[Skeeter]

Looking at the EXIF, it seems like the AF system needed about 2 seconds to lock on the target of a moving soccer ball or player; once acquired, it would stay on target rather nicely. In comparison, my 7D would be about 20% more accurate right away. Where this really matters is when I quickly swing the camera about 30-degrees to capture a quick header 30 yards away. Once target is locked however, both the K-3 and the 7D performed about the same—which is saying a lot for the K-3.M

Thanks for your review!! Can you clarify on the above please? Does it really take approximately 2 seconds to lock on a moving target, or have I misunderstood what you've written? If the focus doesn't lock on to a moving subject pretty much immediately then it's probably a no-go for me...

[Miguel]

Thanks for your review!! Can you clarify on the above please? Does it really take approximately 2 seconds to lock on a moving target, or have I misunderstood what you've written? If the focus doesn't lock on to a moving subject pretty much immediately then it's probably a no-go for me...

You are welcome Skeeter.

Does it really take approximately 2 seconds to lock on a moving target,

Well the data is in whole seconds, so sometimes a lock could be 1.5 seconds. But yes, when a lot is happening in the scene it may take that long. But I've experienced similar situations with my 7D sometimes. I haven't used the K-3 enough to determine how often a 1.5-2 second lag would occur, but I'm not disturbed. If I purchased a D4, then perhaps.

I have never found the reliability of AF to be a totally consistent factor in shooting soccer--there is too much going on in front of me, and my behavior with the camera can be loosey goosey: arms and eyes get tired; I lose concentration a few times; weather is lousy; or I move more than anyone!

I would treat my findings as being very preliminary and balance it against what others report--especially folks who live in brighter environs. It's dark most of the time in Washington right now.

It took me several weeks to feel confident with the 7D AF approaches, and I expect it will take a few weeks to do the same with the K-3. That gives both the camera and me a fair chance for success.

M

[Miguel]

Miguel, here's some comments on your shots

Thanks dosdan for your comments. I’m impressed with your effort and will bear your insights in mind for the future.

My intention here was to show the AF capabilities of the new K-3, as well as lower light performance, and the Sigma 100-300mm lens combo. With that in mind, I was more gentle on the crops, so our forum friends could see.

When culling down that many shots I try to be super-efficient using Lightroom. These are just 1200 pixel jpgs from DNGs. I expect slightly better post-processing performance when LR is updated to include the K-3.

As a corporate customer beta-tester for the original Photoshop in 1989 (I worked in an in-house ad agency for a Seattle corporation I’m sure you’ve heard of) I’m comfy with current post-processing tools, but I use that time and those tools for art gallery showings and commission work. For mass local sports shots at ISO 6400 I’m just happy to get a decent (and not necessarily artful) image. Sometimes good enough is good enough.

M

[RockvilleBob]

Thanks dosdan for your comments. I’m impressed with your effort and will bear your insights in mind for the future.

My intention here was to show the AF capabilities of the new K-3, as well as lower light performance, and the Sigma 100-300mm lens combo. With that in mind, I was more gentle on the crops, so our forum friends could see.

When culling down that many shots I try to be super-efficient using Lightroom. These are just 1200 pixel jpgs from DNGs. I expect slightly better post-processing performance when LR is updated to include the K-3.

As a corporate customer beta-tester for the original Photoshop in 1989 (I worked in an in-house ad agency for a Seattle corporation I’m sure you’ve heard of) I’m comfy with current post-processing tools, but I use that time and those tools for art gallery showings and commission work. For mass local sports shots at ISO 6400 I’m just happy to get a decent (and not necessarily artful) image. Sometimes good enough is good enough.

M

Thank you for posting your insights and experience. You and those who add comments are a great tool for me to learn about auto focus - this is great!

[kjg48359]

Thanks dane.dawg.



