[James O'Neill]

Background. I got my first Pentax, an MG, for Christmas in 1983, it was soon joined by an ME-Super: I shot with those through 80s and 90s, and was a laggard upgrading to Autofocus - I did very little photography in the late 90s, came back in the early 2000s, and bought a used MZ-5n (a good design, mine was a troublesome example).
After nearly 20 years with manual focus film cameras, - where turning a focus ring until the image looked "right", which as natural as breathing, with the MZ-5n and *ist-D it was clear that in an AF body one relies on the AF to confirm focus even when twisting a focus ring by hand, because of the nature of the focusing screen. It didn't bother me, at some point between the first AF cameras and the *ist-D AF had become better at focusing than I was. The *ist-D was followed by a K10D, which was traded for a K7, which in turn was traded for a K5, which was joined by a K5-IIs before being traded for a K1. I still have the K5-IIs but I've been shooting almost exclusively with the K1 since 2016.

Here's my problem,, well, the first part of it. This picture - made using the K1, SMC-43-ltd @ f/3.2 with studio flash and processed in Lightroom is the sort of thing I like to make.

And the K1 can't do it. (Yes I photograph young women looking nice, with varying amounts of clothes on - I don't mean that is my problem :-) I picked the shots here as ones which show very little. If you want to debate what I shoot, my style - if it deserves such a word - my processing etc, please resist and stick to the AF issue I'm talking about).

But.. what I've just said makes no sense, I used the K1, 43, flash, and lightroom . Why do I say "the K1 can't do it?"


The K1 can't shoot the picture as I showed it because the it can't focus on the model's face with that composition. "Focus and recompose" overcomes gross focus errors, put is not pin point accurate; (and I'll get to that) - and it works better when one uses back button focus, but I find that doesn't make for a good "flow" (again I'll get to that).

So I need to shoot like this


So problem #1 comes when your focus target isn't in the middle of the frame. Not a problem for some subjects. A bit of a nightmare for anything composed by rule of thirds, or for full length portraits

Add to that the way the K1 picks focus point(s) to satisfy some algorithm without "seeing" the picture, so I need to pick focus points. Here I've picked the point on her left eye. On a camera with otherwise superb ergonomics, selecting a focus point while looking through the VF is a bit of a weak point, and takes concentration away from what I'm shooting (and questions like "is something slipping out of the edge of the frame?', 'is the camera level?', 'Am I missing the perfect moment?') and is not good for "flow".

Still we have a result - the camera has locked where I wanted and at 100% we see acceptably sharp focus


The other problem is in the very next shot

That's not sharp. And even though I worked round the limited area of the AF points, the model raised her head slightly & I didn't keep the focus point on her eye - it's the same selected point between the frames, and the same overlay puts that point on the tip of her nose- sometimes I'm convinced that even if I do have focus point in the right place, the camera is not locking on to where I think it is - it only fires when it has lock, so it is locking on to something. It is not a lens/AF calibration problem - it is not consistently front or back focusing or doing different things with different lenses - it is all about target selection.

In fact if I don't examine the misfocused picture at retouching magnification it's arguably sharp enough ....

Which brings me to two other related points.
(a) For a lot of photography it doesn't matter if the lock is on point "X" or a point next to X because the distance between what is at each of the points is well within the depth of field. If your target is near the middle of the frame and all the AF points are as good as each other, then the stuff I'm talking about is a not a problem.
In the examples here, I'm shooting from something like 1M -1.5M away with a 43 @ f/3.2 - for normal viewing the D.o.F sums say I'd have 5 or 6cm of either side of the where I've focused... except...
(b) Normal viewing isn't the test any more. Looking at 100% on my 200 DPI monitor is like looking at part of 36"x24" / A0 size print from the distance we'd view a 10x8 / A4. (and zooming in to > 100% for removing blemishes as makes matters worse)

What can I do?
(a) Stop putting every shot under the microscope, and stick to normal viewing. How many negatives that I was quite happy with would stand up to this sort of examination (not many)
(b) Adjust my technique to a more methodical focusing on each shot and less 'flow' a.k.a. snapping as I see something I like take shape in the VF.
(c) Shoot with more d.o.f and blur in post ? (lightroom / ACR has new tricks to help that)
(d) Keep hoping - without any reason from Ricoh - that there will be a K1-iii and it will have smart enough subject recognition to pick the point for an eye, even if the focus points are well within the APS-C area.
(e) Get the monster adapter to mount my lenses on a Sony body which I don't really like (good as the A7R is, and was in the previous version, it's a video camera with a stills mode and shooting video was always joyless for me - nor do I like a medium where the time you must give it is dictated by the editor) that would give me eye AF - and the option on a modern 28-300 zoom instead of the quarter century old travel zoom I have now. The adapter allows me means I keep the lenses I'm so fond of - so I can also keep using the K1 for some things - if I buy a used one and it doesn't work out it doesn't cost me a lot. There's no option I know to put he KAF4 lenses on other FF MILCs.
(f) Move up to Fuji 44x33 sensor camera for this work and accept the change of lenses in the process, but move from image quality beyond my needs to image quality miles beyond my needs. Of course the cost of the Fuji system is as nothing to the cost of the divorce lawyer when the amount I've spent comes to light ;-)

