[Wheatfield]

Have you used a recent Pentax camera with a recent lens???

They have made the needed progress!

Did you read the post you quoted? It almost appears that you didn't.
Yes progress has been made, though some would argue that until Pentax can track a trotting Rottweiler with as much success as a 10-15 year old Canon can track a running Tervuren there is still a way to go.

[jatrax]

As far as I can tell, there isn't a single ILC model in production right now without basically perfect

My point really is that stating that Pentax's auto-focus is poor is not only incorrect it perpetuates a long standing, erroneous myth. Pentax AF has long been highly accurate, often better than the competition. But people who intentionally or inadvertently confuse auto-focus, focus speed and focus tracking continue to perpetuate that myth.


There are three separate components to auto-focus and not all photographers need all three. Accuracy, speed and tracking should be considered as different needs. I'm primarily a landscape and product photographer so for me accuracy and to a lesser extend speed are important. I have no need for tracking and would not even know how to use it on my camera. A wildlife photographer shooting elk or moose might need speed first and accuracy second and still have no need for tracking. Tracking is of primary importance when shooting birds in flight, weaving bicycles or ball retrieving Border Collies.

[Wheatfield]

As far as I can tell, there isn't a single ILC model in production right now without basically perfect (after fine-tuning when needed) AF.S single point performance. Any talk about AF performance will always refer to tracking or, at the very least, the more complicated "detection" modes in AF.S. Basic AF is a moot point today, it would be like saying that IQ at base ISO downsampled to 1920x1080 looks great.

---------- Post added 08-04-20 at 10:51 AM ----------



Recent-est combo I have is K-1 + D FA 28-105 (DC motor). It works well but if I allow the camera to go to auto-area focus the camera tends to purposefully avoid picking the subject I have my mind on .

Honestly, for my uses the AF of Pentax is plenty. I'm substantially better at composing than the landscapes are at running away (for now ), but I can see why others would be less than impressed.

That’s pretty much where I’m at. Most of my subjects are stationary and AF-S is plenty fast enough. The few times I shoot moving subjects I prepare for disappointment and sometimes I am pleasantly surprised.

[reh321]

That’s pretty much where I’m at. Most of my subjects are stationary and AF-S is plenty fast enough. The few times I shoot moving subjects I prepare for disappointment and sometimes I am pleasantly surprised.

The main limitation for my KP with a 77-420mm {55-300mm + 1.4X TC} is my ability to track the subject and press the shutter button.

[Wheatfield]

My point really is that stating that Pentax's auto-focus is poor is not only incorrect it perpetuates a long standing, erroneous myth. Pentax AF has long been highly accurate, often better than the competition. But people who intentionally or inadvertently confuse auto-focus, focus speed and focus tracking continue to perpetuate that myth.

Except that people don’t do that outside of the narratives that apologists like to set up.

There are three separate components to auto-focus and not all photographers need all three. Accuracy, speed and tracking should be considered as different needs. I'm primarily a landscape and product photographer so for me accuracy and to a lesser extend speed are important. I have no need for tracking and would not even know how to use it on my camera. A wildlife photographer shooting elk or moose might need speed first and accuracy second and still have no need for tracking. Tracking is of primary importance when shooting birds in flight, weaving bicycles or ball retrieving Border Collies.

I mainly shoot landscapes, portraits and still lifes. Are you saying that because shooting moving subjects is a small percentage of what I do I should be satisfied with a 90% failure rate within that type of photography?
A lot of people treat AF as a package. If it fails at one of the three needs that you present, then it is normal to question the implementation of the feature.
AF accuracy and speed on static subjects shouldn’t even be a topic of conversation any more. A camera that fails the accuracy test on a non moving subject is a failure plain and simple. It is an expectation now that if the subject isn’t moving, the camera should lock accurate focus pretty much instantly.

[jatrax]

It is an expectation now that if the subject isn’t moving, the camera should lock accurate focus pretty much instantly.

