[amstel78]

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".

It doesn't demonstrate anything. 100 to 3200 ISO on the K1-II is almost indiscernible... but as you said, you don't own one. So I guess you're not really an authority on the matter as far as that body is concerned.

I could go for higher ISOs if I wanted a faster shutter speed; which I've done on several of my sample images (I love Pentax but good Lord... - Page 4 - PentaxForums.com) if you'd taken the time to carefully look at the EXIF data. But that's not your point is it?

Please, go back and look at the exif data. Try to imagine yourself in that scenario. Then, go back and re-read some of my previous posts. I know it can often be difficult to fully ascertain what some people are trying to say if you only give their responses a momentary glance.

---------- Post added 04-07-19 at 05:39 PM ----------

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.

No it doesn't. As they say, opinions are like a.......s, everyone has one. That I can concede.


If I'm wrong about Pentax hardware not being up to snuff, then I stand corrected. But I'd sleep better if a Ricoh/Pentax engineer told me that rather than hearing it from someone who read it from somewhere that quoted someone else. Hope you don't mind.

---

Last edited by amstel78; 04-07-2019 at 10:45 AM.

[reh321]

It doesn't demonstrate anything. 100 to 3200 ISO on the K1-II is almost indiscernible... but as you said, you don't own one. So I guess you're not really an authority on the matter as far as that body is concerned.

I could go for higher ISOs if I wanted a faster shutter speed; which I've done on several of my sample photos if you'd taken the time to carefully look at the EXIF data. But that's not your point is it?

You have just told me what I expected to hear, that your newer K-1ii is just as good as my KP at higher ISO values. My point is that when you limit yourself to lower ISO values, you are not using the strength of your camera - you are wanting strengths it doesn't have.

Please, go back and look at the exif data. Try to imagine yourself in that scenario. Then, go back and re-read some of my previous posts. I know it can often be difficult to fully ascertain what some people are trying to say if you only give their responses a momentary glance.

I have read your posts and your EXIF data. I know what you are saying .... you are trying to fit your camera into your style - and it doesn't fit. If I were taking those photos I would use a higher ISO and a narrower aperture, using the strengths of my camera instead of working against them.

[BigMackCam]

Folks, I think this discussion has probably run its course, but in case it should cotninue, let's please remain friendly and respectful. While James' assertions were always going to generate some disagreement and challenges, we can discuss these cordially

Thank you

[reh321]

If I'm wrong about Pentax hardware not being up to snuff, then I stand corrected. But I'd sleep better if a Ricoh/Pentax engineer told me that rather than hearing it from someone who read it from somewhere that quoted someone else. Hope you don't mind.

You are totally wrong - Pentax hardware is more than up to snuff for the task Ricoh designed it for. If you want to hear it from Ricoh/Pentax, go read the interviews at the last few conferences - that is where my information comes from.

[amstel78]

You have just told me what I expected to hear, that your newer K-1ii is just as good as my KP at higher ISO values. My point is that when you limit yourself to lower ISO values, you are not using the strength of your camera - you are wanting strengths it doesn't have.

How so? I specifically wanted a narrow DOF for subject isolation with the lowest noise and highest DR possible. In aperture priority mode at ISO 100 and ISO 200, I was able to achieve that with a fast enough shutter speed to completely freeze motion. Please tell me where I'm wrong? The camera was told to do exactly what I wanted it to do. The in-focus pictures were fantastic in that regard and I didn't have to do any post processing at all. Why should I use a higher ISO in order to achieve a faster shutter speed with a smaller aperture number if the former settings do just fine?

Why should I increase DOF to accommodate an AF system that can't keep track? It's just a band-aid fix and you know it.

I have read your posts and your EXIF data. I know what you are saying .... you are trying to fit your camera into your style - and it doesn't fit. If I were taking those photos I would use a higher ISO and a narrower aperture, using the strengths of my camera instead of working against them.

See above.

---------- Post added 04-07-19 at 06:03 PM ----------

Folks, I think this discussion has probably run its course, but in case it should cotninue, let's please remain friendly and respectful. While James' assertions were always going to generate so disagreement and challenges, we can discuss these cordially

Thank you

Noted with thanks.

