[monochrome]

That's what I used to do quite a bit back in the ME Super days; pick a spot, focus, set aperture and shutter speed, and wait for the target to enter that zone. Sometimes I do that now with the K10 or K1-II and set drive to either medium or high. It usually works 95% of the time. But sometimes I just wish I could set a focus point on a moving target, use back button focus to keep AFC active and let the camera do the work. Some might call it cheating, but there are times when I just want to capture the moment with my kids rather than fight the AF system.

For landscape and architectural shots that are typically slower and more deliberate, I'm usually in manual mode where I don't care about AF. The K1-II really is a wonderful tool in that regard.

Back in the late sixties I learned photography from a couple newspaper sports photo/mentors. May they RIP! Today, with all the fantastic digital tech available, I still revert to old habits & go manual focus frequently. Glad it still works! ...at least for a while longer...

I'll skip the backstory. In the early 2000's when she shot High School sports my daughter attended a Juried Sports Illustrated photography workshop taught and judged by SI line photographers. Using a K1000 and manual lenses, she was taught to preset the exposure value, anticipate the action, pre-focus to a spot and aim to catch the eyes as well as the action when the athlete entered the focus zone. Among the many photographic experiences she had in High School, college and the first 5 years of her Media career this was her favorite.

[amstel78]

Since Merv-O has graciously shared some of his photos as examples, allow me to do the same. Below are three photos taken several months ago with the K1-II and the 70-200 f2.8. These are RAW files that were resized and saved as JPG. No other PP was done in lightroom so this is pretty much what you'd get directly out of camera. All were shot wide open between 100-200 ISO, had either center focus point or center 9 weighted focus area selected. I was standing roughly 30-60 feet away from the subjects right at the perimeter of the rink. These look relatively sharp but when magnified at 100, there's still some softness. Also note that these were probably the best three out of rapid fire strings. Most of the shots were OOF.

Yes, a great photographer can take just about anything and create a good photo as long as he or she knows what they're doing. I like to think I know what I'm doing, and a cardboard box certainly wouldn't be able to give you photos like this.

Larger images here: https://jamespaulsarte.com/temp/K1-II_AF/

[BigMackCam]

Since Merv-O has graciously shared some of his photos as examples, allow me to do the same. Below are three photos taken several months ago with the K1-II and the 70-200 f2.8. These are RAW files that were resized and saved as JPG. No other PP was done in lightroom so this is pretty much what you'd get directly out of camera. All were shot wide open between 100-200 ISO, had either center focus point or center 9 weighted focus area selected. I was standing roughly 30-60 feet away from the subjects right at the perimeter of the rink. These look relatively sharp but when magnified at 100, there's still some softness. Also note that these were probably the best three out of rapid fire strings. Most of the shots were OOF.

Yes, a great photographer can take just about anything and create a good photo as long as he or she knows what they're doing. I like to think I know what I'm doing, and a cardboard box certainly wouldn't be able to give you photos like this.

Larger images here: Index of /temp/K1-II_AF

For what it's worth, James, those photos look great to me (and I've looked at the full size files you provided on your drive)... much better than "relatively sharp", and especially good since they were shot at f/2.8 (which I'd say is challenging due to depth-of-field within the focal length range of the lens) and the fact that, wide open, the lens won't be at its sharpest anyway (much better to stop down to at least f/4, IMHO). In any case, I think your results here are very good. Maybe our expectations are different?

With respect, it's understandable you'd get some push-back in a thread like this. Although you state your love of Pentax in the title, and later in the thread you mention that your motivation is to encourage Ricoh to improve Pentax AF performance (something most of us would welcome, frankly), when you post an image saying "I'm Off" (even though I realise it was a little tongue-in-cheek ) and describe Pentax as a "sinking ship", it's going to raise some hackles amongst Pentax enthusiasts. I'm sure you get that

The market for every camera brand is shrinking. As such, it's a huge gamble to invest really large sums of money to revolutionise products that may well have quite a limited market. It's much less of a gamble to be thrifty and careful with that investment, resulting in solid but gradual / incremental improvements, selling mostly to users who are already more-or-less happy with the brand and its equipment, maybe losing and gaining a few users along the way, and monitoring sales volumes carefully to see how each incremental move is received by the market. I firmly believe that's where Ricoh is at right now with Pentax... which is bad news for those wishing for big and regular leaps in specifications, features and performance, but good news for those of us who are basically quite happy with the gear already and prefer to see the longevity of the brand assured, even if it's of interest to a fairly limited user base...