Much appreciated kjg48359. Soccer has a lot of vertical action if one is following the ball and timing headers. My daughter is a cheerleader (flyer I think they call it) so I'm familiar with what your upcoming event will be like. I would assess the lighting, if possible, ahead of time and then choose the best lenses to take. I'd want something fast--I wish there was a Pentax equivalent to the relatively cheap Canon 85mm f1.8. I wonder if the FA 50mm 1.4 would focus quickly enough? I would aim to fill the frame about 80%, so you'll have to gauge your proximity with your lens(ses), and then decide whether a zoom or single focal length will work better. Regarding which zoom depends on how close you will be, but I'd always go with an f2.8 model. Usually high school gyms are not well lighted. I'm a big fan of the Pentax/Tokina 50-135mm f2.8 but realize that it may not focus quickly enough. It will depend on how predictable the cheerleaders' individual and group movements are per routine or whatever is being performed or judged.



Thanks mile19. I'll have to try those settings. I'm working off a knowledge base built on my Canon experience and realize that has limited applicability to using a Pentax system. Gotta start somewhere.



You are welcome Ron. I look forward to seeing your shots a lot.



florinlib, I liked both of those sets. I think the K-3 would be an improvement, but I'm curious why you haven't just purchased a D4? Quite frankly, if I was making my bread and butter shooting indoor sports, I'd choose the best tool for the job. I added Canon because I needed to shoot mens outdoor soccer matches for my employer who was the team's corporate sponsor. My Pentax kit at the time was simply not up for the job.

M

Regarding which zoom depends on how close you will be, but I'd always go with an f2.8 model. Usually high school gyms are not well lighted.

Thanks M. I do have a Tameron f2.8 70-200. And I'm very excited to have it. Compared to what I lived with last year, I am actually looking forward to being "known as" the team photographer. It sort of just grabs you and and sucks you in. Like a Mt. Biker, or a skier, you just want to improve, and as you do and learn the limitations of your equipment, you constantly push the boundaries and get on the upgrade cycle. Don't we all do that?

I guess I'll wait for a little while to see if I'll upgrade the 18-135 lens that came with the camera for next year's outdoor, but WR is important, but it's all a new purchase at this point, so the budget has to have a line in the sand for at least the first year!

[kjg48359]

(and maybe this should warrant another forum thread?)

When shooting in high speed drive mode, is there a way to turn off the LCD on the back of the camera? Mostly to have less light interfering with the view finder.

(its a customer function I'm not finding, or a combination of settings under the 1st menu in the "set up" menu?)

[Miguel]

is there a way to turn off the LCD on the back of the camera?

Try pressing the info button twice. Then navigate to the no display option, second from the right. That's what I do.

M

[kjg48359]

Try pressing the info button twice. Then navigate to the no display option, second from the right. That's what I do.

M

Try pressing the info button twice.

Thanks Miguel, I did find this feature last night while walking through the menus again.

[RonHendriks1966]

I got my K-3 Silver Premium Edition in today. Planned a day full off shooting with it. Dutch soccerplayer Amber van der Heijde made time to work with me.



This is the compleet imgae and I have to say, that it is a fantastic camera.

[JinDesu]

Hurry up and go to the stadium and shoot, Ron

[RonHendriks1966]

Hurry up and go to the stadium and shoot, Ron

I think that at the stadium I keep using the K-5 Silver as long as it works. There is no need for the extra pixels and I don't need the extra large files from the K-3. But maybe next Friday, just for the fun a testshoot. Iso100 files are already 30 MB, while the K-01 makes them with around 14 MB for the same scene.

[slip]

Just one question:
How does the K3 compare to the K5iis as far as auto focus tracking
how about tracking in low light

thanks

randy

[johnmflores]

Some shots of my brother and nephew throwing around the football in the yard. K-3 AF is significantly improved from K-5. Camera is much more responsive, but I concur with Miguel's assessment that chimping speed could be improved.

[RonHendriks1966]

Nice series John. So we can now all make those CaNikon-images you think?

Didn't work with the tracking at all at this time. Going to do that probably next Friday.

[johnmflores]

Nice series John. So we can now all make those CaNikon-images you think?

I think

I'm not delusional though - Canon and Nikon still have better AF, but Pentax is now closer. Sure, you can get action with the older models, but with the K-3 I feel more confident.