[rawr]

I don't expect them to ever catch up with Canon or Nikon unless AF technology

Such statements always need to be qualified.

The Canon 6D AF is primitive, for example, and the K-3 or even KS-2 will wipe the floor with it. And some of the Nikon cameras, for example the D610 or even the D810, won't always AF as well as a K-3 or K-1 in low-light, even though they may have more AF points and better AF tracking algorithms. In those cases, it's Nikon or Canon who may in fact have some catching up to do with Pentax. So not all Canon's or Nikon's have better AF than Pentax all the time and under all usage scenarios [and with all lenses].

A better way to express your point may be to say that Pentax AF needs to catch up with 'comparable' Canon's and Nikon's (whatever they may be). No point in dissing the AF of a camera like the K-1, for example, for not performing like a D5 or a 1Dx.

[beholder3]

The Canon 6D AF is primitive, for example, and the K-3 or even KS-2 will wipe the floor with it.

A better way to express your point may be to say that Pentax AF needs to catch up with 'comparable' Canon's and Nikon's (whatever they may be).

The first and foremost attribute to any product on the world which defines to which others it can be compared fairly is: price / budget.

Canon is only selling a single FF camera which today is in the same price range as the K-1: The 6D.
So you can try to compare it.
And probably will find out that Canon has to do some catching up here.

The only technical competitor 5DSR is priced at $3,600, that is a whopping +100% price and as such a wholly different product range.

[Dan Rentea]

Such statements always need to be qualified.

The Canon 6D AF is primitive, for example, and the K-3 or even KS-2 will wipe the floor with it.

Quite primitive the Canon 6D af... really? These are images taken with 6D. And I have a lot of them. I had K-3 II and it's not close to 6D's af in terms of tracking. However, it's much better built than 6D and has more fps, but the af is slower.




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.

[RockvilleBob]

I don't expect them to ever catch up with Canon or Nikon unless AF technology matures (as in no more improvements possible). Doesn't mean it isn't a lot better than it used to be.

I think it is just being myopic - perhaps the solution is as simple as more focus points and a fast enough AF processor running existing Pentax AF software - I don't think is secret sauce. My guess it is not a big investment in engineering just a commitment to improve in this area. It seems Pentax is now putting in faster focus motors in lenses - at last - while the 300 is a very good lens optically the focus motor is way way too slow. Based on reviews and posts the new lenses use much faster motors than the 300 - not as fast as Canon and Nikon but pretty close. Pentax may not need as many focus points as the D500 but 50 would still put the number behind Canon and Nikon but on a par with today's standards. Using a faster processor - say 85% of Canon and Nikon speed coupled with the same existing Pentax AF software and 50 focus points would probably make AF performance very close to top notch. It seems it may almost be a matter of pride to be known for poorer AF performance.

[creizi]

I don't know about others, but I am shooting next to Dan with his Canon 6D (and I do this a lot) and while in most cases in BIF hard conditions he gets the focus tack sharp, I have to invoke the gods of Pentax, Ricoh and others. While I work 20 images for a good catch, his rate is much more higher. And I am not saying this because he is my friend, this is the simple reality. Otherwise, for static subjects? Pentax is awesome and I will never blink an eye in choosing it against Canon or Nikon.

LaterEdit: And yes, as RockvilleBob says, 300 is a darn impressive lens but the motor is slow. It simply misses that beat.

[Kunzite]

The first image is nothing special, strictly from an AF point of view. The second one is more challenging, but then my experience is with the K-5IIs and its older SAFOX X.
Bot now I have a K-1, and perhaps if Dan and creizi will accept we could go together and hone our birding skills.

[rawr]

Technically I don't see how people can say a 11 point AF system covering a small focus area and with a basic 63 zone metering system behind it (like the 6D or similar cameras like the K-5/K-x) is going to provide better tracking than Pentax grade 33 or 27 point AF. The hardware isn't there for it.

The point is often moot anyhow, since I see so many people even with access to AF systems with 33, or 53 points (and above) in their camera shoot single point centre AF, and still claim their system has awesome tracking, even though they have effectively turned off tracking.

Like a lot of of things about cameras, it often boils down to if a photog has confidence in their equipment and brand (Canon, Nikon, whatever), they will get better results, even with simple hardware. If a situation is believed to be real, it will be real in it's consequences.

Plus AF = body and lens (lens motors, lens minimum aperture for AF to work etc). The whole supporting cast.

[Dan Rentea]

Technically I don't see how people can say a 11 point AF system covering a small focus area and with a basic 63 zone metering system behind it (like the 6D or similar cameras like the K-5/K-x) is going to provide better tracking than Pentax grade 33 or 27 point AF. The hardware isn't there for it.

Keep in mind that Canon 7D (the old version) has only 19 af points and is still better than K-3 II in terms of tracking. I don't know how good and fast and precise is the K1 af, but I can shoot all day long side by side with any K-3 II or K-S 2 and I can guarantee you that at the end of the day you would realise that the hardware is there for the 6D.

The point is often moot anyhow, since I see so many people even with access to AF systems with 33, or 53 points (and above) in their camera shoot single point centre AF, and still claim their system has awesome tracking, even though they have effectively turned off tracking.

