Pentax/Camera Marketplace |
Pentax Items for Sale |
Wanted Pentax Items |
Pentax Deals |
Deal Finder & Price Alerts |
Price Watch Forum |
My Marketplace Activity |
List a New Item |
Get seller access! |
Pentax Stores |
Pentax Retailer Map |
Pentax Photos |
Sample Photo Search |
Recent Photo Mosaic |
Today's Photos |
Free Photo Storage |
Member Photo Albums |
User Photo Gallery |
Exclusive Gallery |
Photo Community |
Photo Sharing Forum |
Critique Forum |
Official Photo Contests |
World Pentax Day Gallery |
World Pentax Day Photo Map |
Pentax Resources |
Articles and Tutorials |
Member-Submitted Articles |
Recommended Gear |
Firmware Update Guide |
Firmware Updates |
Pentax News |
Pentax Lens Databases |
Pentax Lens Reviews |
Pentax Lens Search |
Third-Party Lens Reviews |
Lens Compatibility |
Pentax Serial Number Database |
In-Depth Reviews |
SLR Lens Forum |
Sample Photo Archive |
Forum Discussions |
New Posts |
Today's Threads |
Photo Threads |
Recent Photo Mosaic |
Recent Updates |
Today's Photos |
Quick Searches |
Unanswered Threads |
Recently Liked Posts |
Forum RSS Feed |
Go to Page... |
|
44 Likes | Search this Thread |
03-09-2019, 12:18 PM | #31 |
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. 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. | |
03-09-2019, 12:22 PM | #32 |
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. | |
03-09-2019, 12:50 PM - 2 Likes | #33 |
Quote: 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. Quote: 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. Quote: 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. 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 Quote: 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. 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. Last edited by normhead; 03-09-2019 at 01:09 PM. | |
These users Like normhead's post: |
03-09-2019, 02:14 PM - 2 Likes | #34 |
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. | |
These users Like Rondec's post: |
03-09-2019, 02:36 PM - 1 Like | #35 |
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... | |
These users Like normhead's post: |
03-09-2019, 02:48 PM - 1 Like | #36 |
But you should be more interested in overall findings. I know I am. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. | |
These users Like mee's post: |
03-09-2019, 03:33 PM - 2 Likes | #37 |
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... | |
These users Like Winder's post: |
03-09-2019, 03:57 PM - 3 Likes | #38 |
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. | |
These users Like Rondec's post: |
03-09-2019, 04:33 PM | #39 |
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.
| |
03-09-2019, 05:17 PM - 2 Likes | #40 |
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:
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 Last edited by c.a.m; 03-09-2019 at 05:54 PM. | |
These users Like c.a.m's post: |
03-09-2019, 06:26 PM - 1 Like | #41 |
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:
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 | |
These users Like Winder's post: |
03-09-2019, 07:36 PM | #42 |
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. 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. | |
03-09-2019, 07:55 PM - 2 Likes | #43 |
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? | |
These users Like normhead's post: |
03-09-2019, 08:35 PM - 3 Likes | #44 |
Moderator Site Supporter | @normhead and @mee: Can you guys please let it be? I can't see either of you convincing the other you're right.
|
These users Like MarkJerling's post: |
03-09-2019, 08:38 PM - 1 Like | #45 |
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? But have a nice day. | |
These users Like mee's post: |
|
Bookmarks |
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it! |
24x36mm, 3rd, brands, cost, costs, d810, f/1.4, f/1.8, full-frame, glass, kit, lens, lenses, list, money, nikon, party, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, sigma, value, versions |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Two bodies APS & FF best mobile lens setup | pxt | Pentax DSLR Discussion | 29 | 01-20-2019 02:49 PM |
Zeiss Loxia officially announced! 50mm costs $949 and 35mm costs $1,299. | jogiba | Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands | 25 | 11-09-2014 07:37 PM |
Comparing FF to APS-C: What difference does the bigger sensor make? | dosdan | Photography Articles | 26 | 07-29-2011 02:53 PM |
Best 4-5 Lense Setup/Your Dream Setup | 68wSteve | Pentax SLR Lens Discussion | 65 | 02-11-2009 04:59 PM |