[Kunzite]

Of course it is; though I don't think it's an incorrect one. He did this to reiterate his points and to counterattack those disagreeing (and, unfortunately, sometimes attacking) him.
And it's funny how the comments on the new Youtube video are attacking us, because, well, we're bad people...

By the way, I still don't believe his assertion ("supported" by some French test) that the D FA* 70-200 f/2.8 is too lousy to be compared with the OEM Canikons. I can't, when people with good reputation say things like "I am mightily impressed with this lens"

---------- Post added 28-06-16 at 01:38 PM ----------

But let's not pollute anymore this topic with a debate between 6D and K-3 II. You are more than welcome to come with me and Razvan on a "hunt" and I will let you chose the telephoto lens for me.

Such a debate is indeed off-topic, as neither camera is a K-1
I will gladly accept your invitation, not for making comparisons (though of course I'm always curious about other systems) but for having fun and challenging myself with some birding. The K-1 is good enough to catch swallows in flight (as MightlyMike shows on the other forum), but how good am I?

[rawr]

I'm sorry, but you sound like one of those people who want their camera set up once by an expert to get good photos. You do know you can change the focus mode without having to take the camera apart, right?

You missed the connection I was trying to make about shooters commonly not dropping their AF into the right mode when pursuing tracking. Sometimes as a result of not understanding the rather complex and poorly documented AF features of a camera like the K-3/K-1, sometimes just as a result of habit.

As an aside, I use Pentax and other camera brands routinely, and use their AF-S, AF-C modes, and AF point/group selection modes, all the time.

[starbase218]

Of course it is; though I don't think it's an incorrect one. He did this to reiterate his points and to counterattack those disagreeing (and, unfortunately, sometimes attacking) him.
And it's funny how the comments on the new Youtube video are attacking us, because, well, we're bad people...

By the way, I still don't believe his assertion ("supported" by some French test) that the D FA* 70-200 f/2.8 is too lousy to be compared with the OEM Canikons. I can't, when people with good reputation say things like "I am mightily impressed with this lens"

The way you say that, I actually can. I can because of the same reason that Tony is giving in his video regarding the performance of the Limiteds: "I am mightily impressed" is a personal statement, and nothing more than that.

But, I actually also commented on his video, pointing to the ePhotozine review of the DFA* 70-200 where they stated that the lens had a high and very even sharpness across the frame. That statement was also backed by measurements. So I theorized that maybe the test methodology of that French review was not as good as the one on ePhotozine. Or maybe the different results are due to sample variation.

[noelpolar]

This is European Bee-eater. I'm sure that wildlife photographers know how difficult is to catch a small bird like this in flight, especially when flying toward you.

25yo screw focus lens on a K-1......


Yes... hard to Swallow I know.

DFA 150-450 ...... K-1 stands firm and tracks even when facing an incoming attack....

Black Shouldered Kite by Noel Leahy, on Flickr

Anyway..... out of focus BIF shots with Pentax is soooooo yesterday with the K-1....

---

Last edited by noelpolar; 06-28-2016 at 04:23 AM.

[starbase218]

You missed the connection I was trying to make about shooters commonly not dropping their AF into the right mode when pursuing tracking. Sometimes as a result of not understanding the rather complex and poorly documented AF features of a camera like the K-3/K-1, sometimes just as a result of habit.

Ok, but then we're no longer talking about how good a camera is, but really we're talking about how familiar someone is with his or her gear, which is an entirely different thing.

[benjikan]

A valid gripe, of course.
The K-1 should be clearly better than the D610, perhaps equal with the D750 and with slightly less coverage than the D810. That, if we count non-cross type AF points, too. Otherwise, even the D810 has a mere 15 AF points covering just the center
But DSLR makers should improve on this, if they want to stay competitive.

Perhaps a future model will have significantly better AF coverage, as we see Ricoh/Pentax are thinking of solutions. For the first DSLR - one that offers a lot for less than 2000 euro, and had to be postponed a few months - it would've been too much.

Again, as I wrote in response to the Tony Northrup review, as a past pro Pentax user of the K10 up to the K3 the two glaring flaws in my opinion and based only on my professional needs has always been the AF and the limited amount of fast AF prime lenses. The very small concentration of AF points in the centre of the viewfinder doesn't help matters either when wanting to focus on the models eye which must either be forced into the centre of the frame, reducing usable pixels in the final published works or reframing which is slow cumbersome and not accurate especially when using a fast lens.

