[UlrichSchiegg]

I don't quite understand the point. I don't think there is a major difference between how the KP or the K-3/3 operate. The K-3/3 just has lot more responsiveness, precision, speed and hit rate. The zone settings where the AF automatically choses wasen't particularily useful for the KP and isn't for the K-3/3 to my oppinion. The expanded area mode works excellent. And when looking at the select points on the KP or older models you need to simply consider how sparse the old sensor distribution was and how dense it is with the K-3/3. Key element is that you can keep your subject around where your expanded zone is, if you can not keep it, increase the expanded area size. For soccer I used to use the 9point zone for the KP, for the K-3/3 the small expanded area does well.

Overall it is stil what clackers said. Don't look for what you want to focus on, look for close by contrast lines. Contrast detection first, then pattern detection. The hit rate with the K-3/3 is tremendous. Still don't know what to do with all those keeper images when I get home. They need to be processed.

[normhead]

Still don't know what to do with all those keeper images when I get home. They need to be processed.

Exactly why I thought 10 FPS would be good. Even 8 can produce a slew of repetitive images.

[dicki]

I like to try it.
But the AF-C spot can only use when objects come up to me. Not by the side.

I think ist will be work with more points, maybe. And maybe the "jumping points" are when the automatik focus is "ON" if the AF will lose the Objekt.

[simonjarman]

I've been swapping between AFS and AFC a bit with field hockey and I cant say which I prefer honestly, it really depends on my positioning more than anything because if the action is going across my frame I find the AFS easier as I can keep the focus spot on the player I want in focus, or if i'm feeling brave, on the ball after moving the spot. Whereas with AFC its definitely much better if the action is coming towards me.

Attached Images

     

[loyalt]

Glad to be of help, Snappyhoffy!

That is a fundamental technique which will work for any camera with AF-C, including models like the K-70 and K-30, etc that don't have an AE sensor that can track for the AF system.

I use it all the time, and with a camera that does have tracking like the K-1, I'm really doing the same thing. Expanded focus from the centre point (which is the best point, a cross point capable of using horizontal or vertical lines, and rated to f2.8) with back button like you.

I think back button liberates your mind - you know that you can never make the mistake in the heat of the moment and release the shutter button too far and lose that halfway position lock on focus and have to reacquire partly through a sequence. All movements you make are deliberate and decisive.

Clackers, I am a professional sports photographer(high schools/colleges/universities/track websites) and really appreciate your advice! I have never used the back button. Would you mind explaining how you set it up and exactly when and how you use it in sports' photography, please? Thank you!

[kkoether]

Clackers, I am a professional sports photographer(high schools/colleges/universities/track websites) and really appreciate your advice! I have never used the back button. Would you mind explaining how you set it up and exactly when and how you use it in sports' photography, please? Thank you!

I like the back button AF. when I put my camera up to shoot my right thumb automatically pushes the BB AF. That way my camera is continuously focusing on the moving subject. All the shutter button does for me is take the picture. I find it works quite well with any moving subjects.

[Larrymc]

I like the back button AF. when I put my camera up to shoot my right thumb automatically pushes the BB AF. That way my camera is continuously focusing on the moving subject. All the shutter button does for me is take the picture. I find it works quite well with any moving subjects.

Same here, Pentax has done a great job with the K-3 series ergonomics!

[clackers]

Clackers, I am a professional sports photographer(high schools/colleges/universities/track websites) and really appreciate your advice! I have never used the back button. Would you mind explaining how you set it up and exactly when and how you use it in sports' photography, please? Thank you!

I actually did a Beginners' Tip on that very subject, Loyalt!

Clackers' Beginners Tip 26: Back Button Focus - PentaxForums.com

[ThorSanchez]

Next weekend, as usual, my boys have a number of travel soccer matches. But I've rented the Pentax HD D Fa 70-200mm f/2.8 Ed DC AW to try out. I'm a dedicated 55-300 PLM guy, but just have to try out the professional grade beast.


Anyone have any suggestions beyond what I normally do with the K-3 Mark III and the PLM?

[UlrichSchiegg]

Next weekend, as usual, my boys have a number of travel soccer matches. But I've rented the Pentax HD D Fa 70-200mm f/2.8 Ed DC AW to try out. I'm a dedicated 55-300 PLM guy, but just have to try out the professional grade beast.


