[Nicolas06]

If we will see that K-1 has real and steady AF-C it would be real success.

This to me is likely. I mean k5 brought us "acceptable" still subject AF. K3 brought us great still subject AF with some basic tracking capabilities.

If only pentax adapt the current AF system to spread the point over an area to match the FF sensor, add a few more points (easy), improve a bit the tracking algorithm and add on top of it a basic predictive algorithm it would make it very solid AF-C. Not maybe at the level of D7200/D810 or D5, but already great.

What more the next 645 will have this module too where the competition has shitty AF and much higher prices.

Then next generation can fine tune all the algorithms in place to make it at least at D7200/D810 level for 99% of FF shooter that's more than what they need.

But the camera will have other features the other don't have. Better build, better ergonomics, in body SR, pixel shift, built in astrotracer/gps.

I would not buy Pentax if I was mainly after action/sport/bif, but for general photography Pentax just fine and will improve in other areas.

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 01-08-2016 at 12:06 PM.

[Nicolas06]

Six months is an eternity when applied to finishing and optimizing.

It depend what you call optimizing.

AF for example there basic algorithms for sure and you just need to implement them.

But then you need to have sensor that work in dim light. And you need to have many, to cover the frame and have an accurate vision of the scene. Even that can be done fast, ok. But don't forget, you also need AF point that work well too at f/8 f/9 for slow tele with TC as well as f/1.4 f/2 for very precise focus. And it must work in daylight, artificial light etc.

Now you want to have tracking. A good part of this is pattern recogition on the metering sensor to see what moved. This is subject still under heavy research in general because nobody managed to have a machine that really see. Even google with thousand of computer in working on the task and billions of sample image is far from being there.

Now you also want predictive AF. The basic idea is likely very simple to implement if you do it. Predict the speed of the subject and predict where it will be exactly at the moment you take the photo while the AF sensor can't see it. But then again to reduce a precise trajectory of something that is basically a bunch of pixels is not that easy.

All of this need to be tuned, optimized and tested against many tries and use cases. This is really research and you could spend the next 10 years doing only that and not just you but your whole team. Just setting up the protocol to test and evaluate the results are already a complex topic.

No, 6 months is not a lot.

[clackers]

The Milbeaut v8 processor only came out in October, IIRC.

A delay to incorporate it is surely worthwhile - for the first time 4k video is possible, for example.

[Ptitboul]

If +1ev of exposure is added in post processing to the D750 image, in theory (not considering lens resolution), the results should be similar. But it compared a prime lens with a zoom, so, obviously, the APSC combo is smaller than the ff combo.

What to compare:
- K-30 + DFA150-450 @300mm f5.6 ISO800
- D610 + Tamron 150-600 @450 f8 ISO1600 (or a 6D+Tamy150-600)

Both cost about the same, have IS, weight about the same, a should deliver similar results. In practice, the FF combo with deliver about 20% more resolution, or if the DoF is not the same for both (use of f5.6 for both), the FF will also have less noise.

A better comparison would be to use lenses of similar cost and quality.
I propose
Canon 7DII + EF 400/2.8 II @ f/2.8 ISO 100
Canon 5DIII + EF 600/4 II @ f/4 ISO 200

Less expensive
Canon 7DII + EF 135/2 @ f/2 ISO 100
Canon 5DIII + EF 200/2.8 @ f/2.8 ISO 200

Or, with zooms
Canon 7DII + EF-S 17-55/2.8
Canon 5DIII + EF 24-70/4 L

[RonHendriks1966]

This is, I think, what we're all hoping for, the D5's magnificent specs notwithstanding. Most people will never go to the places the D5 is capable of taking them; why should they cough up the money for it? I've heard $6500 quoted, and I'm not even sure that includes glass. Right now we're expecting the worst case sticker price for the K-1 as $3000 US body-only, so add $1300 for the DFA 24-70 and $2300 for the D-FA*70-200 (both prices from B&H) and you are only just over. Which do YOU think a first-time full-framer will buy?

Oh this is the tricky challenge. For 3500 $ you have a D610 with the Tamron set 24-70 and 70-200.

[thibs]

A D610 ?
Mmmm nope. Thanks though.
Offered: kept.
Payed: nope.

[bxf]

Noooooooooo, Norm. Say it aint so!

It's all relative, Parallax. It's all relative.

[D1N0]

It's all relative, Parallax. It's all relative.

That's what the Amish always say isn't it?

