[Fcsnt54]

This is hog feces....Below are two action shots of the A-10 Basketball Tournament shot in real time with my k-5-ii and the 50-200mm kit lens: Like my grandfather used to say, a good photographer can make good pictures with a cardboard box....when is technology enough? I think Pentax is plenty fast and I think of the camera as a tool for what my brain visualizes, not what the camera dictates to me. there are several more but I posted them previously on other threads--these are the "rejects" and they're still adequate (both unedited)

I think you missed something in my post... I said "I equate", meaning in my view. Others have their opinions as well. anyone can use what ever camera for what ever they would like, even a 60,000 dollar camera as a travel family camera if they were inclined. Anyways, for rejects they are nice pictures.

[amstel78]

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

Hi Craig; to answer your question about your second point... no, I don't think my statement applies to the entirety of the M4/3 crowd. It's just worth stating (in my opinion) that their newer bodies with later firmware revisions seem to have better face and eye AF tracking than what's currently available with Pentax bodies. The second part of my point is that the EM-10 Mark III, while only a few months newer in terms of release date, is a physically smaller camera with a tiny sensor. But yet, Olympus has managed to add some type of eye-AF focus algorithm that for the most part works very well.

---------- Post added 04-07-19 at 08:16 PM ----------

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

Ask the Sony engineers.

[BigMackCam]

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

Ask the Sony engineers.

Here, the Sony engineers would probably tell you that, because their phase detect sensors are incorporated into the imaging sensor - as befits a mirrorless camera design - they can handle PDAF and image analysis (to detect an eye, a face, a vehicle etc.) concurrently. With DSLRs, it's necessarily different. They use independent phase detect sensors that aren't incorporated into the sensor (since the sensor receives no image until the mirror is flipped up). There's no way for the camera to know what it's focusing on unless it's in Live View...

Note, however, that PDAF sensors built in to the imaging sensor create their own problems with artefacts, as we've seen with recent Sony cameras shooting into strong light sources. And they can't offer a purely optical view of the world, like a DSLR can. So it's a case of "swings and roundabouts", as always

[Wheatfield]

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.

One thing I have noted by paying some attention to a few other forums is that the loyal follower of Pentax has been a loyal follower for quite some time, often decades, while the loyal followers of other brands are loyal to their brand for much shorter durations before jumping to another brand and becoming loyal to it before rinsing and repeating.
I don’t get it. Any brand out there is up to most any task that is thrown to it.

Obviously there are situations where one brand will outdo others. For example, if birding was an important part of my photographic day, there is a good chance I would be shooting a different brand. However, birding is not something I regularly do, and the few times I have, I’ve had my camera focused on a waterfall in our back yard where the birds come to bathe.

Were I a user of a different brand and wanted to shoot the night sky, for example, I would hopefully be educated enough to look at Pentax, so it works both directions.

For me, the nice thing about settling into one brand and staying with it for a long time (I’ve been using Pentax for just over 3 decades) is being able to explore it’s strengths, and especially to explore the system that is encompassed by it.
I don’t see Sony as more than some bodies and lenses. I don’t see a system because they have never bothered to build one. Fuji is much the same, though their bodies and lenses are far more desirable than those of Sony.
Nikon is a system with great depth, but I think Pentax is deeper, though admittedly somewhat light on the modern end. Canon, much the same as Sony, lots of bodies and lenses, but not a deep system, just a wide one.

Pentax needs to work on their depth and width, but there is enough in what’s there to work for pretty much anyone who cares to pick up a camera.

[amstel78]

Note, however, that PDAF sensors built in to the imaging sensor create their own problems with artefacts, as we've seen with recent Sony cameras shooting into strong light sources.

You're referring to banding under particular lighting conditions at certain shutter speeds, are we not? If so, yes, that's an unfortunate byproduct. But, I've actually had similar results shooting 120 Agfapan film on an Arax with a purely mechanical shutter. While not ideal, you learn to work around it in the long run.

[BigMackCam]

One thing I have noted by paying some attention to a few other forums is that the loyal follower of Pentax has been a loyal follower for quite some time, often decades, while the loyal followers of other brands are loyal to their brand for much shorter durations before jumping to another brand and becoming loyal to it before rinsing and repeating.
I don’t get it. Any brand out there is up to most any task that is thrown to it.

