[mee]

The Pentax detractors claim bias, which is really just that the article doesn't confirm their own personal bias, the Pentax users, with first hand experience with their K-1s etc say "ya, that's why I chose Pentax."

Do you not see that is bias too? I don't see any Pentax detractors here, Petapixel article detractors pointing out Pentax was thrown an unfair bone in this article.

But as Craig points out, someone who professes to know about AF who has't kept up with the science...
How does Pentax AF-C compare to other brands? - PentaxForums.com

or the Single point AF scores posted on Imaging Resources

should be seriously be questioning the basis of their evaluation. In the world of science "everybody says so" isn't valid, until repeatable testing has taken place. Theories only supported by anecdotal evidence are not worth considering as more than suggestions for research, and over time, it's amazing how many of those "everybody says so" theories were wrong.

One of the most surprising things from those tests, a D7200 doesn't even AF with tracking on. it tracks the movement and predicts the position. It doesn't check focus before releasing the shutter. . So in essence, if there is speed variation by the subject, it will be focussed on where the camera thinks the subject should be, not where it is. For the number fo times i've heard of the D7200 advantage I found that to be rather shocking. It's clear from the research, people are happy when their AF works, and ignore it when their system fails. Regardless of the brand they use. But it's fashionable at the moment to repete "pentax AF sucks." You can certainly tell who is swayed by public opinion.

However, the issue with MSRP is that it's not really open to debate. Pentax comes out on top. People who hate Pentax are upset. There's going to be fallout. Exactly why I never listen to anecdotal evidence if i can find some science on the matter.

All the cameras are predicting focus based on point and movement to some degree, including the D7200. That is how it got, in part and on average, higher scores than the K-3 II. It isn't surprising. The Nikon they used seems to have better prediction algos than the K-3 II.

Btw this test is only gauging back to front tracking on a linear path. But you know that is only seen in a handful of shots. It doesn't say anything about forward to back, side to side, diagonal, or random patterns. Plus, they stated they used 320 camera/lens combinations but don't show their listing. They could have used faster focusing lenses with the Nikon or the Panasonic and slow focusing lenses with the Pentax or vice versa. They seemed to try to take an average of their combos, but perhaps some lens systems are more adept to quick, micro changes than others? So the paper is hardly definitive one way or the other and the results are specific to a very narrow window.


It would be interesting if they had a more robust set of tests tracking different vectors and movements using the same lens.


Scientism is the downfall of Scientific study today. People read a white paper and then says "ah ha! this proves it!" Even the media today do that and announce amazing discoveries. Then if you check the source you see it is one test from a single group in a certain scenario that they have overhyped. It is hardly definitive for anyone to make any claim one way or the other with such results. The paper itself is a single data point of much larger discussion.


And the Pentax kit only came out 'on top' because they used Rokinon manual focus lenses and film era 77mm and 100mm screwdrive lenses. If you only care about price, then we can make all of the kits across the board a lot cheaper than the described listings by simply going with ancient or manual focus lenses and used bodies.

In that case the Canon system probably wins. Because you can get an original 5D for about $250 USD and some legacy lenses for another 300 dollars and go crazy with a FF digital setup.


But I'd rather have quality instead of quantity. I only want lowest price when it comes to dog food. Actually, even then I'm not looking at bargain basement pricing as my primary factor. I'm willing to spend extra for a better product.


Petapixel didn't compare apples to apples. That is the only reason Pentax is much cheaper. The 'test' is unfair to all candidates as a result.

[NZ_Ross]

If I were Olympus I would look at this and think that maybe I need to focus more on the size and weight. If you're using a 4/3rd sensor you can get very small bodies and small lenses with relatively high image quality. If you're going to have a kit that costs as much as APS-C and in some cases FF you need an advantage, and in my opinion that would be a GR-sized ILC. I really don't get the point of a 4/3rd sensor surrounded by FF-sized body and lenses.

Olympus' motto should be Cell Phone Sized Camera with a Big Sensor.

Good analysis, which shows how much trouble Olympus are in at the moment. What is their current unique selling point?

[normhead]

All the cameras are predicting focus based on point and movement to some degree, including the D7200. That is how it got, in part and on average, higher scores than the K-3 II. It isn't surprising. The Nikon they used seems to have better prediction algos than the K-3 II.

Except on images 4-7 where the K-3 out performed every camera. Once again, you're falling for the simplistic approach. If you understand the range where Pentax excels and work in that range. You seem to have a real problem giving credit where credit is due.

Do you not see that is bias too? I don't see any Pentax detractors here, Petapixel article detractors pointing out Pentax was thrown an unfair bone in this article.