Like a lot of of things about cameras, it often boils down to if a photog has confidence in their equipment and brand (Canon, Nikon, whatever), they will get better results, even with simple hardware. If a situation is believed to be real, it will be real in it's consequences.

Single point or all af points activated, doesn't matter. The important thing is to go home with good pictures.

I've tested pretty hard the af from both cameras (K-3 II and 6D) and I have more confidence in shooting with 6D when comes to BIF, despite the slower fps (6D has only 4.4 fps). It locks the focus faster and it hold it on the subject quite well. My problem with 6D is his slower fps. If the 6D Mark II will have 7 fps and at least 20 af points at a 1.600$ range price, then I think Canon will take my money again.

On topic. Tony Northrup it's obvious in love with Canon and anyone can identify that in his reviews. I saw a single review on Youtube about K-1 which I found to be interesting and quite accurate. It's the one from TheCameraStoreTV.

[Kunzite]

Very few Pentaxians have fast focusing lenses (and that shouldn't be measured as end-to-end travel with the lens cap on, but as fast, precise locking on target. The old screw drive system will not cope with that if it needs microcorrections). Even fewer Romanians have such lenses, even though at least one D FA* 70-200 was sold here (and a few of those modified Tamrons).
So it's a DA* 300mm f/4, with it's inadequate SDM micromotor, at best.

[Dan Rentea]

Very few Pentaxians have fast focusing lenses (and that shouldn't be measured as end-to-end travel with the lens cap on, but as fast, precise locking on target. The old screw drive system will not cope with that if it needs microcorrections). Even fewer Romanians have such lenses, even though at least one D FA* 70-200 was sold here (and a few of those modified Tamrons).
So it's a DA* 300mm f/4, with it's inadequate SDM micromotor, at best.

I'm aware that lenses are an important factor when comes to tracking, but I have quite good results with a Tamron 70-300mm (which is a 400$ lens). The only reason I don't buy one is because is to short for BIF and because I also have the 70-200mmL lens. And there is another reason, it's quite cheap to rent telephoto lenses (15-20$ per day). You know that in Romania there is no chance to rent Pentax lenses, unfortunately.

Here is a crop from an image taken with Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD. It's from a series of 6 images, all in focus. And again, this kind of images are more than easy to shoot, even if the bird is coming toward me.

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.


windows 7 screen shot

[starbase218]

He actually created another video to address the feedback he got:

You Tube

You Tube

---------- Post added 06-28-2016 at 11:11 AM ----------

Technically I don't see how people can say a 11 point AF system covering a small focus area and with a basic 63 zone metering system behind it (like the 6D or similar cameras like the K-5/K-x) is going to provide better tracking than Pentax grade 33 or 27 point AF. The hardware isn't there for it.

I don't see it either, but I do see that some other aspects might also be relevant, like in-lens stabilization (which stabilizes the image that the AF sees).

The point is often moot anyhow, since I see so many people even with access to AF systems with 33, or 53 points (and above) in their camera shoot single point centre AF, and still claim their system has awesome tracking, even though they have effectively turned off tracking.

Are you serious? I use center point AF on my K-3 for 80% of my shots too. When I have a moving subject, I switch the camera to tracking. So yes, in the first case I turned of tracking because I wouldn't need it anyway, and my results will be more reliable without the possibility of tracking getting in the way. In the second case I do need it, as I probably wouldn't get any usable results without it.

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?

Like a lot of of things about cameras, it often boils down to if a photog has confidence in their equipment and brand (Canon, Nikon, whatever), they will get better results, even with simple hardware. If a situation is believed to be real, it will be real in it's consequences.

Confidence is important of course, but what if you have tried everything and still can't get the shots you want? Of course, you may be able to work around the problem by, for example, using CIF. But other times, you may not be able to do so. I tried shooting an ice hockey game a while ago. The action is fast and unpredictable, and there's absolutely no way CIF can help you out there.

[Dan Rentea]

I don't see it either, but I do see that some other aspects might also be relevant, like in-lens stabilization (which stabilizes the image that the AF sees).

I'm not sure about what type of shooting you refer to when you implied the in-lens stabilisation into discution, but I want to make only one comment about this. If I need a shutter speed faster than 1/500s (which I always need when I'm shooting BIF) I turn off the in-lens stabilisation. It's useless when you shoot fast action and you need 1/1600 or higher shutter speed.

[starbase218]

I'm not sure about what type of shooting you refer to when you implied the in-lens stabilisation into discution, but I want to make only one comment about this. If I need a shutter speed faster than 1/500s (which I always need when I'm shooting BIF) I turn off the in-lens stabilisation. It's useless when you shoot fast action and you need 1/1600 or higher shutter speed.

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.

[Kunzite]

Hmm... Tony is basically excusing his sloppiness and defend his claims. He's even purposely selecting the worst comments to, erm, comment on. Nothing to see there...

[starbase218]

Hmm... Tony is basically excusing his sloppiness and defend his claims. He's even purposely selecting the worst comments to, erm, comment on. Nothing to see there...

Then, that's your interpretation/opinion.