[Trickortreat]

They should work on low-light AF rather than on low ISO values.

So work on a niche that an extremly low amount of photographers do?
Soumds like a great business plan

[reh321]

So work on a niche that an extremly low amount of photographers do?
Soumds like a great business plan

How do you know that only an 'extremely low number' of photographers are interested in that 'niche'?

[Trickortreat]

How do you know that only an 'extremely low number' of photographers are interested in that 'niche'?

From experience.
Handheld night time photography just isnt something photographers try to do a lot...

[reh321]

From experience.
Handheld night time photography just isnt something photographers try to do a lot...

I believe that is changing.

High ISO is replacing flash.

High ISO is replacing expensive "constant f/2.8 or f/2" lenses.

But this is a matter of opinion.
There is no point to debating opinions.

[Trickortreat]

I believe that is changing.

High ISO is replacing flash.

High ISO is replacing expensive "constant f/2.8 or f/2" lenses.

But this is a matter of opinion.
There is no point to debating opinions.

No it isnt because up to today none of manufacturers managed to implement a proper low light af.
And its not an opinon. Anyone can open up flicker and see for themself what percentage of night time photos with exposures under one third of a second are there...

[reh321]

No it isnt because up to today none of manufacturers managed to implement a proper low light af.
And its not an opinon. Anyone can open up flicker and see for themself what percentage of night time photos with exposures under one third of a second are there...

High ISO means exposures will be hand-held at same shutter speed as all other photos - that is the whole point.
This is opinion.
I have nothing further to say on this sub-topic.

[Trickortreat]

High ISO means exposures will be hand-held at same shutter speed as all other photos - that is the whole point.
This is opinion.
I have nothing further to say on this sub-topic.

Ok. We were talking about two different things then...

[sungibr]

So work on a niche that an extremly low amount of photographers do?
Soumds like a great business plan

Better Low light AF will benefit not only low light photography, but camera behavior as a whole.
Af will be more responsive in good light photography too. Better algorithms, that would be calibrated for lower light levels will allow much more precise AF in either light conditions.
Better low light will allow Pentax cameras to be more competitive in the pro market. The low light performance of the K1 was one of the main gripe with some camera reviewers out there

Been owned a K10d, a K5, a K5ii and now a K3, I can assure better low ligth af make the camera much more usable in general photography. The difference from K5 to K5II was night and day (pun intended).

I'm a freelancer photojournalist that worked a lot in night clubs and now do a lot of night time assignements and I can garantee you people that a better low light AF makes a LOT of difference.

I think that would be a good improvement, if they can deliver it.

[xandos]

From experience.
Handheld night time photography just isnt something photographers try to do a lot...

Maybe I don't count as a 'photographer', but handheld night photography is certainly something I do*. Besides. for non-handheld photography, dark AF would be convenient for tripod work too. That said, most of my bright lenses are MF anyway.

*I am a single data point, so this doesnt contribute much to the topic, but neither does your rather questionable statement that handheld night photography is not something photographers do a lot.

[ThorSanchez]

From experience.
Handheld night time photography just isnt something photographers try to do a lot...

Isn't that primarily because it was nearly impossible from circa 1839 until roughly 10 years ago? My one photography buddy at work has a higher-end Nikon body with pro glass and he's told me he really tries to keep ISO under 400 or so because, you know, things get super grainy and unusable in that range. He was pretty amazed that my K-3ii can produce good images at ISO 10,000+. Whatta you know about that...

[Trickortreat]

Maybe I don't count as a 'photographer', but handheld night photography is certainly something I do*. Besides. for non-handheld photography, dark AF would be convenient for tripod work too. That said, most of my bright lenses are MF anyway.*I am a single data point, so this doesnt contribute much to the topic, but neither does your rather questionable statement that handheld night photography is not something photographers do a lot.

I too do a bit of handheld low light but it is mostly done with hyperfocal distance set and just firing the shutter... But that's just a tiny bit of what i mostly do.

My one photography buddy at work has a higher-end Nikon body with pro glass and he's told me he really tries to keep ISO under 400 or so because, you know, things get super grainy and unusable in that range. He was pretty amazed that my K-3ii can produce good images at ISO 10,000+. Whatta you know about that...

I know that just isnt the true. If both systems use the same unstabilised lens the difference is about 3 f stops. If Nikon uses IS lens, difference is within the margin of error. After all, both Pentax and Nikon use the same sensor tech (Sony).

[ThorSanchez]

I too do a bit of handheld low light but it is mostly done with hyperfocal distance set and just firing the shutter... But that's just a tiny bit of what i mostly do.

I know that just isnt the true. If both systems use the same unstabilised lens the difference is about 3 f stops. If Nikon uses IS lens, difference is within the margin of error. After all, both Pentax and Nikon use the same sensor tech (Sony).

I'm not saying it's true - I'm sure the Nikon does very well in low-light situations. My point was that many people who grew up in the film era still treat ISO 1000 as a stratospheric number, because 15 years ago it was. That's why many people might not still shoot handheld in dark conditions.

[Trickortreat]

I'm not saying it's true - I'm sure the Nikon does very well in low-light situations. My point was that many people who grew up in the film era still treat ISO 1000 as a stratospheric number, because 15 years ago it was. That's why many people might not still shoot handheld in dark conditions.

Oh, that's true. I was reluctant to use anything above iso6400 up until recently. Tried to go above that but the results just arent pleasing to my eyes with the current tech.

[xmeda]

I believe that is changing.

High ISO is replacing flash.

High ISO is replacing expensive "constant f/2.8 or f/2" lenses.

But this is a matter of opinion.
There is no point to debating opinions.

Fast aperture lenses are mainly about shallow depth o field. Low-light is rather secondary effect.
Flash is about light CONTROL even on sunny day. Using either as low-light only option how to gather some light is just emergency with usualy weak image output. And you can add IBIS too... I have many photos taken with K20D using shutters like 1/10s just because no other option was available and FA*24/2, FA35/2 or FA50/1.4 were my limits

ISO above 1600 is rapidly loosing details and dynamic range, while noise increases quickly. No matter if we are talking about K1, K3 or 645Z. Yes ISO6400 images can be usable if you only need some pic for facebook/instagram/web presentation.. but not for serious work. DNR processors are better and better, but everything has its limits. Even best algorithm cannot create data out of nothing. That is painting then, not photography

[reh321]

ISO above 1600 is rapidly loosing details and dynamic range, while noise increases quickly. No matter if we are talking about K1, K3 or 645Z. Yes ISO6400 images can be usable if you only need some pic for facebook/instagram/web presentation.. but not for serious work. DNR processors are better and better, but everything has its limits. Even best algorithm cannot create data out of nothing. That is painting then, not photography

That entirely depends on your perspective. I photograph to capture moments - true, actual moments - very serious work indeed!! A painting shows what the artist saw. A JPEG photograph shows what the camera saw, most accurate rendition of actual events. From the perspective of a newsman or a historian, there is a significant difference between the two.