[richandfleur]

Good luck to all involved in the Masters Games, be that competing or capturing

[MarkJerling]

Good luck to all involved in the Masters Games, be that competing or capturing

I know a few competitors. Are you going to be there Richard?

[richandfleur]

I know a few competitors. Are you going to be there Richard?

No, but two work colleagues are heading over this week, one swimming and one sailing.

Exciting to think of event photography, and the change to implement some artistic options as well.
You've got zoom lens action shots, group / individual portraits/wide shots, closeup detail shots of equipment (think swimming goggles resting on something etc)
And then you can apply some artistic options, such as photographing the crowd cheering on, or competitors through a gap in the crowds arms etc.

I'd encourage all to remember to have fun

[Kiwizinho]

The 11-18 looks like a very nice lens, but I am going to have to save for it. Given the US listed prices it will be around NZD $2,500 here, which is enough for a lens.

The 11-18 is definitely on my wish list, although I'll have to settle for the 10-20 Sigma I picked up recently. The funny thing about such a wide lens I've found is that I potentially need to use it on a tripod a lot more than I imagined - not to avoid camera shake, but to avoid getting my own shadow in the image if I'm out around 'golden hour'.

The ultra-wide perspective makes you have to think a bit about where to position yourself to not end up with masses of sky, and I've found typically I want it fairly close to the ground.
When it works though, it can be spectacular.

The 10-20 I have is fairly slow, so it's not likely to be much good for astrophotography, but the 11-18 should be fast enough wide open at the wide end.

I reckon most real estate photographers must have 10-20s or equivalent on full frame, as it's perfect for making a pocket handkerchief of lawn look like a lifestyle block.

[richandfleur]

The ultra-wide perspective makes you have to think a bit about where to position yourself to not end up with masses of sky, and I've found typically I want it fairly close to the ground.
When it works though, it can be spectacular.

Agree, it's very easy to end up with a whole lot of nothing when shooting ultrawide.
Agree re FF for real estate photography, as it's quite hard to go wide and linear on APS-C without a lot of post work stitching etc.
Swings and roundabouts though, as it get's very expensive to go long on FF, especially fast and long together.

[Class A]

Since the start of time Pentax has been behind in it's autofocus abilities, and it's been a continued negative area in reviews.

Not in all reviews, though.

There is a site that harps more on the matter than any other. In many other reviews AF-C performance is mentioned "not being a strength" but the camera is not defined by that "weakness".

I had wondered if this was due to the retention of the mechanical screwdrive interface causing process delays.

I don't think so.

Otherwise, AF performance could be impeccable on all accounts with lenses that have in-lens motors.

Potentially, the priorities set by Pentax engineers resulted in the lenses to not receive sufficiently powerful in-lens motors but I don't think that is the real reason as it shouldn't require exceptional power to move the focus group of a lens sufficiently quickly to track a bicyclist.

I'm assuming that Pentax DSLRs lack both the computational power and the advanced AF algorithms to compete at the highest level. I'm assuming that the (Milbeaut) processor models used in Pentax DSLRs are not performant enough to support excellent AF-C and that they are chosen for their price. I haven't checked the respective catalogue of Socionext (producing the processors) and other respective manufacturers to see whether my hypothesis has a leg to stand on but that would be my first guess.

Furthermore, developing good tracking algorithms takes time and Pentax never appears to have the luxury of a budget that seems to allow for such activities. Ricoh once proclaimed that they want to significantly improve AF so let's see if they ever make good on that promise.

Luckily, personally I don't depend on excellent AF-C.

Funny how in practise though, Pentax is often more consistently accurate than other brands (just takes a little longer to get there)

Even in formal tests (e.g. by ColorFoto) Pentax AF has been shown to be more accurate than the AF by Canon, for instance.

DVReview (it's "V" not "P" because they are so obsessed with video) never acknowledges that because they don't have the procedures in place that would be able to ascertain such differences.