Does Anyone Have a better a solution?
I feel like a couple of people have given me the "if you want a Sony, get a Sony" treatment: I don't. I can't put a DFA21 ltd or DFA* 85 on a Canon or Nikon, or L mount camera, and I'm not moving to a smaller sensor. It's more a case of if you don't to want replace everything and you want that sort of picture to be in focus most of the time, and you view Ricoh's development team as a bit like Santa Claus (everyone talks about them, but not many believe they exist in a literal sense), then you need to use a camera you don't want.
"Ladies and Gentlemen, if you look to the left you'll see a rock, while over to our right we have the famous hard place."

[IsaacReaves]

With 101 AF points including face detection Eye Detection, including joystick selection for the AF point, I don't understand why a K3 mk3 isn't in the cards.

[KiloHotelphoto]

100% frame autofocus coverage and eye AF of mirrorless is great. Sony,Nikon and Canon can all deliver that and it would speed up your workflow, no more focus and recompose and having to double check focus after the shot.

[IsaacReaves]

Putting this as a second reply to keep it out of the basic camera gear and focus more on technique:

These are beautiful portraits that appear to be shot using available light with maybe a small fill flash. I think you should invest more effort on your lighting setup to control the exposure on the environment relative to your model. Why? So you can stop leaning on wide open apertures to diffuse the background.

I am by no means a flash or portrait expert and haven't shot flash in about 15 years ... but if you had a nice softbox overhead and soft fill from the side, I don't see why you wouldn't be able to get aperture up to f4 ~ f8 and use flash to darken down the backdrop. This will reduce small errors with focus-recompose, and maybe add a bit more drama to the images. In the shots above you have quality light (from some bay windows I'm guessing) but the model is disappearing into the scene a bit too much for me.

The other thing that will make even your K5 look like an upgrade is to invest in a camera stand and get away from tripods or strictly hand-held shooting. Once you try one of these you don't want to go back. It's so easy to figure out where critical focus is and just mark the floor with a small piece of tape to move the rig in and out of the way. Add an external 4k monitor plugged into the video output and you don't even need to bother with tethered shooting.

Also, consider that the Hasselblads and PhaseOne's MF rigs have a single center focus point and you'll understand why the cadre of youtube sony crybabies aren't taken very seriously.

my .03

[rpjallan]

(e) Get the monster adapter to mount my lenses on a Sony body which I don't really like (good as the A7R is, and was in the previous version, it's a video camera with a stills mode and shooting video was always joyless for me - nor do I like a medium where the time you must give it is dictated by the editor) that would give me eye AF - and the option on a modern 28-300 zoom instead of the quarter century old travel zoom I have now. The adapter allows me means I keep the lenses I'm so fond of - so I can also keep using the K1 for some things - if I buy a used one and it doesn't work out it doesn't cost me a lot. There's no option I know to put he KAF4 lenses on other FF MILCs.

I don't have an answer for you. Maybe there isn't one.

I have to disagree that the Sony A7R cameras are built for video with a stills mode. It is the other way around! They have more dedicated cameras with better video. I do not understand why you (and a lot of other members on this forum) will reject another brand of camera because they have features that you may never use. No one is holding a gun to your head saying you must shoot video with it and spend hours editing it.

Anyway, good luck with your search. I hope you find an answer...

[zapp]

You can only nail focus in live view on the sensor. The camera may take over and track eyes for you, but again this will haben on the sensor. Everything else means recomposing… not that problematic, but focus on the sensor is straight forward here.
You already know the answer…

[mlag]

C) thing’ish is my guts feeling...but in the end you decide.