I don't see how pointing out bias is biased. That just doesn't make any sense. If you are aware of what constitutes bias, you avoid it.

Petapixel didn't compare apples to apples. That is the only reason Pentax is much cheaper. The 'test' is unfair to all candidates as a result.

That's an opinion, not a fact. Who decides what the form of "apples to apples" is fair? None of the compared cameras have the accelerator chip or Pixel Shift, it's hard to take into account everything. They did the best they could given their mind set and chosen parameters. If someone else decides to do a different chart a different way fine, but you don't get credibility sniping at what someone else has done. For one thing the authors of the study have no ability to explain their logic and why they did things the way they did, which may be just as compelling as the argument you have for calculating a different way.

My guess is the original authors put 10x as much thought into the design of this comparison as the knee jerk negative commentary we see here on the forum.

Example

And the Pentax kit only came out 'on top' because they used Rokinon manual focus lenses and film era 77mm and 100mm screwdrive lenses. If you only care about price, then we can make all of the kits across the board a lot cheaper than the described listings by simply going with ancient or manual focus lenses and used bodies.

What if the 77 and 100 macro are best in class? How do we know that picking more expensive glass from other manufacturers wouldn't have made it worse, and even more in favour of Pentax? After all the 77 is hardly a cheap lens. I can't afford one.

Intelligence requires the evaluation of all possible scenarios. I look at charts like this and think, "well that's one possible scenario". that doesn't make it an absolute truth. Just a possible scenario. The authors never claimed it was the only possible scenario.

And what you can say when all is said and done is "in this proposed scenario, Pentax is much cheaper." I don't think anyone disputes there could be other scenarios, but that doesn't change the utility of this one. SO you see it differently, big deal. In an artical like this, everyone is going to see it a little differently, because it's based on a subjective evaluation of what should be included. that doesn't mean it's not valid viewpoint. The fact that you are here complaining of bias, changes nothing. One biased person commenting on another biased person's work and saying "it's biased" is actually quite funny. Nothing to see here.

Don't just make up stuff off the top of your head. It makes you look bad.

Personally I found the article amusing. People make up so much anti-Pentax stuff for which no one has provided any science, repeated ad nauseam , when some one makes up something pro-Pentax, it's always entertaining. I you were as unbiased when reading how bad Pentax AF is as you were reading this article, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

[Rondec]

So, a Nikon D810 plus a 14-24 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8 VR, and 70-200 f2.8 VR cost 9,184 USD together. A K-1 II, plus 15-30 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 costs 5784 together. This is based on current pricing on B and H. And unfortunately, the 14-24 is not stabilized, although all of the Pentax lenses are due to the presence of IBIS in the K-1 II.

To me, that is a significant difference with regard to price. It doesn't say that Nikon is terrible, that you can't put together a cheaper set up with Nikon using used or third party lenses, or that Pentax will work for everyone. It does say that Pentax is a reasonable value proposition for people for whom Pentax's camera and current lens line up works.

It does make me think, since I do own the Pentax lenses mentioned in my post that if I ever decided to do it, switching to Nikon wouldn't be cheap or painless...

---

Last edited by Rondec; 03-09-2019 at 02:41 PM.

[normhead]

So, a Nikon D810 plus a 14-24 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8 VR, and 70-200 f2.8 VR cost 9,184 USD together. A K-1 II, plus 15-30 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 costs 5784 together. This is based on current pricing on B and H. And unfortunately, the 14-24 is not stabilized, although all of the Pentax lenses are due to the presence of IBIS in the K-1 II.

To me, that is a significant difference with regard to price. It doesn't say that Nikon is terrible, that you can't put together a cheaper set up with Nikon using used or third party lenses, or that Pentax will work for everyone. It does say that Pentax is a reasonable value proposition for people for whom Pentax's camera and current lens line up works.

It does make me think, since I do own the Pentax lenses mentioned in my post and switching to Nikon wouldn't be cheap or painless...

The reasons for shooting Pentax are not better or worse than shooting any brand of camera. They are just different. I assume every brand of camera is good for something, of they wouldn't exist. If I could just say outright.. as many do, "Nikon is better than Pentax for everything", that would be one thing. But you can't. They both have strengths and weaknesses. It is quite possible to prefer one over the other. People tend to speak as if it's some kind of one way street where the major brands are always preferred. The really funny thing about this one is, they ignored common biases and tried to invent a fair system. And when Pentax came out on top, they didn't run back to the drawing board saying "that can't be right".

[mee]

Except on images 4-7 where the K-3 out performed every camera. Once again, you're falling for the simplistic approach. If you understand the range where Pentax excels and work in that range. You seem to have a real problem giving credit where credit is due.