What I suggest Pentax do is what Nikon has done with their D800/810 and allow for a 5:4 crop option which replicates 90% of most magazine formats and bringing the upper focus points closer to the eyes of the model although not perfect still close enough. However, having a few more focus points in the upper quadrant would be ideal. If Nikon in their 5:4 crop mode, could just give us one more row of vertical focus points, it would be perfect beyond words. But as is, I can generally get close enough to the crucial focus point desired.

[Dan Rentea]

Yes... hard to Swallow I know.

You managed to understand completely wrong what I was saying. I said 2 things:
1. I don't know how good, fast and precise is the K-1's af. My comments were about the primitive af that I have on my 6D, the one that K-3 or even KS-2 will "wipe the floor with it".
2. Wildlife photographers can confirm (or not) that a small bird like the European Bee-eater with his chaotic flight it's difficult to catch in focus and keep it in the frame for 3-5 consecutive shots.

I'm glad that K-1 has an improved af over the K-3 II. Great images by the way.

---

Last edited by Dan Rentea; 06-28-2016 at 05:22 AM.

[Kunzite]

Again, as I wrote in response to the Tony Northrup review, as a past pro Pentax user of the K10 up to the K3 the two glaring flaws in my opinion and based only on my professional needs has always been the AF and the limited amount of fast AF prime lenses. The very small concentration of AF points in the centre of the viewfinder doesn't help matters either when wanting to focus on the models eye which must either be forced into the centre of the frame, reducing usable pixels in the final published works or reframing which is slow cumbersome and not accurate especially when using a fast lens.

What I suggest Pentax do is what Nikon has done with their D800/810 and allow for a 5:4 crop option which replicates 90% of most magazine formats and bringing the upper focus points closer to the eyes of the model although not perfect still close enough. However, having a few more focus points in the upper quadrant would be ideal. If Nikon in their 5:4 crop mode, could just give us one more row of vertical focus points, it would be perfect beyond words. But as is, I can generally get close enough to the crucial focus point desired.

And I will repeat my words: "a valid gripe, of course".
I'm just putting things into perspective, if we compare the K-1 with similarly priced DSLRs it doesn't looks to me that it's at any disadvantage - coverage wise. But improvements are always welcome.
The crop is a convenience function, you can do it in post (well, APS-C crop doubles as a "turbo" mode with its faster fps).

[Dan Rentea]

In-lens stabilisation doesn't just work when you are exposing, it also works when you are autofocusing (at least it works like that on Canikon bodies). Say you're shooting with a longer lens, and as a result of your shake, the image in the viewfinder jumps all over the place. The AF and light metering sensors see that shake as well. But the light meter (whether it's 86000 pixel or 63 segment) has to determine what the subject is. I don't think it helps when it sees such a jittery image.

So yeah, turning stabilization off at those speeds might be better for the exposure itself. But it won't be better for the moments between the shots, when the camera is trying to determine where the subject went, and subsequently, which AF point to activate to follow that subject.

For birds in flight it’s best to keep image stabilization turned off. Any professional wildlife photographer can confirm this.

IS should not be used for tracking subjects in motion (except panning), since the IS will try to keep the image stationary. When IS is enabled (regardless of mode) your autofocus system may take longer to initially acquire the subject (especially for birds with chaotic flight.). This can result in more out of focus images.

If you have a lens that has a range limiter switch, you need to set it to an appropriate value for the bird.

[Kunzite]

The way you say that, I actually can. I can because of the same reason that Tony is giving in his video regarding the performance of the Limiteds: "I am mightily impressed" is a personal statement, and nothing more than that.

But, I actually also commented on his video, pointing to the ePhotozine review of the DFA* 70-200 where they stated that the lens had a high and very even sharpness across the frame. That statement was also backed by measurements. So I theorized that maybe the test methodology of that French review was not as good as the one on ePhotozine. Or maybe the different results are due to sample variation.