I think there's a tendency for some folks to opt for convenience or, worse still, to assume different kit will make up for their own failings or lack of desire to wring the most out of their existing equipment. I'm not for one moment implicating the OP here... but, accurate or not, it's my general personal observation of a large subset of "system switchers".

Obviously there are situations where one brand will outdo others. For example, if birding was an important part of my photographic day, there is a good chance I would be shooting a different brand. However, birding is not something I regularly do, and the few times I have, I’ve had my camera focused on a waterfall in our back yard where the birds come to bathe.

Were I a user of a different brand and wanted to shoot the night sky, for example, I would hopefully be educated enough to look at Pentax, so it works both directions.

Precisely, Bill. And, so far as I can tell, no one brand has managed to reach near-perfection for every single photographic discipline... yet all offer equipment that can be applied effectively in those disciplines, if the user accepts and is prepared to work with the limitations.

For me, the nice thing about settling into one brand and staying with it for a long time (I’ve been using Pentax for just over 3 decades) is being able to explore it’s strengths, and especially to explore the system that is encompassed by it.

I've only been into photography for a fraction of that time, but since buying my (now long gone) Pentax K-7 not long after it was launched, I've never felt the need to switch - at least, not for my general photographic needs. I've been aware of brand differences, the various strengths and weaknesses... and on a few occasions I've perhaps noticed a couple of the limitations of Pentax gear myself (not often, though). But I've never felt the need to chase better capabilities in specific areas of functionality and performance. I've become used to Pentax, and I'd rather work with what I know and like. But then, my photography is very general in nature. I'd have no issue with switching if I was heavily focused on a specific discipline that is better suited to a different brand.

Pentax needs to work on their depth and width, but there is enough in what’s there to work for pretty much anyone who cares to pick up a camera.

Agreed

[reh321]

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

But your statement about competition... do you honestly believe that?

Yes, I do! You started with, and keep trying to bring the discussion back to AF - Pentax is not competing to make the best action camera. Their success is not going to depend on that.

Incidentally, I spent most of my time since my last post here sitting on our deck watching wildlife, and taking almost 50 photos - 15 "unique" images. With 3 different feeding stations I had trouble keeping an eye on the action - especially the Chickadee, who is very quick. Some photos didn't come out too well



but that was not my KP's fault; the KP+PLM lens were doing the job - the rail, worms and bird are in focus, and that happened faster than I could see it happening - but the chickadee could come and grab a dried worm off the rail in a second or two, sometimes faster than I could aim the camera and press the shutter.

The important thing is that I enjoyed my time.

BTW - Have you read Adam's interview with the Ricoh representative yet?
CP+ 2019 Pentax Interview - CP+ 2019 | PentaxForums.com
The word that stuck in my mind was that their goal is for us to get enjoyment from the product. Today was a big success in that light.

---

Last edited by reh321; 04-07-2019 at 05:55 PM. Reason: counted wrong

[reh321]

You're referring to banding under particular lighting conditions at certain shutter speeds, are we not? If so, yes, that's an unfortunate byproduct. But, I've actually had similar results shooting 120 Agfapan film on an Arax with a purely mechanical shutter. While not ideal, you learn to work around it in the long run.

But you aren't willing to work around Pentax's AF???

[BigMackCam]

You're referring to banding under particular lighting conditions at certain shutter speeds, are we not?

Indeed so...

If so, yes, that's an unfortunate byproduct. But, I've actually had similar results shooting 120 Agfapan film on an Arax with a purely mechanical shutter. While not ideal, you learn to work around it in the long run.

Right. And that's the crux of the matter, IMHO... There are strengths and weaknesses to every camera. You can choose to work around the weaknesses, or you can switch - in which case, you swap certain weaknesses for others. If you prioritise AF tracking over resolution, and don't mind an EVF, the A7 MkIII (or pretty much any recent mirrorless with PDAF on the sensor) is a better choice than the K-1. But if landscape is your thing, or if you want to work with an OVF, the K-1 is better. If you want a camera that's fantastic at both eye-AF tracking and landscape, you're pretty much out of luck or paying through the nose. Ask Hasselblad how the AF tracking is on an H6D...

When we can have it all, at a knock-down price, I'll be first in the queue.

You catch my drift, I'm sure

[amstel78]

But you aren't willing to work around Pentax's AF???