Actually to my feeling you more less answered yourself...
Some extra consideration:
- You work with wide aperture, so as stated dof is thin, if model moves...it is a risc. I understand bokeh requiment but in photography everything is tradeoff. Stop down a bit more? Hence c)
- a lens typically performs better if stopped down a bit, sharpness to the edges improves, you might need it in this composition... the model’s head is near the edge, not in optimum sharpness zone of 43mm lens, especially if you zoom in maximally like shown. With flash, light isn’t an issue I guess, so stop down reason n⁰2....? See also SMC Pentax-FA 43mm F1.9 Limited Review - Sharpness | PentaxForums.com Reviews maybe a star lens like FA 50 is better if you want edge sharpness? Edge sharpness behaviour is one of the design differences between star and limited lenses, at least in my understanding: limited’s pay less attention to edge sharpness than star lenses. Maybe (part of) it is a lens, not a camera problem?

- on some camera models liveview offers tracking of faces, might help here? Focus peaking might help also...but if you are a VF addict, it might feel odd. Sometimes I use a LCD loupe to get viewfinder experience from back LCD (for macro however) maaaybe? working for your work also.
(Sounds a bit like trying to do sony mirrorless on a pentax, ...hmm maybe need to think this over)

[BarryE]

I get your pain as this is something I struggled with, but as Issac says above, background and lighting changes would help. At f5.6 to f8 using a 43/77/50 and hand holding, while moving around quite a bit, I'm happy with my successes. More specific, sculptured lighting to shape the face and a simple background at some distance behind the subject is my approach. Then from front on the eyes are sharp and the ears out going of focus. The background is nice blur and dark unless I add some subtle lighting to the background to give a glow.

[The Squirrel Mafia]

I do people shots & this is one of the things that annoys me about having the focus points in the center. Live view will work, but the subject has to be absolutely still. The camera will follow the subject, but it only focuses once (lens doesn't continuously focus on the subject).

This is where mirrorless cameras have a one up. But yeah. They're also very expensive. It gets very pricey once you start replacing your current gear with new gear.

[AfterPentax Mark II]

I think that you have made a choice and you have to adapt to the gear your working with. If you want a better autofocus for making your portraits then you have to find that brand that complies with your wishes and buy it. It sounds a bit blunt, but you have to adapt the gear to what and how you want to achieve those portraits. To be honest, since a lot of us are pixel peeping (I did so too) it spoiled a lot of the fun and proudness over the pictures I took. Do not put all you pictures under a microscope, but look at them as I see them, and I think they are sharp and pleasant to look at. Have you thought about this? If you focused on the eyes that the expression of her face might look harsh, while the little unsharpness makes her face pleasant to look at? Overall, I enjoy the pictures, not only because of the looks of the model, but because the pictures are pleasant on my eyes!

[James O'Neill]

With 101 AF points including face detection Eye Detection, including joystick selection for the AF point, I don't understand why a K3 mk3 isn't in the cards.

When they put a 36x24mm sensor it it* I will buy it.
As it is the 85 I own is too long, the 77 is just a bit too long, the 43 is almost a portrait lens but not quite, the DFA*50 would be OK, the 21 I own isn't a proper wide any more, so I need to buy a 15mm
And if I use the DFA*50 or 43 or 77 I keep 4/9ths of the image area and digitize it with 2/3 the number of pixels.

* If they Mash the K1-ii together with the K3-iii I'll buy whatever hybrid it is. I'd be sad to lose the tilting screen and GPS but if need be, I will. Keeping the old K1 prism instead of the K3-iii's wonder one. OK.

---------- Post added 11-19-23 at 06:38 PM ----------

100% frame autofocus coverage and eye AF of mirrorless is great. Sony,Nikon and Canon can all deliver that and it would speed up your workflow, no more focus and recompose and having to double check focus after the shot.

Indeed. But Nikon and Canon don't have a way to mount the DFA*85 and DFA 21 Ltd at all, and only mount the FA77ltd and FA43ltd in fully manually mode. If I'm going to buy new lens I'll upgrade to medium format.

[vector]

I loved my Pentax cameras and I learned everything I know about photography on them, but despite saying I never would, I moved on to Nikon, now shooting a Z8. The 2 reasons were access to 600mm lenses and the amazing precision of eye tracking AF for birds and people. For people shots I fell in love with the DFA*50 and shooting wide open. I got pretty good at focus recompose but nailing shots of moving people was never really possible, at least not consistently. Now I have a collection of fast primes from 28mm f1.4 to 135mm f1.8 and I can simply point the camera in the general direction of a person and AFC will lock on the the eyes and I effortlessly get in focus shots. It's not perfect, but it is very consistent. I am glad I shot Pentax for so long learning good technique and how to succeed despite the limitations of the camera, though image quality was never a concern. I loved my Pentax lenses, especially how good they were for the size, they were tiny.