Mirrorless seems to take the lead in tracking autofocus now, including face tracking and eye tracking, which personally really appeals to me.

Yes, I could image eye AF to be really helpful.

However, note that the ability to track features does not imply that they will be in focus once you take the shot.

The new Panasonic S1 cameras excel in drawing boxes around subjects, but their DFD AF approach does not guarantee that whatever is in the box will be in focus in the captured image (or during video).

I don't have any personal experience with Sony's eye-AF so while I'd assume it works really well, I wouldn't just take DVReview's word on it, for instance.

Sensors can cover most of the field of view too, so focusing/tracking is not limited to just the middle region of the frame.

Yes, that is convenient, but I think the K-1's sensors for instance are not just "in the middle region" and a little recompose using one of the outer sensors won't through the subject out of focus. I acknowledge,though, that sometimes recomposing is not an option. Just flick the K-1 (II) into APS-C mode and see all of the frame covered with AF sensors.

I'm not trying to be an apologist for Pentax, just trying to put some deficiencies into perspective.

Sure, if wide coverage would be possible, it could often be useful, but I wouldn't want to trade the limited coverage of the K-1 in for the striping and banding issues of (some) OSPDAF systems.

The K-70 has these on sensor AF points, and I don't recall any reports of banding on this?

I guess it just hasn't been pushed to such limits.

Also, artefacts depend on the actual OSPDAF technology being used. For instance Canon's dual-pixel technology is not susceptible to striping, AFAIK.

Where ibis was once a Pentax strength, it's now included in most cameras.

It is included in many mirrorless cameras (Canon being the notable exception).

However, in the DSLR world (yes, it still exists! ) Pentax is still unique.

I accept that some people don't care about the DSLR vs MILC distinction but I think some do because of the implications on viewfinder quality, battery life, price, IQ, etc.

Pentax is often quoted as being a good landscape choice, but typically when I shoot landscape I use liveview, a tripod and manual focus digital zoom/focus peaking to confirm focus.
None of this requires an optical viewfinder.

Fair point.

I guess the K-1 (II) is regarded as a good landscape camera due to its high resolution sensor with excellent dynamic range that offers one of the best Pixel Shift implementations available, its rugged weather-sealed construction and its attractive price. I don't think the viewfinder technology plays into this particular recommendation at all. Although, having said that, if viewfinder-based composition is feasible, the K-1 (II) should reward one with much better battery life than any MILC can offer when there are extended periods of composition, waiting for birds to fly into frame, etc.

[Class A]

I don't disagree at all - just landscapes, cityscapes and travel are my primary uses for a stills camera, with landscapes being number one, hence the comment regarding this.

Thanks a lot for taking my slightly provocative intro with the spirit it was meant to be received.

Your initial statement (without further context) just played too much in the common narrative of the K-1 (II) only being good for landscape photography that I had to write an irate protest note.

...couldn't help myself looking and reading about the Panasonic S1 announcement

Same here.

The L-mount is certainly interesting. Imagine the option to use Sigma, Panasonic, and Leica(!) glass natively. The last option quickly turns out to be a burst bubble for every non- dentist, lawyer, airline pilot once you look at the Leica glass prices but the initial thought is exciting.

Thank you for all the comments so far - I have found them very useful in testing my thinking and reasoning on this subject.

If you included me in this, then I say "Thanks!".

Great community here in this thread!

[Class A]

Not only that but the adapter could have an inbuilt helicoid AF structure to auto focus the old Taks etc.

I think you'll have to build this yourself.

Pentax has been very good with respect to backward-compatibility, but there are signs that they don't want to overdo the support for old lenses (e.g., not offering a camera that has a mechanism to read the aperture setting on old lenses).

FWIW, Nikon and Canon offer AF-capable adapters and some have interesting extras like a filter drop-in feature for ND or polariser filters, for instance. Quite a clever idea, I think.

I just hope, though, that Ricoh will continue to offer DSLRs for various reasons, one of them being that using adapters sounds a lot better in theory than it is in practice unless you buy one for each lens you want to adapt.