We all get that Pentax equipment has its limitations, but for most of us here, we've learned to work with them or aren't significantly affected by them, and the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Of course, some folks really do need things that Pentax can't yet offer, and for them, I see no problem with switching. Indeed, if I were one of them, and I knew for certain I'd get better results with another system - and could afford it - I'd switch in a heartbeat. As it is, I'm happy with my Pentax gear for most of my own use cases...

[reh321]

You're entitled to your opinion, but in mine, neither of those two samples images are what I'd consider challenging as far as AF goes. You're far enough away from the subject shooting at a what I'd imagine to be at least f5.6 that pretty much everything is focused at infinity.

What is wrong with that? The purpose is to get a photo - not to surmount some kind of challenge. Several years ago I downloaded a photo from the "Final Four" posted at MSNBC online; the EXIF showed the photo was taken using f/6.3.

[amstel78]

Mike, I do apologize for the animated gif and the sinking ship comment; it really was posted in jest. I also had a few beers so my brain/mouth filter wasn't working properly. Sorry if I ruffled feathers.

I do want to Pentax to survive. I have an emotional connection to the brand since my father taught me how to use a camera with a Pentax ME Super. At the same time, I don't want them to sit idly by and loose more market share than they already have.

And yes, point well taken about Ricoh not wanting to invest more funds into an uncertain future. It's a smart move, but doing so also limits development and growth which could also result in a disastrous outcome.

Back to the thread topic at hand though, here are two more shots (larger images here: https://jamespaulsarte.com/temp/K1-II_AF/). The first image of my oldest is clearly OOF. Focus point was on her face and she was moving towards me. However, the AF lagged ever so slightly behind so her jacket which isn't on the same plane as her face is more in focus rather than her face itself. I hope this would serve as a good example of what I was trying to describe in previous posts; most photos in a burst string tended to look like this which I found disappointing.

The last image is of my youngest daughter where the AF did manage to keep pace somewhat although the resulting image is still soft by my standards.

[BigMackCam]

Mike, I do apologize for the animated gif and the sinking ship comment; it really was posted in jest. Sorry if I ruffled feathers.

No apology necessary, James. I merely wanted to explain how things can be perceived in brand-specific enthusiast forums such as these. It's all good

I do want to Pentax to survive. I have an emotional connection to the brand since my father taught me how to use a camera with a Pentax ME Super. At the same time, I don't want them to sit idly by and loose more market share than they already have.

And yes, point well taken about Ricoh not wanting to invest more funds into an uncertain future. It's a smart move, but doing so also limits development and growth which could also result in a disastrous outcome.

Yes, it's a tricky balance to maintain, isn't it? Honestly, I don't think any of us can say with real confidence whether Ricoh's strategy - so far as we can interpret it - is the right or wrong one. I do believe it's one they've thought through very carefully, though, and I'm sure they feel it's the right approach. Time will tell, I guess. I will say, whilst I'd like to see faster and more prolific development of Pentax equipment, I wouldn't want that to place the brand at risk. As such, my own hopes and expectations are tempered accordingly...

Back to the thread topic at hand though, here are two more shots (larger images here: Index of /temp/K1-II_AF). The first image of my oldest is clearly OOF. Focus point was on her face and she was moving towards me. However, the AF lagged ever so slightly behind so her jacket which isn't on the same plane as her face is more in focus rather than her face itself. I hope this would serve as a good example of what I was trying to describe in previous posts; most photos in a burst string tended to look like this which I found disappointing.