I agree, and for my use case that is the only requirement. I am not trying to be an apologist, just to point out that IMHO there is a difference between AF and tracking. You need / want good tracking and hopefully Pentax will provide that going forward. I don't need / want tracking or even understand it.


Perhaps my opinion is the minority and everyone else in the world wants / needs tracking. It just irritates me that people insist Pentax AF is bad, when it isn't. Their tracking is bad. But perhaps my definition of auto-focus is outdated.

[Finchj]

I like what I see so far. There's no way this won't be better than my K-3. Love the joystick rather than using the arrows for AF, that's going to be a big improvement. Ditching the Stills/Video switch for a dedicated AF-point control stick is music to my ears.

I'm certain the AF-C will be better too. Just no way it can't be after all these years. I'll probably have to save to upgrade my 50-135 though, which doesn't make me feel great but at the end of the day I'll still have a super 50-135 to fall back on if I need to or I can keep it on the K-3 and let my daughter use it.

The same goes for low light performance. Living in Finland means we have many months of darkness to deal with and using a flash isn't ideal IMHO. I'd love to see ISO 3200 or even 6400 produce images like my K-3 does at 800. If that's possible, I'm definitely interested.

The video will invariably improve as well. I know it is probably asking too much for Fuji X-T30-level performance, but even something close will blow my K-3 out of the water. Even on a sturdy tripod and the 20-40 or 50-135 I can't get quality 1080p for the life of me.

This camera looks solid. Hoping the price comes in around 1500€ with grip, but even 2000 could be justified given that it will last me a good 7-10 years...

[ThorSanchez]

Have you used a recent Pentax camera with a recent lens???

They have made the needed progress!

Maybe the KP and K-1ii are light years ahead of the K-3ii, but I've taken thousands of pictures of kids playing soccer with my K-3ii (and a 55-300PLM). I've worked long and hard on my technique. And I get maybe 60% in-focus rate using center spot focus. With any of the larger area focus modes the rate drops significantly. I'm reasonably sure that's well behind other manufacturers' marks. I'd really like the K-new to be able to help me take that next step.

---------- Post added 08-04-20 at 03:10 PM ----------

Perhaps my opinion is the minority and everyone else in the world wants / needs tracking. It just irritates me that people insist Pentax AF is bad, when it isn't. Their tracking is bad. But perhaps my definition of auto-focus is outdated.

I think Wheatfield is right, that accurate, nearly instant autofocusing on a static subject is the basic level of functionality expected from any decent camera in 2020. Whatever phone you have in your pocket should do that very well. A $1000+ ILC should do much more.

[Pål Jensen]

I believe they are, but it has to be recognized that regarding AF, they are still playing catch up to a couple of generations ago at the very least.
.

But a couple of generation ago we were told the same story; Canon good enough to nail the shot every time. Pentax useless for weddings. Ie AF a couple of generation ago was good enough. If the K-new turns out having AF 99% as good as the best out there, it still won't be good enough for weddings. I'll bet we will have the same discussion 10 years from now, provided something AF faster than a Pentax, regardless how good the Pentax is.
The truth is that any AF system from any manufacturer today is good enough to nail the shot most of the time - with a large hit rate.
Andy Rouse, the wildlife photographer, managed to shoot dancing sifakas (a lemur) with a very high hit rate with early 90's Pentax AF. He claim in his book that it gave just as many keepers as his EOS-1......but still some can't make it work for weddings. Go figure...
It is blown out of propotion....

---------- Post added 08-04-20 at 09:18 PM ----------

Maybe the KP and K-1ii are light years ahead of the K-3ii, but I've taken thousands of pictures of kids playing soccer with my K-3ii (and a 55-300PLM). I've worked long and hard on my technique. And I get maybe 60% in-focus rate using center spot focus. With any of the larger area focus modes the rate drops significantly. I'm reasonably sure that's well behind other manufacturers' marks. I'd really like the K-new to be able to help me take that next step.[COLOR=Silver].