That's great, normhead, when you're needing shots 4 through 7 at 2500 lux, moving from 5 meters to 2 meters straight at the shooter. The K-3 excelled there. Kudos to the K-3 for taking the 'prize' in this very limited, niche area of finite shots.

But you should be more interested in overall findings. I know I am.

I don't see how pointing out bias is biased. That just doesn't make any sense. If you are aware of what constitutes bias, you avoid it.



That's an opinion, not a fact. Who decides what the form of "apples to apples" is fair?

Hmmm...

If you cannot see taking lenses that are lacking basic features such as a motor to drive the focus, not to mention the optical properties of the lens and comparing it to the most high end lens technologies of the day (and thus the pricing is drastically different) then I'm not sure what else there is to say. You'd be deluded in that case.

None of the compared cameras have the accelerator chip or Pixel Shift, it's hard to take into account everything. They did the best they could given their mind set and chosen parameters. If someone else decides to do a different chart a different way fine, but you don't get credibility sniping at what someone else has done. For one thing the authors of the study have no ability to explain their logic and why they did things the way they did, which may be just as compelling as the argument you have for calculating a different way.

Wow but that is my point. You can slice this a ton of different ways. There is NO way to reasonably gauge what they tried to measure. The article is moot pro or anti a view. Except that maybe OEM pricing is pretty high, and Pentax has obvious holes in the lineup.

My guess is the original authors put 10x as much thought into the design of this comparison as the knee jerk negative commentary we see here on the forum.

Example


What if the 77 and 100 macro are best in class?

What if the Rolleiflex is great at burst action shooting? Both claims are obviously false.

The lenses are clearly much cheaper to make since they rely on older designs from a different era. Besides, If Ricoh thought the film era 77 f/1.8 was up to the competition, they wouldn't be spending much time and money on a D-FA* 85 f/1.4 right now.

How do we know that picking more expensive glass from other manufacturers wouldn't have made it worse, and even more in favour of Pentax? After all the 77 is hardly a cheap lens. I can't afford one.

What do you mean? If they wanted to compare more evenly to the 77, they would have compared f/1.8 lenses to it. In that case Sony has a $600 dollar 85 f/1.8 and Nikon has a $477 85 f/1.8 while Canon has an old $400 dollar 85 f/1.8 on retail market.

Obviously there were too many holes to accurately compare the Pentax kit, so they went with whatever Pentax had. But the fit isn't even close to even in specs.

Intelligence requires the evaluation of all possible scenarios. I look at charts like this and think, "well that's one possible scenario". that doesn't make it an absolute truth. Just a possible scenario. The authors never claimed it was the only possible scenario.

No, you see a chart and say, "Look! the K-3 did best in shots 4 through 7". You don't operate in only that space and you cannot expect anyone to either. Especially taking photos of objects ONLY approaching you from the confines of those very limiting limits.

And what you can say when all is said and done is "in this proposed scenario, Pentax is much cheaper." I don't think anyone disputes there could be other scenarios, but that doesn't change the utility of this one.

There are two different articles being discussed here -- one the cost article, and two the Autofocus test.


Yet, again, the Petapixel proposed pricing scenario is completely useless to the reader as a result of the points stated already. There is little utility in this scenario beyond showing OEM can be pricey and Pentax has holes.

And the white paper is only valid in a certain series of conditions of which he didn't show his tested equipment. If you want to claim some kind of ridiculous 'victory' for a few shots out of a single run of a simple test, go for it. But to claim, by the results of this test, the autofocus system is as good as the competition and thus there is no ground for improvement is fooling only yourself.

SO you see it differently, big deal. In an artical like this, everyone is going to see it a little differently, because it's based on a subjective evaluation of what should be included. that doesn't mean it's not valid viewpoint. The fact that you are here complaining of bias, changes nothing. One biased person commenting on another biased person's work and saying "it's biased" is actually quite funny. Nothing to see here.

Don't just make up stuff off the top of your head. It makes you look bad.

Personally I found the article amusing. People make up so much anti-Pentax stuff for which no one has provided any science, repeated ad nauseam , when some one makes up something pro-Pentax, it's always entertaining. I you were as unbiased when reading how bad Pentax AF is as you were reading this article, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

If only you'd take your own advice.


Having like subjects is crucial when comparing like subjects. Piecing together a hodgepodge list of gear that doesn't match the other brand's is already skewing the results. It isn't a matter of me making stuff up, normhead, but you realizing the test itself is moot based on the inability for the author to setup an equal collection of gear.