The last image is of my youngest daughter where the AF did manage to keep pace somewhat although the resulting image is still soft by my standards

I see your point with both of those images. And I'm fairly confident you'd have achieved better results with face tracking AF and high-speed shooting from a Sony A9 plus the FE 70-200 f/2.8 G Master lens... but just look at the price of that combo compared to your existing setup Of course, you could substitute the A9 with an A7 MkIII, and the f/2.8 G Master lens with the FE 70-200 f/4 G OSS. But then you'd be working with a 24MP sensor - not as good for your landscape work - and a lens that's a full stop slower than the f/2.8 you're choosing to shoot at currently

One alternative might be to shoot your existing setup at f/4. It won't change the focus inaccuracies, but it'll give you a little more depth of field to play with, and make those inaccuracies less of an issue (and the lens will be sharper at f/4 too). You'll probably end up with more keepers?

[amstel78]

I see your point with both of those images. And I'm fairly confident you'd have achieved better results with face tracking AF and high-speed shooting from a Sony A9 plus the FE 70-200 f/2.8 G Master lens... but just look at the price of that combo compared to your existing setup Of course, you could substitute the A9 with an A7 MkIII, and the f/2.8 G Master lens with the FE 70-200 f/4 G OSS. But then you'd be working with a 24MP sensor - not as good for your landscape work - and a lens that's a full stop slower than the f/2.8 you're choosing to shoot at currently

One alternative might be to shoot your existing setup at f/4. It won't change the focus inaccuracies, but it'll give you a little more depth of field to play with, and make those inaccuracies less of an issue. You'll probably end up with more keepers?

When I said I'd buy a Sony, that was also written more in jest (again, brain/mouth or brain/keyboard failure due to alcohol... sorry). I certainly don't have the funds at the moment to buy into a completely new system, much less the A9. To purchase that with let's say a G master 24-70, and 70-200, one's already looking at a price tag north of $8,000. I only referenced the A9 because on the few opportunities I've had in the past to shoot with one, I was amazed at how quickly the AF, face, and eye tracking system worked... even in low light with pre v5.0 firmware. As a result, I sort of set that camera as a benchmark in my mind as to how I'd like an AF system to operate.


The A7 III which is closer in line to the K1-II in terms of price also does a very good job with AF; it's almost on par with the A9. I'd be thrilled if Ricoh/Pentax could release a FW update that brought the K1-II up to a similar level of performance. As I said before, I think the hardware is capable of doing it but can't be certain. If it is, I hope it becomes a reality.


Anyway, the next opportunity I get, I'll shoot with the aperture stopped down a bit more to f4 as you suggested. I'm sure the keep rate would increase while not compressing DOF too much.



---------- Post added 04-06-19 at 10:38 PM ----------

What is wrong with that? The purpose is to get a photo - not to surmount some kind of challenge. Several years ago I downloaded a photo from the "Final Four" posted at MSNBC online; the EXIF showed the photo was taken using f/6.3.

There isn't anything wrong with that. But the 50-200 is a variable aperture lens. I hadn't looked at the exif data so I only assumed it was around f5.6. Plus, the distance he was from the subject appeared quite far so I also assumed the lens was focused at infinity or close to it. My point being, that at that distance, the subject matter is generally flattened into the background when shot with a telephoto. The camera doesn't have to do so much as far as AF goes. One would only need a fast enough shutter speed to freeze motion.

---

Last edited by amstel78; 04-06-2019 at 03:38 PM.

[reh321]

There isn't anything wrong with that. But the 50-200 is a variable aperture lens. I hadn't looked at the exif data so I only assumed it was around f5.6. Plus, the distance he was from the subject appeared quite far so I also assumed the lens was focused at infinity or close to it. My point being, that at that distance, the subject matter is generally flattened into the background when shot with a telephoto. The camera doesn't have to do so much as far as AF goes. One would only need a fast enough shutter speed to freeze motion.

