[Winder]

I'm wondering how did photographers mange pre-AF era..........

Its about the expectations of the customer. Its like asking what did photographers do before flash. Obviously we still took pictures, but we were more limited in what we could do with the technology we had. What did we do before motor drive? What did we do before color film? What did we do before digital? What did we do before video? All those questions are irrelevant when dealing with the clients expectations. C-AF often allows you to tell a better story. When the flower girl gets spooked and takes off at a dead run to her mother (one of the bridesmaids) are you going to be able to deliver that series of shots? Moments like that during the wedding are what people want captured. Yes, you still provide the dreaded formal shots just like back in the day, but there are a lot of shots that we are expected to provide today that weren't possible back then unless you staged them. Twenty years ago the photographer might provide 50 to 100 prints in an album. Today we deliver 300-400 pictures in a professionally bound and printed book.

---------- Post added 08-11-16 at 09:36 AM ----------

you'd focus on the flying bouquet? I'd have thought that the people are the more likely subjects, and they are relatively stationary.

We typically have 2-3 shooters at the wedding. One of them is getting the wide shot of everyone. Another shooter gets on a chair or step ladder behind the ladies and tries to get the bouquet in flight. We want a series with the final shot showing all of the ladies hands reaching for it. Doesn't always happen, but its a cool series of images for the wedding book when we pull it off. Brides don't always throw it where you want them to. We have actually setup and practices for this shoot. The Nikon D750 and Canon 7DII both pull this off pretty well. My K-1 with the D-FA* 70-200mm is an exercise in frustration when trying this.

Understood. But not every professional task demands AF tracking.

Never said they did. But for those who do, Ricoh is not the best choice. The K-1 is an amazing camera in every way except AF.... and maybe buffer/write speed. Part of the problem is their lens motors are also slow. From an image quality standpoint, I love my K-1 and D-FA* 70-200mm, but the AF is a weakness compared to the rest of the industry.

[cleaverx]

Its about the expectations of the customer. Its like asking what did photographers do before flash. Obviously we still took pictures, but we were more limited in what we could do with the technology we had. What did we do before motor drive? What did we do before color film? What did we do before digital? What did we do before video? All those questions are irrelevant when dealing with the clients expectations. C-AF often allows you to tell a better story. When the flower girl gets spooked and takes off at a dead run to her mother (one of the bridesmaids) are you going to be able to deliver that series of shots? Moments like that during the wedding are what people want captured. Yes, you still provide the dreaded formal shots just like back in the day, but there are a lot of shots that we are expected to provide today that weren't possible back then unless you staged them. Twenty years ago the photographer might provide 50 to 100 prints in an album. Today we deliver 300-400 pictures in a professionally bound and printed book.

Valid point. I don't think that anybody in this forum suggesting not using autofocus. I use C-AF when I need it, it is just another tool. I think that original point of this thread was comparing Pentax AF to other systems. Pentax systems like K-3/K-3 II or K-1 has plenty fast AF for most people IMHO.

[brightseal]

This is a great forum from the novice point of view I'm learning a lot. Thanks

[monochrome]

Bottom line,


You won' t take any air show shots with the Pentax AF system, unless you don' t mind a low percentage of keepers.
It's not up to Today' s standard (d5(00) , or Canon 1DX MII) . Some may argue that it' s in a different price range, agreed.
But don' t try to compare them (the brands) , as they are totally different; Nikon, Sony and Canon being the German cars of the photo world, Pentax being a Toyota or a Honda Civic (value for money) .
I don' t agree that at this price range it (the K1) should be qualified (excused) as 'amateur' , but maybe that' s just me.


Enjoy!

Bold, sweeping statements such as highlighted above completely miss the point. What you wrote just plain is not true. Tracking AF.C isn't quite as good as the best the competition offers. We know that. Old news. Ho Hum. Buy your D500 or 1Dx and enjoy yourself.

K-1 is acceptably competent when properly and skillfully deployed.

Of course, that's only my real-world experience. YM probably varies.

[K5_Ltd_User]

Bold, sweeping statements such as highlighted above completely miss the point. What you wrote just plain is not true. Tracking AF.C isn't quite as good as the best the competition offers. We know that. Old news. Ho Hum. Buy your D500 or 1Dx and enjoy yourself.


K-1 is acceptably competent when properly and skillfully deployed.

Of course, that's only my real-world experience. YM probably varies.

Hello,


See now, that' s the problem with fanboys. They derail the subject. The question was about the AF from Pentax, how it compares to the competition, and fanboys like the upper quotted sir/ maddam (and others; this doesn' t ouse maximum fanboish, but I am too lazy to quote others) come, and some other fanboys that sustain (lick the behind or front previous 'positive' post for this brand) and start pissing others off, with statements like the one quotted.
They (the fanboys that are purely subjective) like to make a large virtual circle and please themselves in circle (a pat on the back, or whatever the imagination lets eachother think) .