Anyone have any suggestions beyond what I normally do with the K-3 Mark III and the PLM?

I don't know what you normally do, so no suggestion here.

You will love the 70-200 2.8, I bet. The max aperture opening makes a big difference to the AF. If you remove the tripod mount, it is also not too heavy.

[ThorSanchez]

Just received the rental last evening. Didn't have a chance to do much besides some test shots around the house. It's nice, after autofocus micro adjust seems sharp, but it's a big beast. It has to be four times the weight of any of my current lenses. Will definitely be using a monopod with it.

Autofocus feels a tick slower than the 55-300 PLM, but in Pentax world what isn't?

Unfortunately they're calling for tropical storm weather Saturday, so one soccer game will either be called off or played in a torrential downpour. So that's probably a missed opportunity with the 70-200. I don't want to risk the Mark III, and even though the lens is a rental I probably don't want to drive it like I stole it.

[ThorSanchez]

I just finished my extended time with the 70-200 f/2.8 from Lensrentals. After the first weekend being a total washout from the tropical storm, I began to think I was cursed when Saturday's game ended up as a forfeit after we drove two hours to Leesburg and the home team didn't show up. But our coach had the boys stick around for about 30 minutes of scrimmage and I got some shots there. Then Sunday we had two full games, so I gave the lens a pretty decent workout with my K-3 Mark III.

I'll offer up some mostly subjective observations:

- As should have been expected autofocus is trickier when shooting with the wider apertures of the 70-200 compared to the 55-300 PLM. My keeper rate was lower, as I was trying to really use the lens to its full potential and typically shooting at f/2.8-4.0.

- But even beyond just shallower depth-of-field considerations it sometimes felt less responsive than the PLM. A little hard to describe, but it seemed to hunt a little more, and just plain miss a little more. I had one sequence of a PK where I took a burst of maybe eight shots, all very much out of focus. I don't recall if I was trying to continuously autofocus with that one. Yes, I did do focus microadjust, and ended up with -4, which I think was a good compromise but I also think that wasn't perfect across the zoom range.

- The lens is sharp, but maybe I was expecting too much especially at the wider apertures. Because I really think my copy of the PLM is about as sharp. Maybe I have a great copy of the PLM. But then again, I'm always shooting the PLM at f/5.6+, which you'd expect to be pretty sharp.

- The 70-200 is very hefty, but with a monopod it's definitely manageable. I don't think I could comfortably hand-hold it through a 90 minute soccer match without it getting tiresome.

- The shallow depth of field, when I nailed focus, was nice. I had a number of images that wouldn't have been has nice with the PLM because of the subject separation.

- 70mm on the short end on APS-C is pretty long. When standing near the sidelines there were some frames I didn't get because the players were too close, and I probably would have with the PLM.

- 200mm on the long end isn't a huge deal, but there were times I missed the 300mm from the PLM.

So all in all, I don't think I'm going to be saving my pennies to buy my own 70-200mm. It was certainly nice, but maybe not $1200 more nice.

(Adding a postscript to this: if I'd had a night game to shoot the differences may have swayed things more in favor of the 70-200. I had good light, and in good light a max aperture of 5+ as with the PLM isn't much of a handicap. At night that drives ISO super high, so 2.8 would be very handy.)

[ThorSanchez]

Here are a few samples of where I got it mostly right. It may not be evident at forum sizes, but if you go to 100% on most of these they're not super-sharp. Probably a side effect of trying to shoot wide open or nearly so, and that's just the compromise necessary for that amount of light-gathering and shallow depth-of-field. Maybe this evening when I get home I'll post some examples of 100% crops of the 70-200 vs the 55-300.

[UlrichSchiegg]

Everybody needs to find his own way that works for him. I like that you show images along.

I would make a difference between initial focus, where I agree that the PLM is quicker and more concise. And tracking. For tracking the 70-200 works better for me. I use the 70-200 without the tripod mount and without a monopod/tripod. For the images you show, there was a lot of light, contrast lines, which the PLM needs more than the 70-200. For different light, e.g. an overcast day, the situation can be quite different to my experience.

[Bikepacking_Journey]

I tested recently with Sr panning sport photography of very fast moving large scale cars controlled with a radio signal and 70% of photos were actually blur. Maybe I am doing something wrong. I shoot with shake reduction panning point af-c and shutter between /60 /200