[Merv-O]

I was never insincere in my posts. Opinionated, yes. Perhaps wrong in the sense that I initially asked more out of my K1-II and lenses than the good Ricoh engineers in Japan intended, given a certain photography style and expectation. That I'll freely admit, and was thus educated by the good folks on this forum. It's clear the K1 is an awesome field camera. For fast action sports-type photography, it isn't.

Insincere though? Nope. Won't cop to that.

Look man, I don't know you from Adam and it's apparent you don't like what I've written for whatever personal reasons you may have. You're free to ignore and chalk me up to one of your ignoramuses lists of you so desire. Won't hold it against you, I promise.

In the meantime, I'm trying to alter my techniques to work better within the confines of the system; and I think I'm getting there. It's still no match for something like an A9 as far as AF accuracy goes, but at least I'm no longer constantly disappointed. instead, I'm working harder to find creative means on improving my keep rate with the gear in hand.

Amstel:

Have you much experience with manual focus. Even the focus peaking function can sharpen something in a scene I don't want and many recent Pentax, Sigma and Tamron lenses will allow manual focus override. In addition to same, I can adjust the f/stops on my lenses which also change the shot. These are all techniques I learned as a young man and may come as 2nd nature to me. I believe that Pentax AF is fine when I want to relax and turn my K-1 into a glorified "point and shoot" (one of the best there is), but often I will use manual functions because the K-1 can not interpret what my mind sees, only what the computer algorithms programmed in will instruct it. If you want a camera to basically do it all, then a Leica typ 109 D-Lux point and shoot will serve you well and provide you with decent shots (save you $$$ too).
As for myself and others on this Forum, many of us will continue to promote photography as a medium or an avocation--honing our separate yet collective abilities and sharing our finds and knowledge. Good luck to you.

[normhead]

It's still no match for something like an A9 as far as AF accuracy goes, but at least I'm no longer constantly disappointed.

For 90% of what I shoot, mine is, flowers, lichen moss mushrooms, trees lakes and rocks don't have eyes.
Plus the 36 MP of the K-1 leaves the A9 in the dust. For what I do, the A9 can't do what mine does, but mine can do what the A9 does, just less efficiently..

I checked to see how many images I take that could benefit from tracking AF, about 200 out of 120,000, or 1.7 per thousand.

So I pay an extra $3000 for 200 images every 6 years. And the funny thing is, I got a pretty good keeper rate on those 200, probably over 70%. So make that 60 images over 6 years it might help on.

What exactly are you shooting that you need an A9?

Have you actually done the math?

[amstel78]

Amstel:

Have you much experience with manual focus. Even the focus peaking function can sharpen something in a scene I don't want and many recent Pentax, Sigma and Tamron lenses will allow manual focus override. In addition to same, I can adjust the f/stops on my lenses which also change the shot. These are all techniques I learned as a young man and may come as 2nd nature to me..

Yes, I have experience with MF. I used to shoot and develop a lot of 35 and 120 film back in the day. Most of it was static architecture or landscape photography. I never did much sports photography before, preferring the slower, more deliberate style of photography inherent to medium format film.

What exactly are you shooting that you need an A9?

Have you actually done the math?

Going back to my original post in this thread, I was expressing disappointment in what I felt was the K-1 Mark II's inability to subject track my kids ice skating. Most of the shots ended up being slightly out of focus. Of course, this was a departure from my usual style of photography so I really wasn't sure what to expect out of the K1 as an "action" camera. I was however educated quite well by the respondents here, for which I'm grateful. I think I can get usable action photos out of the K1 with a little more advance planning and alteration of my technique.

I only referenced the A9 because from what I've seen and experienced, it's able to accomplish that particular style of photography with minimal manual intervention. Sometimes its more about being able to easily capture the image than the process or methodology of getting there. Just my humble opinion.

P.S. As I've gotten older, my eyes have softened a tad so I'm no longer 100% certain that my manual focus images are tack sharp. Just one other reason why I've tended to rely on AF systems more and more.

[normhead]

Yes, I have experience with MF. I used to shoot and develop a lot of 35 and 120 film back in the day. Most of it was static architecture or landscape photography. I never did much sports photography before, preferring the slower, more deliberate style of photography inherent to medium format film.



Going back to my original post in this thread, I was expressing disappointment in what I felt was the K-1 Mark II's inability to subject track my kids ice skating. Most of the shots ended up being slightly out of focus. Of course, this was a departure from my usual style of photography so I really wasn't sure what to expect out of the K1 as an "action" camera. I was however educated quite well by the respondents here, for which I'm grateful. I think I can get usable action photos out of the K1 with a little more advance planning and alteration of my technique.

I only referenced the A9 because from what I've seen and experienced, it's able to accomplish that particular style of photography with minimal manual intervention. Sometimes its more about being able to easily capture the image than the process or methodology of getting there. Just my humble opinion.

P.S. As I've gotten older, my eyes have softened a tad so I'm no longer 100% certain that my manual focus images are tack sharp. Just one other reason why I've tended to rely on AF systems more and more.

Well the you're kinda like me only I don't have kids.
My frustration is with my gymnastic granddaughters but I only get to try and photgprah them once a year so I just live with the results.

