[reh321]

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.

Yes, focus peaking will always be a problem hand-held on a DSLR. We have many discussions here - that create more heat than light - comparing DSLR to MILC; focus peaking will always be a place where EVF gives an advantage to MILC.

[Merv-O]

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.

As I said, you maximize your equipment; the equipment should not maximize you....So you are underscoring what I'm saying. Again, I was fortunate. I learned how to shoot manually when I was 8--learned how to develop pictures at 10 (my Grandfather wouldn't let me play with the chemicals before then), and shot film for 40 years. Auto Focus is overrated to me. I use Leica prime lenses with DOF scale for quick street shots and, yes, I'll set the prime at infinity if I need to because I can shoot quickly and crop as needed on digital photos--with a 24mp full sensor, I can get great results--AF can be great, but it also makes one lazy when faced with situations that require more than AF can give....Point and shoot can be fun (I have a Leica typ 109 D Lux for that or my K-S2 in green mode as needed).
Use anything you want or need--but don't blame Pentax for designs they aren't inclined to provide.

[MarkJerling]

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.

James, having made your decision, nothing we can say will make you reconsider your position.

My Pentax cameras seem to manage football and cyclists up to 70km/h. Good luck with your $$$ony.

[Fcsnt54]

Yes, focus peaking will always be a problem hand-held on a DSLR. We have many discussions here - that create more heat than light - comparing DSLR to MILC; focus peaking will always be a place where EVF gives an advantage to MILC.

As much of an advantage, it's not always accurate and can be off.

[amstel78]

James, having made your decision, nothing we can say will make you reconsider your position.



My Pentax cameras seem to manage football and cyclists up to 70km/h. Good luck with your $$$ony.

Mark, I said before that if I was wrong, I'd admit it.

Based on your photo samples then, either I'm doing something seriously wrong with either camera settings or technique; or, there's something amiss with my K1 and 70-200 combo.

Would you mind telling me what AF settings, drive, and focus points were used on your setup and what percentage of keepers vs throw-aways you attained with those settings.

If you go back and see the samples I posted, some were good but most were not...

[reeftool]

I've been shooting motorcycle racing for years, often along side of guys with more expensive Nikon and Canon gear and my keeper rate is just as good as those guys. A lot of times, I do better simply because when the dust, snow, ice gets flying, AF stops working and you have to use manual focus and the other guys give up. It's easy to get get caught up in the hype. People shot this stuff with manual focus film cameras for decades.

[Kerrowdown]

I love Pentax but good Lord...

I must admit that I'm really lucky... as I never have any AF issues.

[Aaron28]

a recent post wanting the greener grass from the other side of the fence......maybe you guys can swap gear????

Future Convert? (from Sony) - PentaxForums.com

[normhead]

I know the A9 is stupid expensive right now otherwise I would have bought one, but Sony is also going to release firmware for their A7 III which would give full time predictive AF akin to the A9.

You do know the K-1 is marketed as a field camera don't you? There's not a lot of "eyes" lurking around in fields.

We have at least one dedicated forum participant who have an A9 and a K-1. He doesn't seem to think getting the A9 means he doesn't want a K-1 as well. Different cameras for different uses. And really, you're comparing a 24 MP camera with a 36 MP camera, something that for landscape guys is not even negotiable.

This appears to be just another, " I bought a K-1 and tried to use it for something it wasn't designed for thread." With all due respect, that was inadvisable. You thought you could get by with the least expensive option and discovered you really do need a more expensive option. You went for low cost not performance. That deserves our sympathy, but, hey, write it off as a learning experience.

That's why I think it's important for Ricoh to get with the program and remain competitive with the big 3 as far as features and functionality go.

When will it be time for the big 3 to catch up with Pentax, with an accelerator chip, low light performance, Pixel Shift etc.? Every company looks for a niche, you just don't like the one Pentax chose.

Admit it. At the end of the day, most people who buy new cameras compare specs and prices. The one with the most value for money that can provide decent enough IQ generally tends to win.

If the were true Pentax would be a market leader. People who buy cameras are like any other people they often buy things they don't need to impress people they don't like. People are as influenced by marketing in cameras as they are by features.

[Riggomatic]

@amstel78, I am curious as to why you shoot at ISO 100-200. I'm definitely not an action photography, but it seems you have room to increase the ISO so you can work with a faster shutter speed.

A couple of your examples are at 1/30s. For that speed, I think the images came out well.

[amstel78]

@amstel78, I am curious as to why you shoot at ISO 100-200. I'm definitely not an action photography, but it seems you have room to increase the ISO so you can work with a faster shutter speed.

A couple of your examples are at 1/30s. For that speed, I think the images came out well.

The shots at 1/30 were taken in shutter priority on purpose. I wanted to get a little background motion blur while tracking the subject. The other examples were taken in aperture priority with a fast enough shutter speed to freeze motion.


As for ISO; I like shooting at a low enough ISO I can get away with. On that particular day, it was bright and sunny outside.