You should improve you technique.The challenge is to keep the sensor at the right spot. In fact, I'm surprised you manage to keep the spot at the right place for fast moving subjects 60% of the time. My guess is that my success rate is less than 40%. But provided the sensor is at the right spot, the success rate is probably more than 90%....

[larryaustin3]

Maybe the KP and K-1ii are light years ahead of the K-3ii, but I've taken thousands of pictures of kids playing soccer with my K-3ii (and a 55-300PLM). I've worked long and hard on my technique. And I get maybe 60% in-focus rate using center spot focus. With any of the larger area focus modes the rate drops significantly. I'm reasonably sure that's well behind other manufacturers' marks. I'd really like the K-new to be able to help me take that next step.

---------- Post added 08-04-20 at 03:10 PM ----------



I think Wheatfield is right, that accurate, nearly instant autofocusing on a static subject is the basic level of functionality expected from any decent camera in 2020. Whatever phone you have in your pocket should do that very well. A $1000+ ILC should do much more.

I tested the Sony A6400 at a go-kart track before I bought it. That $899 camera was tracking drivers' faces and sometimes eyeballs around the track at approximately 20 mph. The keeper rate was well over 60%, probably 90%.

And the kicker is I would still switch back to Pentax if the keeper rate approached 90% for people running slower. The Pentax is so much better to use in practice than the Sony. IMO, they're talking about Sony when they wrote this:



4. We pursue a level of quality and performance that can’t be measured by numbers alone.
We produce our cameras not only by pursuing higher performance based on numerical values, but by integrating our designers’ sensory feedback into the design and development.

[ThorSanchez]

You should improve you technique.The challenge is to keep the sensor at the right spot. In fact, I'm surprised you manage to keep the spot at the right place for fast moving subjects 60% of the time. My guess is that my success rate is less than 40%. But provided the sensor is at the right spot, the success rate is probably more than 90%....

I'm always trying to improve my technique. But I'll be happy when Pentax improves their algorithms and hardware, too.

[derekkite]

The K1-II autofocus is quick and accurate, and can keep up with a flying bird coming towards it. And is accurate in low light. The K1 wasn't capable of calculating fast enough, nor was the K3. It isn't at the almost magical D500 level, but it is quite good, and a strong iteration in the K-new would be that much better.

Frankly the K1-II made the AF not frustrating anymore. It isn't a screaming fast body with 11 fps no matter how you point it, but the AF is no longer an impediment for me.

And it was with the K5 and K3 and K1.

[RobG]

The K1-II autofocus is quick and accurate, and can keep up with a flying bird coming towards it. And is accurate in low light. The K1 wasn't capable of calculating fast enough, nor was the K3. It isn't at the almost magical D500 level, but it is quite good, and a strong iteration in the K-new would be that much better. Frankly the K1-II made the AF not frustrating anymore. It isn't a screaming fast body with 11 fps no matter how you point it, but the AF is no longer an impediment for me. And it was with the K5 and K3 and K1.

Thanks for this! Not having any experience with the K1, it's good to know. I'd be interested to know how the AF on the KP compares to the K1. One of the reasons I have hardly used my K5iis since getting the K3 is the improvement in the AF, so if the current generation is that much better again, it's good to know. I have never found AF-C to be useful, but this may also be a need for me to spend time with suitable subjects to get the right technique for it to work. A lot of my AF frustration went away by moving from the DA*300 to the DFA 150-450.

[MMVIII]

I think Wheatfield is right, that accurate, nearly instant autofocusing on a static subject is the basic level of functionality expected from any decent camera in 2020. Whatever phone you have in your pocket should do that very well. A $1000+ ILC should do much more.

Which phone has to nail the focus of a DFA* 50 or 85 at 1.4?

[AggieDad]

I am closing in on 78 and have been retired for quite a while. In other words, I have a bit of time on my hands, so “Pentax-speed“ auto-focusing can help fill the day when I am out shooting old gravestones at cemeteries. However, I must admit that the dead are much more cooperative than birds in flight (or the demands of those fast-moving folks at weddings).