Because if we can reduce them by cars (we love our means of transport, don' t we) , the AF being the equiv. of ABS, or parking sensor, or whatever, many here have stated you don' t really need it, as they can break ahead of danger, park better (manual focus) . What do this young guys need all this? 'Back in my days' , 'If it doesn' t affect me, I don' t care' ...

Yet again, as my profession obliges me to make something with a functional role and my clients make it so that it is top of the line, I ask you:
Why not be really objective and say it as it is, for a camera that was thought with the AF system (that includes the metering also, which is part of/ takes part in the... guess what, AF system) , regardless of the year of release?

I don' t own a K1, to answer a spoilled kids question, but what can I say. Keep your pictures with this wonderful and unrecognized camera, maybe to someone (other than you) will truelly be worth something (mind you I care about the subject) .

The rest (like me) are waiting for a k1 II s or whatever, in which you see Pentax bring their sluggish posterior of a AF to current standards (not the top, current) and their lens line- up.

Until then, I can truely state I' ve never seen a 'CaNikon' fan in action, but from the descriptions found, they are very similar to some that have posted here, arrogant and puerly subjective.

And I think that' s about it with this forum.

All the best, and learn to analyze something from a pragmatic and/ or objective point of view!

[cleaverx]

I don' t own a K1, to answer a spoilled kids question, but what can I say. Keep your pictures with this wonderful and unrecognized camera, maybe to someone (other than you) will truelly be worth something (mind you I care about the subject) .

This says it all. You don't even own K-1 to be able to see for yourself how great K-1 really is even AF is pretty darn good, but you are expert to criticize it so harshly.
I really don't care what you shoot with.

I suggest you go back to Normhead post #20 and read it ALL this time.

[K5_Ltd_User]

Hello,


Let me rephrase that: Pentax is sluggish in AF terms compared to the competition. I' ve tested it in close to sikilar condition that made me want a new camera. Step forward for Pentax, still not 'spot on' (the AF) .
Read other phtographers (real ones) reviews and you will see.

All the best!

---

Last edited by K5_Ltd_User; 08-11-2016 at 10:58 PM.

[redpit]

Hello,


Let me rephrase that: Pentax is sluggish in AF terms compared to the competition. I' ve tested it in close to sikilar condition that made me want a new camera. Step forward for Pentax, still not 'spot on' (the AF) .
Read other phtographers (real ones) reviews and you will see.

All the best!

You are acting exactly like you're accusing others that they do! It' s at least strange that from all my posts you missed the core of my sayings and just reffered to the car example (which was just a reply to someone who was saying that we compare cars to not using car, but that wasn't true. Noone said you could paint or scetch an airplane instead of taking some pics of it by using AF tracking. That would be comparing cars to other means of transport. Enough with it).

I wrote at my #33 post "I haven't tried the new D5/D500 or 7DII or other alternatives that fall under the "sports-action" cameras category simply because I'm SURE that they offer better AF tracking than my K-1 as SURE I am that my K-1 gives me better image quality which at the end is what matters TO ME"

Is there anything clearer than that? You could use that phrase and stop creating impressions.

All the best to you too Sir/Madam.

[JimmyDranox]

Maybe, Pentax AF is as good as any, if it used with OS lenses. By afraid, there are very few OS lenses for Pentax, to make a fair comparison with other brands. For example, it can be made a good comparison using a Sigma 70-200 mm F2.8 OS, which was made for a while for all brands, Pentax, Canon and Nikon.

Anyway, what I don't understand at all, is Pentax decision about those new rebranded Pentax-Tamron lenses. 24-70 mm f2.8 and 15-30 mm. In original Tamron version, both has optical stabilisation. Pentax has removed that system, instead of letting the owner to choose what system they wanna use, SR or OS. And for this, they charge the pentaxians with a ton of extra money. Does it make any sense, for us, as customers? Can someone tell what is the advantage for a Pentax user, this removal of the optical stabilisation from those lenses?

[Dan Rentea]

This says it all. You don't even own K-1 to be able to see for yourself how great K-1 really is even AF is pretty darn good, but you are expert to criticize it so harshly.
I really don't care what you shoot with.

I suggest you go back to Normhead post #20 and read it ALL this time.

Well, if you put it this way, Normhead either doesn't have a K1. So how come he is entitled to an opinion about the K-1's af? Even more, why do I have to agree with him?