---------- Post added 04-07-19 at 04:08 PM ----------

You do know the K-1 is marketed as a field camera don't you? There's not a lot of "eyes" lurking around in fields.

Depends on what fields. There's not a whole lot of fields in NYC but I see your point.

We have at least one dedicated forum participant who have an A9 and a K-1. He doesn't seem to think getting the A9 means he doesn't want a K-1 as well. Different cameras for different uses. And really, you're comparing a 24 MP camera with a 36 MP camera, something that for landscape guys is not even negotiable.

If only I had a goose that laid golden eggs on a regular basis, then yes I'd probably own an A9 as well. Don't get me wrong. I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm a firm believer in using the right tools for the job. I'm not married to the Pentax system albeit my emotional connection to the brand of old. If I wasn't a lowly international civil servant but a lawyer instead, perhaps I'd be able to afford something more fancy that I could use to impress people I don't like.

This appears to be just another, " I bought a K-1 and tried to use it for something it wasn't designed for thread." With all due respect, that was inadvisable. You thought you could get by with the least expensive option and discovered you really do need a more expensive option. You went for low cost not performance. That deserves our sympathy, but, hey, write it off as a learning experience.

And now we get to the crux of the biscuit. You do realize that you've just contradicted the popular narrative that I've been so aptly berated for in the past few replies to my thread? Something I don't really understand... I never said Pentax was garbage. All I want is for them to improve on the AF system; something I believe could benefit most if not all Pentax believers. But yet by stating my personal opinion on the matter, I get a feeling that I've just committed blasphemy in the eyes of the old gods and the new...

[normhead]

The shots at 1/30 were taken in shutter priority on purpose. I wanted to get a little background motion blur while tracking the subject. The other examples were taken in aperture priority with a fast enough shutter speed to freeze motion.


As for ISO; I like shooting at a low enough ISO I can get away with. On that particular day, it was bright and sunny outside.




---------- Post added 04-07-19 at 04:08 PM ----------



Depends on what fields. There's not a whole lot of fields in NYC but I see your point.



If only I had a goose that laid golden eggs on a regular basis, then yes I'd probably own an A9 as well. Don't get me wrong. I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm a firm believer in using the right tools for the job. I'm not married to the Pentax system albeit my emotional connection to the brand of old. If I wasn't a lowly international civil servant but a lawyer instead, perhaps I'd be able to afford something more fancy that I could use to impress people I don't like.



And now we get to the crux of the biscuit. You do realize that you've just contradicted the popular narrative that I've been so aptly berated for in the past few replies to my thread? Something I don't really understand... I never said Pentax was garbage. All I want is for them to improve on the AF system; something I believe could benefit most if not all Pentax believers. But yet by stating my personal opinion on the matter, I get a feeling that I've just committed blasphemy in the eyes of the old gods and the new...

It's not blasphemy, unless you consider it's been discussed to death. Usually those complaining are not doing as well as the more accomplished on the forum. So should you be complaining about the the cameras AF, which as has been recently pointed out in controlled tests, is not nearly as bad compared to other brands as is often made out to be, and in some ranges is better, or your skill level. We don't have an answer for that. so it remains a personal opinion with an issue that's un-resolved.

One of our guys, wedding shooter said he went from about 40% shooting weddings with a K-1 to about 90% with an A9. But he gave us comparison numbers based on his libraries. That we can analyze. Somone's opinion, we have no idea what the issue is. Could be the camera is being used for an inappropriate use, could be the shooter doesn't know what he's doing. We can only comment on what rings true from our own perspectives.

In any case, there is ample evidence that for a lot of use Pentax AF is good as anyone's. Their focus confirmation for prefocussed images is first class, up there with the D4 and A9 and 1Dx, so for many portrait type uses, it's actually faster than all the competition but the very best.

You seem aware of the negatives, but it also seems you don't really understand how it stacks up against the competition.
As for your last line

people wonder why Pentax lost its mojo and never got it back. I think the answer's obvious.

That's just repeating media nonsense. has Pentax ever had high end AF? . MY buddy in 1993 had a Nikon F4 that could track a guy bunji jumping at 6 FPS with a motor drive on film... Pentax never had that kind of capability. You probably could have phrased the whole post in such a way that the glaring inaccuracies didn't rub people the wrong way, and some of your criticism aren't even warranted.

I'm not sorry you're leaving Pentax, I'm more sorry you are so caught up in the industry hype that has you believing you can get better from other systems for the same money, and that Pentax needs to improve.

My personal opinion is that for my shooting, the incremental improvements Pentax has done since my *ist are both measurable and in keeping with the industry progress. You have different opinion. So be it. But your opinion doesn't change my opinion and as long as we are throwing opinions around, you have to live with mine, the same way I live with yours. Just say "Interesting but irrelevant to me." That's what I say.