It's your choice. One French review and one Youtuber claiming one thing, versus one British review and few owners being impressed with the lens. Though Sandy Hancock used it with a K-3, so it doesn't really count if we talk about FF corners.
Tony's claim is also a personal statement, and nothing more than that. Except that he seems to want his brand "win"

[starbase218]

You know what? I actually don't care about cross-type AF points, how fast a lens focuses, how many pixels the metering sensor has, tracking algorithms, whether or not the AF sensor sees a stabilized image or any other of that stuff. What I care about is the end result. I was at a zoo last Saturday with my K-3 and DA* 60-250. It was raining all day and I had no reservations walking around with my camera all day long. But when I tried to take shots of even a giraffe - not a fast animal at all - walking towards me, with tracking enabled, the focus was off in a lot of cases. Granted, I did not play around with the AF hold setting (it was probably still set to "normal"), and I might have gotten better results by playing with it, but I feel a camera like the K-3 should get at least half of the shots in perfect focus. It didn't. I know I could spend more money and get the K-3 II for that purpose, but really I shouldn't have to. And that annoys me.

---------- Post added 06-28-2016 at 02:43 PM ----------

For birds in flight it’s best to keep image stabilization turned off. Any professional wildlife photographer can confirm this.

IS should not be used for tracking subjects in motion (except panning), since the IS will try to keep the image stationary. When IS is enabled (regardless of mode) your autofocus system may take longer to initially acquire the subject (especially for birds with chaotic flight.). This can result in more out of focus images.

Ok, that's a good point. I hadn't thought of that. Actually we were going quite a bit of topic. I only mentioned it as another aspect that might impact tracking. But you are right, for moving (non-panning) subjects, it should not matter.

But like I stated above, I really don't care what technology or combination of technologies or things like that make the difference. I do know that I love my K-3 for its ruggedness and weather sealing, but tracking AF can be a pain in the #$$.

---------- Post added 06-28-2016 at 02:46 PM ----------

It's your choice. One French review and one Youtuber claiming one thing, versus one British review and few owners being impressed with the lens. Though Sandy Hancock used it with a K-3, so it doesn't really count if we talk about FF corners.
Tony's claim is also a personal statement, and nothing more than that. Except that he seems to want his brand "win"

Doesn't everyone? But regarding Tony Northrup, he also said he saw similar results to the French review while using the lens. So at least he's giving a little more information than just saying "it's not as good".

But like I said, I suspect something is going on as the ePhotozine review really praised the sharpness across the range.

[RockvilleBob]

For wildlife photography with the K3 I expect less than half my shots to have on target focus. One image will be in focus and then the next one will not be in focus with just slight movement of the subject. It is very frustrating. Some of the tips on the Forum have helped but you cannot get blood from a turnip. The camera AF.C is simply not up to par. The lenses seem to be getting closer to the target. Right now I have held off buying the 150-450, a lens I very much want to buy. I've been tempted by the K1 since AF appears to be better than the K3, probably still not on a par with Canon and Nikon, but the frame rate, buffers etc have led to me to decide to wait for the K3 follow on camera. If the AF is much improved - yes in the ballpark with Canon and Nikon - I can do what my heart says, stay with Pentax and get the 150-450. Otherwise it is time to make a change as expensive and disruptive at that would be for me.

Here's a couple with the K3 DA300 and Pentax 1.4TC - talk about a slow to focus system. Fortunately I was focused on the bird waiting for it to take flight. Even with the faster to focus Sigma 500 4.5 I would not have gotten these shots, the K3 would spend far too much time thinking. The shooters I was with using Canon and Nikon got good shots without the need to prefocus, they saw the movement, aimed their cameras and got shots just as good.

[monochrome]

Where did Pentax claim this camera was optimized for BIF?

This entire thread is as useless as complaining that an Acura TLX can't run a sub-12 second quarter, but a BMW M5 can.

[noelpolar]

You managed to understand completely wrong what I was saying. I said 2 things:

I rarely understand anything much these days....... it's quite liberating!

Anyway..... how do you know what I understood?....spooky....

[Dan Rentea]

I rarely understand anything much these days....... it's quite liberating!

Anyway..... how do you know what I understood?....spooky....

"Yes... hard to Swallow I know." - this expresion made me think that you needed to make a statement about the K-1's af. Or not?