Let's be clear, each and every person has his own technique in order to get the best images with his gear. But this thread is about autofocus compared to others, not about the technique used. Yes, the guys used to shoot in the film days are familiar with the pre-focus technique and other technique because at that time they didn't had Af at all. But things has changed. It's nothing wrong if they want to use the old techniques in order to get the best image possible, but this doesn't mean that I have to go back in the old days and learn some particular technique just so I can call myself a photographer. I don't have to buy a D5 or a 1Dx Mark II if resolution is also important.
- Pentax K-1 has 36mp
- D810 has 36mp
- 5Ds R has 50mp

Both (D810 and 5Ds) have better tracking capabilities than K-1. Sure, it will cost me 1.000$ or 1.500$ more to buy them, but, if I want resolution and af-c and a whole system behind me to support my needs (service, lenses, accessories), I do have better options than K-1. I also want to insist in this term "professional photographers". They work under a contract pressure and they want to be confident in their gear. 1.000$ may sound a lot of money when you say it out loud, but if you think about it, you will buy a camera which will get you the income for at least 3 years. So, if you divide 1.000$ to 36 months you will add 27.77$ each month to your expenses. That's a price I can pay for resolution and fast af in the same time if I have to live from photography.

And since af-c is related to lenses, I will also have much more options with Nikon/Canon if I want to go out and shoot action as a professional photographer.

1. I will have better af-c for those situations were pre-focusing technique is not an option
2. I don't even have to buy lenses. I can rent a 400mm f2.8L lens, a 100-400mm f4L lens (the one with TC built in), a 11-24mm f4L lens, etc. and get the job done (fast af + fast lenses + resolution + photographer's experience + inspiration = one great image that will put food to my table).
3. I have more chances to borrow a lens or a flash from a fellow photographer at a soccer game if something happens with my lens

I'm not sure either why Normhead spoked about Pixel shift in a thread about autofocus. Does pixel shift has something to do with autofocus?

[jawsy]

Now it appears I've been tagged as an oldie I feel obliged to post like one.

Many years ago, when I was a youngin' I drove into an automotive workshop in Newcastle renowned for building quick modified street cars armed with all the tech info I could muster from the vintage equivalent of social media - the hot car mag. I said to the wise old guy there, 'I want a camshaft optimised for +3000rpm, ported head, 350 Holley, ratio'd roller rockers, etc, etc. How much will it cost and how can I go about making it happen' He looked at me and asked, 'Why? It'll drive like a dog, piss you off and chew up the juice to boot. Why don't you open the head valves up, keep the stock cam, find a second hand 350 Holley, headers and steepen the diff ratio. It'll cost you next to nothing, launch off the lights like a cut snake and drive for Miss Daisy every other time.' Guess what, he was right! He correctly worked out that I wasn't going to race on a strip and probably needed the car for everyday transport 98% of the time.

So I think in the context of AF and the OP, a few of us have simply been trying to offer some sensible advice in the hope that it might save a few people from needlessly laying out a lot of cash for equipment they think they need, but probably don't, Pentax or otherwise. That's all.

These debates would go much better around a bar btw. Need to keep that in mind sometimes.

[Dan Rentea]

Most of the times all of our comments sounds as a debate. But it isn't a debate. It's just that many factors can influence how a person interpret a comment. I do agree with you, a discussion over a beer will probably solve a lot of contradictions.

[jawsy]

But it isn't a debate

Any discussion where involuntary arm waving takes place is a debate. By that criteria, I reckon this thread is a debate.

[monochrome]

Hello,


Let me rephrase that: Pentax is sluggish in AF terms compared to the competition. I' ve tested it in close to sikilar condition that made me want a new camera. Step forward for Pentax, still not 'spot on' (the AF) .
Read other phtographers (real ones) reviews and you will see.

All the best!

Dude. Real world, K-1 AF is fast, accurate and especially good in low light with modern lenses. Screwdrive AF is faster, but lens limited. Tracking continuous AF for fast action sports is a generation behind, maybe two. But really, it's competent for many moving subjects.

I've written repeatedly, here and elsewhere, I don't object to the reviewers' conclusions. I object to sweeping generalizations, imprecise language, lack of transparency in camera setup, unfair and uneven comparisons to other camera models, unscientific testing methods, snark and Trollish posts.

But I'll accept the conclusions because I know from experience they are correct.

[Fat Albert]

Until then, I can truely state I' ve never seen a 'CaNikon' fan in action, but from the descriptions found, they are very similar to some that have posted here, arrogant and puerly subjective

Oh, you mean comments like this?

Bottom line,

You won' t take any air show shots with the Pentax AF system, unless you don' t mind a low percentage of keepers.