[amstel78]

Well the you're kinda like me only I don't have kids.
My frustration is with my gymnastic granddaughters but I only get to try and photgprah them once a year so I just live with the results.

Yep. I don't shoot enough sports or fast action photography to justify the cost of an A9. Just wished that Pentax could have matched the AF chops of something like the A9 so we'd have the best of both worlds... but, I don't want to go down that road again. I've gotten yelled at enough in this thread already.

[Merv-O]

P.S. As I've gotten older, my eyes have softened a tad so I'm no longer 100% certain that my manual focus images are tack sharp. Just one other reason why I've tended to rely on AF systems more and more.

Use the focus peaking function on the K-1 and then manually "tweak" what you want in tack sharp focus...it's fast it works and it's easy. The K-1 does most of the work and your eyes are probably better than you think.

[Rondec]

Yep. I don't shoot enough sports or fast action photography to justify the cost of an A9. Just wished that Pentax could have matched the AF chops of something like the A9 so we'd have the best of both worlds... but, I don't want to go down that road again. I've gotten yelled at enough in this thread already.

I'm sure Pentax is working on that right now and expect the next cameras they release to be better. Will they be A9 level? Probably not, but with each new camera since the K5 I have seen improvement with AF-C and that's worth something.

[panonski]

About Pentax Updating and adding new stuffs I cannot agree more on the first topic.

--

Pentax is very sadly - manufacturer

which does not do any kind of later incorporation of the new things.- with firmware updates - in their cameras

For me,

I found few things which actually can be add - very simply - without to much effort - like different active scrren propotions for shooting in different ratios - in LV only.

--

Realy don't understand

why that option is still missing one in LV - and I really have not symphathy for such lack of will in Pentax department to do such a simple task.

--
For the tracking :

--

I really don't care about sport - and particuraly TRACKING . If I would be such kind of photographer - I think the Pentax system would not be my first choice,

but if I would must take such pics
for, let's say , one part time job for a client - I think - my KP and K3 - with my prefocus technique could be enough.
--


In most scenarios I found the tracking is unreliable - and maybe complicated as well, and if I want a good clean shoot, I would not relly on such AF technique, but rather on the faster recomposition, and faster single AF, or even prefocusing the area.
So If I would have to do some unpredictable action, with fast moving subject flying or moving all around,

things - like tracking eye, or tracking subjects
would be

avoid by me anyway.



------------------------------

I tried Pentax tracking, and yes it can be good, but your subject must be always in the middle of your frame, and you have to practice this - to get the best results.


___________________

for the updating thing - I simply realise two years ago, or even more - that Pentax don't do such stuffs - and I've completely ended my hopes in that area - and take my Pentax camera - as it is.

[normhead]

Some of us are still hoping there will be another incremental advance , maybe bigger one than usual in the next APS-c body. Putting the K-1 AF system into APS-c would mean the number of focus points would fill more of the frame, making tracking easier. They already have the tech in the K-1.

[amstel78]

Some of us are still hoping there will be another incremental advance , maybe bigger one than usual in the next APS-c body. Putting the K-1 AF system into APS-c would mean the number of focus points would fill more of the frame, making tracking easier. They already have the tech in the K-1.

I think the K-1's AF system is already in the KP.

[SSGGeezer]

I think the K-1's AF system is already in the KP.

Nope, the K-1 II has the newer Safox with more focus points.

[reh321]

About Pentax Updating and adding new stuffs I cannot agree more on the first topic.

--

Pentax is very sadly - manufacturer

which does not do any kind of later incorporation of the new things.- with firmware updates - in their cameras

For me,

I found few things which actually can be add - very simply - without to much effort - like different active scrren propotions for shooting in different ratios - in LV only.

--

Really don't understand

why that option is still missing one in LV - and I really have not symphathy for such lack of will in Pentax department to do such a simple task.

My Q-7 offers several different "screen proportions" - all they do is to crop sensor ouput in camera. I can do that just as easily using gimp - I don't see any reason to use firmware memory for such a trivial task.

[amstel78]

Nope, the K-1 II has the newer Safox with more focus points.

I was thinking more along the lines of the K1 Mark I, but yep, you're absolutely right. I stand corrected.

[panonski]

My Q--7 offers several different "screen proportions" - all they do is to crop sensor ouput in camera. I can do that just as easily using gimp - I don't see any reason to use firmware memory for such a trivial task.

q 7 is mirrorless camera,


and my Ricoh GX 200 - can do that also.


I really don't care abaout your or others techique to get in the different ratio field. Is it PostProcess, or is it something else.


Here we don't disquas about - HOW we can manage things - which are not in Pentax,


but rather - What pentax is lagging behind the others.


--

I can also manage 4:3 , 1:1 , or similar in PP,


but that's really not the same.


Trully framed 4:3 from the scene, is very different from the 4:3 created afterwards.

[volley]

Trully framed 4:3 from the scene, is very different from the 4:3 created afterwards.

I'm not sure I understand why?
Why would you expect "a very different result" when in one case the camera software crops the sensor area to 4:3 ratio (what else should the camera software do for a given sensor?) and in the other case the pp-software is used to crop to 4:3?