Switching is expensive. I sold close to 10k in Pentax gear and put nearly that much more again into Nikon. I am mid 40's so I have decades of shooting ahead of me. It was a tough emotional decision to part with all the gear I loved for 15+ years. Cameras that photographed my growing children, and came along on trips and adventures. But looking ahead I want to do more photography and have more options and Pentax is so slow to bring anything out. I owned a K3III for a year and I loved it, until I bought the Z6II and shot them side by side. The Z6II is not renowned for it's auto focus, but it was so good I stopped ever picking up the K3III so I sold it (over a year ago) and bought a used Z7. I kept my beloved K1 until 2 months ago. Sold it and more lenses and the Z7 to buy a Z8. Wow what a camera.

Photography is just a hobby for me, mainly a mental health one. Get out in nature, shoot landscapes and wildlife, and then capture family moments along the way. Be the free family photographer for events and weddings etc... For landscapes, still life, and family fun I couldn't justify a switch. But for wildlife, sports, weddings, high end portraits, especially if you are being paid for it, I would consider. In the case presented here I think a lot of good advice has been offered. Technique with the camera and lenses can only get you so far if you want tack sharp images at wide open apertures of moving subjects (people wildlife). The AF system and lenses have to do some heavy lifting. I lamented switching for too long. Pentax is just too slow to bring out anything new. I loved the handling and feel of the cameras, and I do prefer the look and experience of OVF. But life is short. Too short to lament over brands. This is still the best photography forum I have experienced so I stick around, even though the only Pentax I still own are film bodies and an old K100D super that was dropped and damaged but still works!

[StiffLegged]

I shot film for a long time too, on an SP1000 and later MX, but don't remember finding focussing well off-centre very reliable. I would focus and recompose. Rather surprised you would find different with a DSLR?

[BigMackCam]

Background. I got my first Pentax, an MG, for Christmas in 1983, it was soon joined by an ME-Super: I shot with those through 80s and 90s, and was a laggard upgrading to Autofocus - I did very little photography in the late 90s, came back in the early 2000s, and bought a used MZ-5n (a good design, mine was a troublesome example).
After nearly 20 years with manual focus film cameras, - where turning a focus ring until the image looked "right", which as natural as breathing, with the MZ-5n and *ist-D it was clear that in an AF body one relies on the AF to confirm focus even when twisting a focus ring by hand, because of the nature of the focusing screen. It didn't bother me, at some point between the first AF cameras and the *ist-D AF had become better at focusing than I was. The *ist-D was followed by a K10D, which was traded for a K7, which in turn was traded for a K5, which was joined by a K5-IIs before being traded for a K1. I still have the K5-IIs but I've been shooting almost exclusively with the K1 since 2016.

Here's my problem,, well, the first part of it. This picture - made using the K1, SMC-43-ltd @ f/3.2 with studio flash and processed in Lightroom is the sort of thing I like to make.

And the K1 can't do it. (Yes I photograph young women looking nice, with varying amounts of clothes on - I don't mean that is my problem :-) I picked the shots here as ones which show very little. If you want to debate what I shoot, my style - if it deserves such a word - my processing etc, please resist and stick to the AF issue I'm talking about).

But.. what I've just said makes no sense, I used the K1, 43, flash, and lightroom . Why do I say "the K1 can't do it?"


The K1 can't shoot the picture as I showed it because the it can't focus on the model's face with that composition. "Focus and recompose" overcomes gross focus errors, put is not pin point accurate; (and I'll get to that) - and it works better when one uses back button focus, but I find that doesn't make for a good "flow" (again I'll get to that).

So I need to shoot like this


So problem #1 comes when your focus target isn't in the middle of the frame. Not a problem for some subjects. A bit of a nightmare for anything composed by rule of thirds, or for full length portraits

Add to that the way the K1 picks focus point(s) to satisfy some algorithm without "seeing" the picture, so I need to pick focus points. Here I've picked the point on her left eye. On a camera with otherwise superb ergonomics, selecting a focus point while looking through the VF is a bit of a weak point, and takes concentration away from what I'm shooting (and questions like "is something slipping out of the edge of the frame?', 'is the camera level?', 'Am I missing the perfect moment?') and is not good for "flow".

Still we have a result - the camera has locked where I wanted and at 100% we see acceptably sharp focus


The other problem is in the very next shot

That's not sharp. And even though I worked round the limited area of the AF points, the model raised her head slightly & I didn't keep the focus point on her eye - it's the same selected point between the frames, and the same overlay puts that point on the tip of her nose- sometimes I'm convinced that even if I do have focus point in the right place, the camera is not locking on to where I think it is - it only fires when it has lock, so it is locking on to something. It is not a lens/AF calibration problem - it is not consistently front or back focusing or doing different things with different lenses - it is all about target selection.