But if you were hoping everyone was just going to jump in and say "amstel78 you re so right about everything" that's not going to happen. There are way to many experienced photographers here with a different take. Claiming we are accusing you of blasphemy is just downright insulting. What you are accused of is being factually incorrect. Interesting but not relevant to me personally is a great way to view the things you don't agree with." It doesn't have to be about blasphemy or other such terms. You made it that way. Especially ridiculous since as pointed out, much of what you posted is factually debatable and quite controversial.

If you didn't want to see opposing points of view, why post at all, especially on a Pentax forum? Or did you honestly think we were all going to agree with you? Are you looking for groupies to say "that's what I think too?"

Did you actually think you were helping someone out with that post? Or did you think it was some kind of gospel truth you were sharing? Inquiring minds want to know.

There are an awful lot of shooters here on the forum who if you honestly want to help them out, you'll say "Don't pay any attention to that post, it's just one guy's personal opinion."

[amstel78]

I'm not sorry you're leaving Pentax, I'm more sorry you are so caught up in the industry hype that has you believing you can get better from other systems for the same money, and that Pentax needs to improve.

My personal opinion is that for my shooting, the incremental improvements Pentax has done since my *ist are both measurable and in keeping with the industry progress. You have different opinion. So be it. But your opinion doesn't change my opinion and as long as we are throwing opinions around, you have to live with mine, the same way I live with yours. Just say "Interesting but irrelevant to me." That's what I say.

But if you were hoping everyone was just going to jump in and say "amstel78 you re so right about everything" that's not going to happen. There are way to many experienced photographers here with a different take. Claiming we are accusing you of blasphemy is just downright insulting. What you are accused of is being factually incorrect. Interesting but not relevant to me personally is a great way to view the things you don't agree with." It doesn't have to be about blasphemy or other such terms. You made it that way. Especially ridiculous since as pointed out, much of what you posted is factually debatable and quite controversial.

If you didn't want to see opposing points of view, why post at all, especially on a Pentax forum? Or did you honestly think we were all going to agree with you? Are you looking for groupies to say "that's what I think too?"

I'm happy to read opposing view points; that's one way I can educate myself if I'm truly in the wrong. But in this case, I don't think I'm wrong. I've read opinions and seen photographic samples that have stated the contrary, but in all fairness, I've also opined that those examples didn't really match the shooting environment I was in when I noticed the problem.

Like I said before, and I'll say it again... I will gladly admit my error when I'm truly proven wrong in my assertions, but I've yet to see it. I think there are some here who's brand loyalty runs so deep that they can't possibly find fault in Pentax. I'm fine with that. But if you're going to criticize me or my opinion, at least have the decency to point out my deficiency so I can correct it and move on. You said factually debatable? I've shown you images with EXIF data that proves my point.

And please, re-read my previous posts. I never said I was leaving Pentax nor did I intend to insult anyone (why anyone would even be insulted to begin with baffles... perhaps thicker skin is in order). All I had hoped for by posting this thread was to start an open dialogue about what I felt could be improved upon with Pentax's AF system moving forward. I stated several times that I believed the hardware is there but the software lacking. My written opinions were something I had hoped would have been an impetus for the Pentax faithful to demand more from Ricoh rather than letting the status quo reign. Unfortunately, it seems the cool-aid drinking mob mentality narrative has won over genuinely felt criticism. But, if you honestly think I've come to the forum for the sole purpose of authoring a controversial thread topic with the hopes of somehow stoking my vanity, then you don't know me very well. Don't worry though; I'm not insulted.

[reh321]

As for ISO; I like shooting at a low enough ISO I can get away with. On that particular day, it was bright and sunny outside.

This demonstrates you don't understand the value you are holding. As I said earlier, Nikon {and I've heard this is true of Canon also} is the company that puts an extra processor in the camera just to provide strong AF. Pentax also puts an extra processor in the camera - but theirs is to give much better high ISO performance; I've never used a K-1ii, but with my 'lesser' KP, I can go much higher than ISO 200 and image quality is not noticeably affected. I really enjoy using TAv mode, with shutter speed 1/1000 and aperture f/8, while photographing backyard wildlife on a cloudy day, and knowing that I'll "get away with it".

[reh321]

I stated several times that I believed the hardware is there but the software lacking. My written opinions were something I had hoped would have been an impetus for the Pentax faithful to demand more from Ricoh rather than letting the status quo reign. Unfortunately, it seems the cool-aid drinking mob mentality narrative has won over genuinely felt criticism. But, if you honestly think I've come to the forum for the sole purpose of authoring a controversial thread topic with the hopes of somehow stoking my vanity, then you don't know me very well. Don't worry though; I'm not insulted.

You are entitled to an opinion, but that doesn't make it true. I know for a fact that Nikon has an extra processor to get their world-class AF; Pentax doesn't have that kind of hardware. The K-1ii and KP do have better AF, but software is not the complete answer to every question; Pentax has chosen to put their in-body hardware effort into higher ISO. The 55-300mm PLM lens does focus better than older lenses, but you don't seem to be using one.