The Arax is a purely mechanical medium format film camera. It's a Russian Hassleblad clone for all intents and purposes. When using it, you're doing so with a completely different mindset and objective.

One would not use an Arax or an old school Hassy for action photography.

As for working around Pentax's AF... lol, what do you think I've been struggling with this entire time? If it worked for me, or if I'd found a workaround, we wouldn't talking about it here.

[rawr]

As an aside from the AF discussion, which has taken a predictable downwards spiral , the sample ice-skating images images I'm seeing here have something amiss with their colours. The clothing and in particular the skin tones have a not very attractive grey/green cast. Perhaps a UV filter on the lens, or a color space/ JPEG processing issue?.

[reh321]

The Arax is a purely mechanical medium format film camera. It's a Russian Hassleblad clone for all intents and purposes. When using it, you're doing so with a completely different mindset and objective.

One would not use an Arax or an old school Hassy for action photography.

And that is exactly the mindset you need to have with Pentax also. It is not an action camera!

[BigMackCam]

As an aside from the AF discussion, which has taken a predictable downwards spiral , the sample ice-skating images images I'm seeing here have something amiss with their colours. The clothing and in particular the skin tones have a not very attractive grey/green cast. Perhaps a UV filter on the lens, or a color space/ JPEG processing issue?.

I suspect it's just a minor white balance issue. I don't see it badly on my calibrated display and colour-managed browser, but it looks quite cold... then again, the scenes themselves were pretty cold. Minor adjustment in post would deal with that if it's inaccurately representing the reality...

[amstel78]

And that is exactly the mindset you need to have with Pentax also. It is not an action camera!

In that same vein, why would Pentax bother including AF in their K1-II then? Or, make grandiose statements in their product literature as to how fast the DC motors in their premium fast lenses are? I'm only asking these questions (with as much tongue as I can fit into my cheek) as the devil's advocate.

Mind you, many of the good folks here have told me that Pentax AF in their most recent bodies like the K1-II is perfectly suitable to all sorts of photography; action included.

But I digress. The K1-II is the ultimate landscape camera as far as price to performance goes. I think I may even said as much a few times in this thread.. but as you've already probably witnessed, most of the rabid faithful will completely gloss over whatever good I've recalled about the system and call my competence into question instead.

---------- Post added 04-07-19 at 10:45 PM ----------

As an aside from the AF discussion, which has taken a predictable downwards spiral , the sample ice-skating images images I'm seeing here have something amiss with their colours. The clothing and in particular the skin tones have a not very attractive grey/green cast. Perhaps a UV filter on the lens, or a color space/ JPEG processing issue?.

There is a UV filter on the front of my 70-200. It could have been a culprit as far as color balance goes. In addition, those samples were only reduced in size straight out Lightroom with no other adjustments made.


To be honest, they looked decent enough on my color calibrated monitor, but I didn't go so far as to adjust WB when exporting.

[BigMackCam]

In that same vein, why would Pentax bother including AF in their K1-II then? Or, make grandiose statements in their product literature as to how fast the DC motors in their premium fast lenses are? I'm only asking these questions (with as much tongue as I can fit into my cheek) as the devil's advocate.

Mind you, many of the good folks here have told me that Pentax AF in their most recent bodies like the K1-II is perfectly suitable to all sorts of photography; action included.

No-one has said the K-1II is perfectly suited to all sorts of photography, action included, James. We all know it isn't, just as we know that every other camera currently available isn't perfectly suited to every application and personal circumstance. A number of folks have pointed out that the K-1 / K1-II's continuous AF weaknesses aren't - in their experience and / or opinions - as bad as some others believe, and that they're getting results that differ with yours (for a variety of reasons).

Here's the thing... Even if you mention how supportive you are of a brand, if you call out what you personally feel are its weaknesses on a site dedicated to said brand, you'd clearly expect to be challenged by folks that don't hold the same views as you. That's the nature of brand-specific enthusiast groups, right? And if you don't want the challenges, objections and disagreements, the phrase "know your audience" comes irresistibly to mind (full disclosure - I'm careful about what I choose to post here and anywhere else for precisely this reason)...

A little light relief, related to what I'm saying:

Why Mopar is better than GM | For B Bodies Only Classic Mopar Forum