[jonlg]

The truth is that working pro's don't have time like amateurs do to debate the minutiae of cameras, they evaluate the gear on the efficiency of the tool to do a job. The truth is that Pentax, Canon, Nikon, Fuji, leica and Olympus all make high quality cameras and most of the debates between them are a result of biased reasoning. The truth is that the pro's of yesteryear - bresson, bailey etc didn't have cameras as good as what we have today from all the mainstream manufacturers but they worked with the tools they had to create incredible work.

This week I upgraded my monitor from a Dell 24" full HD ultrascan to a Dell 27" 4k monitor. I am utterly staggered by what I'm seeing on the screen now, and yet even with one of the best monitors on the planet I'm still only seeing 8 million pixels and the K3 is shooting 24 million on every frame. It was the biggest and best 'camera' upgrade I have ever made and frankly if you're not viewing your pictures on a 4k monitor or printing large prints you're in no position to judge the difference between say APSC and full frame or a Nikon D7200 and a K3 - it's a nonsense! I'm utterly staggered by what the K3 is giving me - it's an amazing camera.

Personally I value the pro's who post here like Kenspro. They have insights that the rest of us don't have so time to stop the mindless trivia I think.

Jon

[Nicolas06]

For me the K3 was more for the better AF than anything else, the smaller AF point to get large apperture lenses to focus precisely. I for sure enjoy the 24MP of a K3 because it give me lot of freedom to crop and still get good enough pictures. But that was not the first reason.

I'am now satisfied with AF mostly but I think some people out there want better action AF.

[jeffryscott]

All this talk of AF, there is little said about the lenses. How big a culprit in AFC speed and accuracy do they play? Frankly, I think the biggest roadblock to the Pentax AF system may be the lenses themselves. For example, there is a dramatic difference in AFC speed and accuracy between my 50-135 and 60-250 on my K3. I think, but can't in anyway prove, that if Pentax had better and faster SDM, or DC, in its lenses, a lot of the issues with AFC would dissipate.

That said, I am also sure a lot could be done with a firmware update - look at what Fuji and Olympus have done with firmware to improve speed and accuracy of their AF systems (it was dramatic). Maybe, just maybe, some of the anticipated improvements made in the K1 can be passed on via firmware to the older cameras.

[reh321]

All this talk of AF, there is little said about the lenses. How big a culprit in AFC speed and accuracy do they play? Frankly, I think the biggest roadblock to the Pentax AF system may be the lenses themselves. For example, there is a dramatic difference in AFC speed and accuracy between my 50-135 and 60-250 on my K3. I think, but can't in anyway prove, that if Pentax had better and faster SDM, or DC, in its lenses, a lot of the issues with AFC would dissipate.

That said, I am also sure a lot could be done with a firmware update - look at what Fuji and Olympus have done with firmware to improve speed and accuracy of their AF systems (it was dramatic). Maybe, just maybe, some of the anticipated improvements made in the K1 can be passed on via firmware to the older cameras.

I don't quite understand the AF issues yet. I do know that I have slightly more trouble getting my K-30 to focus than getting my Q-7 to focus. Here I'm not talking about speed ; I'm talking about getting it to stop hunting, and to focus on something.

I don't know if this is related at all to the problems people have with the more expensive bodies.

[Newtophotos]

That's what the Amish always say isn't it?

[reh321]

That's what the Amish always say isn't it?

Its always easier to make jokes at the expense of someone else's minority group.

[repaap]

I do agree with you on this. While still my K-7 is much more hunting that K-3. Compared to each other K-3 down not hunt almost at all. One of my slowest focusing lenses is DA*55. In dark it is impossible with K-7 but K-3 will focus, slowly, but t will. This can be aided with new AF-sensor even more, but it is lens design which is pulling it back. This I know even I'm not a engineer. Whole block of glass is moving instead of just small element, which will be the case with new 70-200. But if focus is as good as K-3 and/or little better, I'll be happy. And I know that it will improve, why would it not.

All this talk of AF, there is little said about the lenses. How big a culprit in AFC speed and accuracy do they play? Frankly, I think the biggest roadblock to the Pentax AF system may be the lenses themselves. For example, there is a dramatic difference in AFC speed and accuracy between my 50-135 and 60-250 on my K3. I think, but can't in anyway prove, that if Pentax had better and faster SDM, or DC, in its lenses, a lot of the issues with AFC would dissipate.

That said, I am also sure a lot could be done with a firmware update - look at what Fuji and Olympus have done with firmware to improve speed and accuracy of their AF systems (it was dramatic). Maybe, just maybe, some of the anticipated improvements made in the K1 can be passed on via firmware to the older cameras.