I wasn't challenging anything - simply making an observation again.

and my observation is that the 55-300 PLM lens, also a variable aperture lens, does a solid job of focusing. My KP delivers solid photos at ISO values well over 4500, which allows me to use TAv mode to capture wildlife at 1/1000 and f/8 in all kinds of weather, all kinds of lighting. I'm sure other camera systems can do that, but not many at a system cost comfortably under $1500. Not perfection, but many of us cannot afford perfection. This is a type of photography that isn't landscape, but still within what Pentax does very well. Similarly almost every year a few parents / grandparents will show up at places like this asking "How do I photograph my child / grandchild participating in indoor sports?" - and a group of people will send them away with the discouraging news that they have to purchase a new "f2.8" telephoto lens that they may never use again but will cost them more than my entire system all by itself {and use of K-70 would reduce that cost even more}. Ricoh has some marketing shortcomings, but don't sell short the Pentax ship, even if it isn't going where you want it to go.

[BigMackCam]

brain/mouth or brain/keyboard failure due to alcohol...

Shocking. I've never experienced that, despite what my friends would say. Nope, definitely not.

Tonight's Shiraz is particularly nice, BTW

[amstel78]

and my observation is that the 55-300 PLM lens, also a variable aperture lens, does a solid job of focusing. My KP delivers solid photos at ISO values well over 4500, which allows me to use TAv mode to capture wildlife at 1/1000 and f/8 in all kinds of weather, all kinds of lighting. I'm sure other camera systems can do that, but not many at a system cost comfortably under $1500. Not perfection, but many of us cannot afford perfection. This is a type of photography that isn't landscape, but still within what Pentax does very well. Similarly almost every year a few parents / grandparents will show up at places like this asking "How do I photograph my child / grandchild participating in indoor sports?" - and a group of people will send them away with the discouraging news that they have to purchase a new "f2.8" telephoto lens that they may never use again but will cost them more than my entire system all by itself. Ricoh has some marketing shortcomings, but don't sell short the Pentax ship.

I understand what you're saying and I do agree with you.

My initial comment that you quoted earlier was directed more towards Merv-O. I was simply trying to say that the examples he provided don't exactly apply. Merv-O's lens and particular vantage point didn't really pose challenging conditions for his camera's AF system. Even at f4.5 (I finally went back and looked at his exif data), the amount of zoom plus his distance from the subjects (I'm guessing his focus was set to infinity or close to it) would generally tend to flatten the subject with the background. The AF doesn't have much to do in that regard. Referencing the cheer leader picture, I assume they weren't running up and down the court but rather stayed in one central area to perform their routine.


On the other hand, my daughters and the other skaters at the rink that day were all moving erratically while my actual distance to them was very close. The 70-200 and K1 combo were having problems tracking skaters coming directly towards the lens, away from the lens, or at oblique angles to the focal plane. Most images were throw-aways with only 10-30% remaining as keepers.

I too own a few variable aperture lenses and use them accordingly. My 18-135WR is a very nice lens that's sharp across the frame from f3.5 up. I like fast glass primarily for subject isolation. If one can afford a good fast lens, then by all means. If not, variable can also do the trick as long as people are aware of its limitations.


Hope that clarifies.

[reh321]

I understand what you're saying and I do agree with you.

My initial comment that you quoted earlier was directed more towards Merv-O. I was simply trying to say that the examples he provided don't exactly apply. Merv-O's lens and particular vantage point didn't really pose challenging conditions for his camera's AF system. Even at f4.5 (I finally went back and looked at his exif data), the amount of zoom plus his distance from the subjects (I'm guessing his focus was set to infinity or close to it) would generally tend to flatten the subject with the background. The AF doesn't have much to do in that regard. Referencing the cheer leader picture, I assume they weren't running up and down the court but rather stayed in one central area to perform their routine.

On the other hand, my daughters and the other skaters at the rink that day were all moving erratically while my actual distance to them was very close. The 70-200 and K1 combo were having problems tracking skaters coming directly towards the lens, away from the lens, or at oblique angles to the focal plane. Most images were throw-aways with only 10-30% remaining as keepers.

I too own a few variable aperture lenses and use them accordingly. My 18-135WR is a very nice lens that's sharp across the frame from f3.5 up. I like fast glass primarily for subject isolation. If one can afford a good fast lens, then by all means. If not, variable can also do the trick as long as people are aware of its limitations.

Hope that clarifies.

The Pentax ship doesn't go to your exact desired location - but it says nothing else about the ship.