And on the AF test, Clearly in bright light at around 3 to 4 meters from the camera, coming directly at the camera, the K-3 did a fine job. This proves the Pentax AF is equal to the competition. I guess Ricoh don't need to spend money in R&D as this one paper, in a very limited setting, has proven that as long as you work in a very tight distance and your subject is always approaching you're fine.

[Winder]

So, a Nikon D810 plus a 14-24 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8 VR, and 70-200 f2.8 VR cost 9,184 USD together. A K-1 II, plus 15-30 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 costs 5784 together. This is based on current pricing on B and H. And unfortunately, the 14-24 is not stabilized, although all of the Pentax lenses are due to the presence of IBIS in the K-1 II.

To me, that is a significant difference with regard to price. It doesn't say that Nikon is terrible, that you can't put together a cheaper set up with Nikon using used or third party lenses, or that Pentax will work for everyone. It does say that Pentax is a reasonable value proposition for people for whom Pentax's camera and current lens line up works.

It does make me think, since I do own the Pentax lenses mentioned in my post that if I ever decided to do it, switching to Nikon wouldn't be cheap or painless...

You can buy the Tamron version of the 15-30mm F/2.8 and the 24-70mm F/2.8 for Nikon. Now you are at least trying to use similar glass for the comparison. You guys are trying everything you can to skew the cost. Is the Nikon still more expensive? Yes, but not by nearly as much.

[Rondec]

You can buy the Tamron version of the 15-30mm F/2.8 and the 24-70mm F/2.8 for Nikon. Now you are at least trying to use similar glass for the comparison. You guys are trying everything you can to skew the cost. Is the Nikon still more expensive? Yes, but not by nearly as much.

Did you read what I wrote? I said you can put together significantly cheaper line ups by using third party or used lenses. I thought it was very fair and no, I’m not trying to sell anyone that Pentax is the best, but it does work for my needs. That’s all I can say.

[Winder]

Did you read what I wrote? I said you can put together significantly cheaper line ups by using third party or used lenses. I thought it was very fair and no, I’m not trying to sell anyone that Pentax is the best, but it does work for my needs. That’s all I can say.

I don't think anyone is arguing what is best or what anyone's needs are. Just trying to make the list as comparable as possible. In the case of Nikon, the Tamron version of the 15-30mm is actually better than the Nikon version. There are a lot of 3rd part options that are less expensive and better performers than the name brand versions. The Sigma ART lenses are better than the Nikon or Canon versions in many cases.

[c.a.m]

I find it interesting that the original article seems light in substance and lacking the broader considerations concerning selection and purchase of gear. Like countless other simple articles that we find pervasively across the web, its lack of details and absence of analysis opens itself to all sorts of justified poking and criticism. Indeed, the comments seen below the article itself are wildly random and diverse, and many folks have proposed alternate approaches.

My takeaways from the article are basic:

• Costs vary across brands and capabilities.
• Costs can be reduced by using 3rd party or less-capable lenses.
• Some aspects cannot be compared directly across brands (e.g., brands may not offer directly equivalent gear).

I'm certain that you'll not find any surprises in my simple conclusions; in fact, you might say "doh."

There are other ways to consider gear selection. For example, Buddy spent $20,000. What could be bought for the same amount in other brands? How about Pentax? What could you get for $20K?

- Craig

[Winder]

I find it interesting that the original article seems light in substance and lacking the broader considerations concerning selection and purchase of gear. Like countless other simple articles that we find pervasively across the web, its lack of details and absence of analysis opens itself to all sorts of justified poking and criticism. Indeed, the comments seen below the article itself are wildly random and diverse, and many folks have proposed alternate approaches.

My takeaways from the article are basic:

• Costs vary across brands and capabilities.
• Costs can be reduced by using 3rd party or less-capable lenses.
• Some aspects cannot be compared directly across brands (e.g., brands may not offer directly equivalent gear).

I'm certain that you'll not find any surprises in my simple conclusions; in fact, you might say "doh."

There are other ways to consider gear selection. For example, Buddy spent $20,000. What could be bought for the same amount in other brands? How about Pentax? What could you get for $20K?

- Craig

The purpose of the article is to get people stirred up so they post links to it on other brand websites and generate a lot of traffic which is what pays the bills. PetaPixel isn't exactly known for providing much in the way of original content or insight. It's click bait and it worked.

[mee]

The purpose of the article is to get people stirred up so they post links to it on other brand websites and generate a lot of traffic which is what pays the bills. PetaPixel isn't exactly known for providing much in the way of original content or insight. It's click bait and it worked.

For sure. But it is interesting to see die hard Pentax folk using it as proof that the system is some how inherently cheaper. Just because this guy cobbled together a bunch of ragtag lenses and compared it against a pure OEM setup with higher end bodies.