And yes, this topic has probably run its course. And I'm sure that we as adults can all agree to disagree at some point... but we haven't gotten to the tomato throwing part yet which is usually when the best photos are taken, granted the AF system can keep up.

[reh321]

Why should I increase DOF to accommodate an AF system that can't keep track? It's just a band-aid fix and you know it

That is like asking why you might slice your wrist while using a knife to open a can of paint.
You are using the wrong tool.
Pentax does not produce an "action camera".

[amstel78]

Pentax does not produce an "action camera".

Then you as well have contradicted the popular narrative.

Rational deduction versus emotion can be such a b...h sometimes.

---

Last edited by amstel78; 04-07-2019 at 11:54 AM.

[reh321]

How so? I specifically wanted a narrow DOF for subject isolation with the lowest noise and highest DR possible. In aperture priority mode at ISO 100 and ISO 200, I was able to achieve that with a fast enough shutter speed to completely freeze motion. Please tell me where I'm wrong? The camera was told to do exactly what I wanted it to do. The in-focus pictures were fantastic in that regard and I didn't have to do any post processing at all. Why should I use a higher ISO in order to achieve a faster shutter speed with a smaller aperture number if the former settings do just fine?

But the premise of this thread is that the former settings are not doing just fine.

The basic answer to this question is in the post you were responding to

you are not using the strength of your camera - you are wanting strengths it doesn't have.

If you insist on pretending this is an action camera you have three choices
(1) what you are doing - with the 'yield' you are getting
(2) using wider DOF - with no isolation
(3) focusing ahead of the action, as we did in the days of MF - and missing what happens elsewhere

[amstel78]

But the premise of this thread is that the former settings are not doing just fine.

The basic answer to this question is in the post you were responding to
If you insist on pretending this is an action camera you have three choices
(1) what you are doing - with the 'yield' you are getting
(2) using wider DOF - with no isolation
(3) focusing ahead of the action, as we did in the days of MF - and missing what happens elsewhere

My friend; we're just going around in circles at this point.

My assertion is that Pentax's AF in the K1-II is lacking against current competition.

My supposition is that the hardware is capable. If so, then I want Ricoh/Pentax to bring K1-II up to par with the rest of the field.

What I ask would benefit EVERYONE in the Pentax herd.

Some have agreed, most have not. The popular narrative I've gleaned thus far is that "I'm doing something wrong, and that the Pentax AF system is just fine..."

I've admitted several times already that I'm a Pentax loyal, but that in itself hasn't stopped respondents from implying that I'm incompetent; yourself included.

That said, I don't are if I upset certain people's sensibilities and I won't apologize. For as long as I shoot with Pentax, I'm going to rock the boat by asking questions. I want the camera I use to produce the best IQ at all times, whether that be in static landscape and architectural images to action photography.

If I'm doing something wrong as far as technique goes, then tell me. If I've got my K1-II's AF settings buggered up, then tell me. But as far I'm concerned, I've provided photographic examples along with detailed descriptions of where and when the AF system has crapped the bed, and all I get in return are posts similar to yours.

[reh321]

My friend; we're just going around in circles at this point.

My assertion is that Pentax's AF in the K1-II is lacking against current competition.

This is where we differ.

You are comparing the K-1ii to cameras which Pentax has never claimed to be in competition with.
AF is weaker.
High ISO is stronger.

[amstel78]

AF is weaker.
High ISO is stronger.

I'm glad we've finally found some common ground.

But your statement about competition... do you honestly believe that? I think Pentax is in a fight for its survival against Canon, Sony, and Nikon. If you feel Ricoh/Pentax can simply squeak by with moderate AF upgrades against something like the Sony A7 III which is sold at a similar price, then I'd assert at this point that you're sorely mistaken. Even the M4/3 crowd has better face and eye-AF tracking based on the Olympus EM-10 Mark III which I own.

Pentax used to be one of the most influential and prolific camera manufacturers of its day. Look how the mighty have fallen as far as market share goes (don't tie to the stake just yet for stating so... please!).