[tokyoscape]

I am late to the conversation and Just want to say that I couldn't agree more with the original poster, @amstel78. I went to CP+ this year just to walk pass Pentax and spend a lot more time in another brands in particular, Sony booth. The price of Sony lenses give me a pause. BIG pause actually!
I think Pentax hardware is perfect for the way I use my gears. Not sure how long Sony expensive gears would last on a heavy use. I recently had a chances to try a Leica from one of my Tour guest.... OMG, I really like that system but... let stop dream about it.

I had also been trying Sony, Fuji, Olympus, from my tour's guests. A good thing of hosting a photo tour is; I get to meet people using all kind of camera and I ask them to show me how to use it the right way, asking questions, etc. I don't want to make a decision (to jump ship which I am not yet.. for now) base on reading and watching Youtube alone or even hand-on try it in store but not really sure how to operate it "the right way".

I am really struggle with Pentax when do night street photography. And I have to do it a lot because I do the tour at night in Tokyo where contrast is high, people walking everywhere, sometime really really low light etc and Pentax auto-focus is all over the place which I don't blame the camera. Auto focus is unreliable in this lighting situation. The mirrorless"s people had showed me time and time again, Focus-peak + manual focus is the faster way to go.
The Leica person showed me how to manual focus on his camera at night with his fast lens. I was thrilled. It was fast and even I used it for the first time, it was not that hard at all to manual focus with the help of focus peak, I can see where I am focusing. Then I try focus peak on my K3 in the same lighting... I was awed!!! which reminded me why I turn it off since my first try a few year ago. I think it was useless back then, I still think it is useless now.
This is something Pentax can improve with software update and... I really have no idea why they still keep use white color for the focus peak!!! I think I see @amstel78 asking about changing focus peak color on his K1II here as well. So... can you change the focus peak color... yet? Anyway, I am still trying to improve my manual focus at night with Pentax. Pre-focus or change autofocus point (slow and often miss the action that way) is what I am doing for now but seriously, it is not as fun as be able to point and see what you are focusing real time.

[BigMackCam]

The Leica person showed me how to manual focus on his camera at night with his fast lens. I was thrilled. It was fast and even I used it for the first time, it was not that hard at all to manual focus with the help of focus peak, I can see where I am focusing. Then I try focus peak on my K3 in the same lighting... I was awed!!! which reminded me why I turn it off since my first try a few year ago. I think it was useless back then, I still think it is useless now.

This is something Pentax can improve with software update and... I really have no idea why they still keep use white color for the focus peak!!!

The accuracy of focus peaking on any system is dependent upon the scene, and depth of field produced by the combination of focal length and aperture, so you need to compare like for like. That aside, focus peaking on any system isn't as accurate as magnified Live View. On my K-3, I used magnified Live View and can achieve exactly the same repeatable accuracy as I get with my mirrorless A7 MkII and Sony-A99 SLT-based Hasselblad HV...

[amstel78]

This is something Pentax can improve with software update and... I really have no idea why they still keep use white color for the focus peak!!! I think I see @amstel78 asking about changing focus peak color on his K1II here as well. So... can you change the focus peak color... yet? Anyway, I am still trying to improve my manual focus at night with Pentax. Pre-focus or change autofocus point (slow and often miss the action that way) is what I am doing for now but seriously, it is not as fun as be able to point and see what you are focusing real time.

Yep, that was me asking about the ability to change the focus peaking color in LV. Would be nice if it could be switched to red or various other colors.

[tokyoscape]

The accuracy of focus peaking on any system is dependent upon the scene, and depth of field produced by the combination of focal length and aperture, so you need to compare like for like. That aside, focus peaking on any system isn't as accurate as magnified Live View. On my K-3, I used magnified Live View and can achieve exactly the same repeatable accuracy as I get with my mirrorless A7 MkII and Sony-A99 SLT-based Hasselblad HV...

Magnified live view on a tripod for long exposure will work very well for me. but handheld magnified live view on street at night is a kind of problematic to me. I have to magnify live view, adjust focus, and either shot it without recompose or hit OK button to go back to the normal size then compost and miss the action.