Perhaps it would be more beneficial if they picked a photography genre and a smaller setup to see what one could get in those limitations? Then compare the specs and capability of what they purchased in each brand.

[normhead]

No, you see a chart and say, "Look! the K-3 did best in shots 4 through 7". You don't operate in only that space and you cannot expect anyone to either. Especially taking photos of objects ONLY approaching you from the confines of those very limiting limits.

it really depends on how much time you spend shooting in that space, my bird shots from my backyard blind are taken probably 80% within that space (3,meters to 5 meters). I'm not sure why it is you have to get all sarcastic, and can't conceive of more than your scenario. You certainly didn't clue into the fact that the Pentax might be better for what I do than a D7200. You might to take a look in the mirror and try and ascertain why your interpretations of what I say are so limited, narrow to the point of being misrepresentations.

Surely you can understand the the fact that a Nikon is better 2 meters and closer while the Pentax is better 5 meters to 2 meters, which happens to be where I shoot 80% of the time with the K-3. It isn't your decision to decide for me which camera would give me the best AF, thank god, you have it wrong.. The Nikon is good where I don't shoot, and not as good where I do. Where's the confusion? So no the best average is meaningless if you shoot in an area of weakness. The best average of the distances you shoot is what's important. It's quite possible you could buy a lens/camera for average shooting AF and have it completely unsuitable for your needs.
The Pentax average from 5 meters to 2 meters is 89% the The Nikon average is 85%. Unless you shoot a lot of AF from 0-2 meters the best average is the Pentax. If you don't analyze your data, you don't know a thing. You have to pick out what's meaningful to you.

Given the limited range of Nikon superiority i can't even say for sure a Nikon D7200 would be better for you than a K-3. The area of Nikon Superiority has no where to go, It's going to run into minimum focusing distance. We have no idea how far past 5 meters Pentax superiority extends.

This is a pretty basic understanding of the meaning of stats. You might want to take a course. I'm getting tired of explaining everything.

Listen, I'm out. I could spend my life telling you why you're wrong... but, what's in it for me?

[MarkJerling]

@normhead and @mee: Can you guys please let it be? I can't see either of you convincing the other you're right.

[mee]

it really depends on how much time you spend shooting in that space, my bird shots from my backyard blind are taken probably 80% within that space (3,meters to 5 meters). I'm not sure why it is you have to get all sarcastic, and can't conceive of more than your scenario. You certainly didn't clue into the fact that the Pentax might be better for what I do than a D7200. You might to take a look in the mirror and try and ascertain why your interpretations of what I say are so limited, narrow to the point of being misrepresentations.

Quite the opposite, Normhead. Your scenario doesn't even apply to the test given and you don't seem to be making the connection. And you're being dishonest with me. Because I know you don't just shoot snaps of birds from your backyard. You didn't buy a K-3 because you knew that somehow the autofocus would work at 2500 lux in the range provided with the subject approaching at 1 meter per second. You found a way to bash the Nikon and then made a story around it. Be honest.

Surely you can understand the the fact that a Nikon is better 2 meters and closer while the Pentax is better 5 meters to 2 meters, which happens to be where I shoot 80% of the time with the K-3. It isn't your decision to decide for me which camera would give me the best AF, thank god, you have it wrong.. The Nikon is good where I don't shoot, and not as good where I do. Where's the confusion? So no the best average is meaningless if you shoot in an area of weakness. The best average of the distances you shoot is what's important. It's quite possible you could buy a lens/camera for average shooting AF and have it completely unsuitable for your needs.
The Pentax average from 5 meters to 2 meters is 89% the The Nikon average is 85%. Unless you shoot a lot of AF from 0-2 meters the best average is the Pentax. If you don't analyze your data, you don't know a thing. You have to pick out what's meaningful to you.

The test didn't state that. It seems you don't understand the test results indicate. I don't have to indicate anything to you, nor would I try, just that your bias is showing to the point you're making up stories to tout it.

Given the limited range of Nikon superiority i can't even say for sure a Nikon D7200 would be better for you than a K-3. The area of Nikon Superiority has no where to go, It's going to run into minimum focusing distance. We have no idea how far past 5 meters Pentax superiority extends.

This is a pretty basic understanding of the meaning of stats. You might want to take a course. I'm getting tired of explaining everything.

Listen, I'm out. I could spend my life telling you why you're wrong... but, what's in it for me?

The D7200 is about 4 years old, normhead. IT has already been superseded by the D7500 which has the D500's metering sensor (which improves on it's tracking). So Nikon went forward with their tracking system, Pentax sadly has sort of languished lately.

But have a nice day.