In fact if I don't examine the misfocused picture at retouching magnification it's arguably sharp enough ....

Which brings me to two other related points.
(a) For a lot of photography it doesn't matter if the lock is on point "X" or a point next to X because the distance between what is at each of the points is well within the depth of field. If your target is near the middle of the frame and all the AF points are as good as each other, then the stuff I'm talking about is a not a problem.
In the examples here, I'm shooting from something like 1M -1.5M away with a 43 @ f/3.2 - for normal viewing the D.o.F sums say I'd have 5 or 6cm of either side of the where I've focused... except...
(b) Normal viewing isn't the test any more. Looking at 100% on my 200 DPI monitor is like looking at part of 36"x24" / A0 size print from the distance we'd view a 10x8 / A4. (and zooming in to > 100% for removing blemishes as makes matters worse)

What can I do?
(a) Stop putting every shot under the microscope, and stick to normal viewing. How many negatives that I was quite happy with would stand up to this sort of examination (not many)
(b) Adjust my technique to a more methodical focusing on each shot and less 'flow' a.k.a. snapping as I see something I like take shape in the VF.
(c) Shoot with more d.o.f and blur in post ? (lightroom / ACR has new tricks to help that)
(d) Keep hoping - without any reason from Ricoh - that there will be a K1-iii and it will have smart enough subject recognition to pick the point for an eye, even if the focus points are well within the APS-C area.
(e) Get the monster adapter to mount my lenses on a Sony body which I don't really like (good as the A7R is, and was in the previous version, it's a video camera with a stills mode and shooting video was always joyless for me - nor do I like a medium where the time you must give it is dictated by the editor) that would give me eye AF - and the option on a modern 28-300 zoom instead of the quarter century old travel zoom I have now. The adapter allows me means I keep the lenses I'm so fond of - so I can also keep using the K1 for some things - if I buy a used one and it doesn't work out it doesn't cost me a lot. There's no option I know to put he KAF4 lenses on other FF MILCs.
(f) Move up to Fuji 44x33 sensor camera for this work and accept the change of lenses in the process, but move from image quality beyond my needs to image quality miles beyond my needs. Of course the cost of the Fuji system is as nothing to the cost of the divorce lawyer when the amount I've spent comes to light ;-)

Does Anyone Have a better a solution?
I feel like a couple of people have given me the "if you want a Sony, get a Sony" treatment: I don't. I can't put a DFA21 ltd or DFA* 85 on a Canon or Nikon, or L mount camera, and I'm not moving to a smaller sensor. It's more a case of if you don't to want replace everything and you want that sort of picture to be in focus most of the time, and you view Ricoh's development team as a bit like Santa Claus (everyone talks about them, but not many believe they exist in a literal sense), then you need to use a camera you don't want.
"Ladies and Gentlemen, if you look to the left you'll see a rock, while over to our right we have the famous hard place."

Unfortunately, you're dealing with a limitation of any DSLR (not just Pentax) where PDAF points are clustered around the centre (as I'm sure you're aware)...

Live View with AF.C will give you greater frame coverage for AF, and tracking - but it's using contrast rather than phase detection which will be slower, and AF.C can be a little "skittish". While I'm sure you'd get more keepers, I suspect you'd still see a lot of misses. Combine this with smaller apertures for greater DOF and you could probably improve on that somewhat. You could of course stop down as far as possible before diffraction kicks in and use manual focus to set a fixed focus distance, then depend on DOF for acceptable sharpness as the model moves her head. Another option may be to take preliminary shots and - as you review them - note which poses work best so you and the model can recreate and capture them less spontaneously, giving you the opportunity to use AF.S or MF in Live View (or even stick with focus and recompose through the viewfinder).

If none of these work for you, moving to a mirrorless platform with good on-sensor PDAF and eye tracking may be the best option for your specific use-case, even if you find the equipment less enjoyable to use and have to switch out one or two of your favourite lenses. I prefer DSLRs for my own photography, but they're not the best tools for every job

[Rondec]

A few options.

(1) Stop down more. Using f4 is more forgiving than using wider apertures.

(2) Use live view. It isn't perfect either, but you can certainly focus out to the edges and you don't have flakiness with focus adjustment that you sometimes have using the viewfinder.

(3) Decide to wait for the K-1 III whenever Pentax actually decides to release it. Rumors seem to be that it is mostly done, but that as currently designed Pentax thinks it would be too expensive for the marketplace and so is sitting on it.

(4) Switch to a different brand. Every brand has different issues, but certainly recent MILCs should be able to auto focus around a K-1 or K-1 II.

Only you can decide which is your best option, but certainly I wish you luck.