Let me ask you and the rest of the respondents here: do you truly believe Pentax is going to be around 10 to 20 years from now? I personally don't know. The way they're going, I don't think so. I believe at best case, the Pentax name will be sold off to another buyer who may or may not have its owners best interests at heart. But what do I know...

[c.a.m]

@amstel78, I'm a bit late in rejoining this discussion, and I hope that I may comment on your sample images.

I would have been happy with most of these pictures. I looked at the larger files at your link.

• Image 1279, Player No. 13 in front of the white jersey: I can't find any fault with this one. It appears very sharp, despite the movement of the subject. Shot at 1/000 and f/2.8. Nicely done, and a keeper, I would say.
• Image 1282, No. 13's back. Appears in focus and sharp. 1/1250 at f/2.8. Perhaps there's a bit of blur on the outside skate, but that's probably due to the relatively fast movement as he circled the pylon.
• 1315. Youngest daughter. Face and hair appear focused, despite her movement. Good panning and impression of motion, I think. 1/30 at f/13.
• 1356. Head and torso are sharp. 1/320 at f/2.8.
• 1358. Older (oldest?) daughter. I agree, the face appears a bit blurred. 1/320 at f/2.8. I wonder if she threw her head back at the instant the photo was being taken. Her right hand is blurred also, which I think is motion blur, even at 1/320 s.

So, out of the five pictures, I'd conclude that one may suffer from OOF softness. The others demonstrate the pretty good results that are possible, even with challenging subjects such as skaters. However, I'm not certain that I was looking at full-sized images.

My impression from your posts is that numerous pictures from your outing that afternoon were simply not in focus. It's hard to say whether another camera system would have produced a better outcome in that setting. As several other threads have affirmed, there is scant hard, credible evidence that compares AF performance of various brands and specific cameras. What we see mainly are regurgitation of popular -- but not well-founded -- sentiment (e.g., 'Nikon AF good; Pentax AF bad') or brief anecdotes (e.g., 'My Sony A9 AF produced 100% in-focused images of a wild-action event').

Hopefully, you managed to get enough 'keepers' to have made the shooting at the rink somewhat worthwhile.

- Craig

[BigMackCam]

Let me ask you and the rest of the respondents here: do you truly believe Pentax is going to be around 10 to 20 years from now? I personally don't know. The way they're going, I don't think so. I believe at best case, the Pentax name will be sold off to another buyer who may or may not have its owners best interests at heart. But what do I know...

I certainly think the Pentax brand will be around in 10 - 20 years time. There's too much of a loyal following for it not to be, and that following isn't the odd-ball group of Kool Aid drinking weirdos that some folks would like to believe, but mostly folks who really like and enjoy shooting with the equipment, and mostly get what they want and need from it (with full appreciation that it has weaknesses, like any other gear). I underlined the "enjoy" part, because that's a big part of what Pentax brings to the table for me. I enjoy shooting my Pentax cameras more than the Sony gear I own.

Whether that future is under Ricoh's ownership, who knows? It was bought by Hoya previously, then Ricoh who - in spite of a brutal stripping of brand value by Hoya - made a success of it... not at the same level as the old film days, but enough to be an interesting and viable brand that continues to be profitable enough to be worthwhile.

So long as Pentax stays relevant and true to a significant bunch of photographers - and I believe it will - it has a future, IMHO.

[c.a.m]

Even the M4/3 crowd has better face and eye-AF tracking based on the Olympus EM-10 Mark III which I own.

Although I'm not in a position to agree or dispute your claim (I haven't used any Olympus M4/3 gear), I do wonder whether the lack of robust face and eye-AF would preclude someone from getting good shots of people with a fairly-modern Pentax camera. Yes, the advanced features should make it easier, but IMO such capabilities are not essential for certain jobs. I guess this point relates to the competitiveness of the Pentax brand with respect to specific features, which is what you're saying I think.


On another point, have I understood your comment about "the M4/3 crowd?" Do you mean that all M4/3 systems have better face and eye-AF tracking, or just certain systems? It seems that the claim is rather broad.

- Craig

[Andrea K]

I know Pentax could implement via firmware some sort of eye-tracking ability since the K-1 uses a phase-detect system for static shots, but they choose not to.

A phase detect sensor that can recognize an eye!? How on earth?