is just a matter of me being a better photographer, I'll not buy anything more and the company will go bankrupt.

The 1Dx of APSC is already here from an AF point of view. It is called D7200, even D7100 or D7000 do it too. Theses are not more expensive than K3 / K3-II.

Buffer size on the last two is pretty bad, but yeah, the AF is supposed to be really good, esp. on the first two.

Just some closing notes (since this is about the next Pentax APS-C camera, and I consider this all off-topic). I'd like to have good tracking, but I don't want to lug around 2 kilos of lens for which I've paid enormous amounts of money. I wouldn't use it anyway. Actually, motor sports is not really my thing. I mean, it's nice to try, but it's not really where my heart lies. That is travel photography, which includes all kinds of situations, including wildlife.

I bought the 60-250 primarily because I felt I got all I could out of the 55-300, and I wanted better image quality with a similar zoom range. But I think that maybe even the 55-300 is better for tracking a moving subject than the 60-250 is. I used the 55-300 at airshows, and it did quite well there, even on the K-5. It may not be the most critical test of lens tracking performance, but my general feeling is that the AF is probably snappier on the lighter 55-300.

So I upgraded in terms of image quality, but I may have downgraded in terms of tracking ability. What I'd really like is a lens with a similar focal range and good tracking abilities. It doesn't have to have a very fast aperture. I know that will help autofocus, but if that Canon 70-300 L (and maybe the Nikon 70-300 VR and/or Tamron 70-300) is good for tracking, it seems to me like it's not a necessity. And again, the bulk and weight of e.g. a 70-200/2.8, especially the new Pentax monster, would mean I'd probably not take it with me when I go traveling. I have to say I do like the idea of a 70-200/4 though.

It may come as a surprise that I consider what could be lower-standard zoom lenses, and maybe I got a little carried away myself with the high-end discussion. To be honest, there's a reason I can't justify e.g. the new Pentax 70-200, and that is because I wouldn't use it enough. The lens would own me, instead of me owning the lens (that's a buddhist thing).

There is one other thing. I recently got my PADI open water diver certificate. And I really want to do it more often, and eventually also take my camera with me. Right now I have an Olympus Tough TG-2 for underwater shots. But maybe I want to capture the underwater world with my DSLR. If I do, I will have to switch, as there is only 1 underwater housing for Pentax, and it's for the K-5.

[Nicolas06]

Buffer size on the last two is pretty bad, but yeah, the AF is supposed to be really good, esp. on the first two.

Just some closing notes (since this is about the next Pentax APS-C camera, and I consider this all off-topic). I'd like to have good tracking, but I don't want to lug around 2 kilos of lens for which I've paid enormous amounts of money. I wouldn't use it anyway. Actually, motor sports is not really my thing. I mean, it's nice to try, but it's not really where my heart lies. That is travel photography, which includes all kinds of situations, including wildlife.

I bought the 60-250 primarily because I felt I got all I could out of the 55-300, and I wanted better image quality with a similar zoom range. But I think that maybe even the 55-300 is better for tracking a moving subject than the 60-250 is. I used the 55-300 at airshows, and it did quite well there, even on the K-5. It may not be the most critical test of lens tracking performance, but my general feeling is that the AF is probably snappier on the lighter 55-300.

So I upgraded in terms of image quality, but I may have downgraded in terms of tracking ability. What I'd really like is a lens with a similar focal range and good tracking abilities. It doesn't have to have a very fast aperture. I know that will help autofocus, but if that Canon 70-300 L (and maybe the Nikon 70-300 VR and/or Tamron 70-300) is good for tracking, it seems to me like it's not a necessity. And again, the bulk and weight of e.g. a 70-200/2.8, especially the new Pentax monster, would mean I'd probably not take it with me when I go traveling. I have to say I do like the idea of a 70-200/4 though.

It may come as a surprise that I consider what could be lower-standard zoom lenses, and maybe I got a little carried away myself with the high-end discussion. To be honest, there's a reason I can't justify e.g. the new Pentax 70-200, and that is because I wouldn't use it enough. The lens would own me, instead of me owning the lens (that's a buddhist thing).

There is one other thing. I recently got my PADI open water diver certificate. And I really want to do it more often, and eventually also take my camera with me. Right now I have an Olympus Tough TG-2 for underwater shots. But maybe I want to capture the underwater world with my DSLR. If I do, I will have to switch, as there is only 1 underwater housing for Pentax, and it's for the K-5.

For me your position is quite logical... And to me that part of the equation. The fanboy explain to us Pentax AF is wonderfull because they bet on 150-450 and 70-200 and hopefull an upcoming 24-70.

But what you can get on average or legacy lenses count too. There is no affordable, even in 1000€ or 1000$ range pentax lenses that are great for AF. Hey the 60-250 is seen both by you and Pentax forum AF test has having lower keeper rate than 55-300, a screw drive lense that one can get used for 150$ !

Even when we get theses new expensives FF lenses, this is still not at good at other brands... We will need to wait for 1-2 more generation of bodies, and also to get most of the current APSC lenses upgraded too to get great AF... That's 5 years away... before this will be only for people that can spend 5000$+ on gear.

[Nicolas06]

AF will never enable the possibility to do a picture. It may makes it easier and more reliable tho and we already discuss this point enough about sport and wildlife exigence. The sensor, a lens, a light and a processing does the picture. You have good cropsensor (d7200 is a little better but not visible on a web jpg pic), if you have a similar lens you're not limited by the material and it's a bad thing to accuse your stuff, you should better work on your technique, lighting and processing.

Well in fact you can get the picture with a film body, even a large format camera that is fully manual. Some do it on the Olympics. But there many shoots that become much more complex too. And what count is the result, not the pain you had to suffer to get the shoot, in particular if this is all avoidable.

sure for my use I don't care much of AF performance on most shooting occasion. That doesn't mean that better AF would be useless for all use or that my camera is perfect for everybody. That's all the contrary: if I cared about ultimate AF performance, I would have switched brand already without ever looking back. But in term of value, the AF performance is still a drawback that eat partially the good aspects like in body SR, affordable WR or the availability of small AF primes.

I don't see yet the brand as a good choice for FF or action/wildlife shooting. Even now that the FF is announced. This may change slowly but the changes are not yet finished. We may need 5 more years for that. Get all the lenses, the bodies upgrades. Wait to get affordable prices, for peoples to try, for Pentax to fix the bugs...

But I'll add too that if Pentax invest too much to give us the ultimate camera for an heavy price and don't invest anymore on affordable lightweight APSC body, I might find myself shooting Fuji or m4/3 in a few years. I didn't choose the brand so I could spend 10K€ on the gear...

[Glorfindelrb]

If your answer has no link with my message... don't quote me.