[Class A]

The 10-20 I have is fairly slow, so it's not likely to be much good for astrophotography, but the 11-18 should be fast enough wide open at the wide end.

There is an f/3.5 sibling to the 10-20 you have which would be just about 2/3 stops slower than the 11-18.
I'd expect the 11-18 to be optically even better, though, which it should be at its price point.

I reckon most real estate photographers must have 10-20s or equivalent on full frame, as it's perfect for making a pocket handkerchief of lawn look like a lifestyle block.

Transit's 8-16 turns them into rugby paddocks.

[Class A]

Swings and roundabouts though, as it get's very expensive to go long on FF, especially fast and long together.

Getting fast and long with the K-1 II is not any more expensive (or slower) than it is with a K-5 (II). You'd just crop to APS-C format (in-camera with viewfinder support, if you like) and you'd get the very same images.

Only the K-3 (and other 24 MP options) would give you more "reach" by virtue of more cropping power (provided the lens can take it).

[NZ_Ross]

The new Panasonic S1 cameras excel in drawing boxes around subjects, but their DFD AF approach does not guarantee that whatever is in the box will be in focus in the captured image (or during video).

I don't have any personal experience with Sony's eye-AF so while I'd assume it works really well, I wouldn't just take DVReviews word on it, for instance.

I have read a number of opinions that suggest Sony's eye-AF works very well and is very good.

I did a lot of reading over the weekend on the Sony/Nikon approach of on-sensor phase and contrast detect (which can produce banding) and Panasonics DFD AF approach. We will know for sure in a couple of years which of these approaches is a technological dead end.

My base assumption is that the huge advances in the next few years are going to be in computational algorithms - these is where the phone camera R&D is going, and on that basis the Panasonic DFD AF approach, which is empowered by machine learning algorithms might come out as the best long term solution. It is certainly going to be interesting to watch how it develops.

---------- Post added 05-02-19 at 10:07 PM ----------

Thanks a lot for taking my slightly provocative intro with the spirit it was meant to be received.

Your initial statement (without further context) just played too much in the common narrative of the K-1 (II) only being good for landscape photography that I had to write an irate protest note.

That is all good. I have enough Pentax gear, and interest to know the strengths and weaknesses, just not a K1 yet

---------- Post added 05-02-19 at 10:12 PM ----------

The L-mount is certainly interesting. Imagine the option to use Sigma, Panasonic, and Leica(!) glass natively. The last option quickly turns out to be a burst bubble for every non- dentist, lawyer, airline pilot once you look at the Leica glass prices but the initial thought is exciting.

I am so pleased you didn't add Engineering Consultant to that list.

For the L-mount you can also mount manual focus Pentax glass, Leica R and M mount via adaptors currently available then it is certainly an interesting mount system from my point of view. It seems there is a lot of potential there

---------- Post added 05-02-19 at 10:13 PM ----------

If you included me in this, then I say "Thanks!".

Great community here in this thread!

Definitely. The replies from everyone have been really helpful.

Yes, we do have a great community here in this thread.

[MarkJerling]

That is all good. I have enough Pentax gear, and interest to know the strengths and weaknesses, just not a K1 yet.

You'll have to have a play with mine when you're up here again!

[NZ_Ross]

You'll have to have a play with mine when you're up here again!

Thank you for the very kind offer

[krebss]

So the excitement of receiving the FA 20mm dropped a bit when I looked inside the lens.

It's not nearly as bad as it looks like on the photo but wish it wasn't there.

Would someone know what it is and if it's easily cleanable? I've searched a bit and can't find anything quite like that.

It seems too regular and evenly spread to be dust or fungus. It doesn't look like basalm separation from what I found on the net.

It seems to be on the second element from the back.

The few photos I've taken so far don't seem to be affected.

Thanks

[sqrrl]

I have a sigma 18-35 ff lens with an internal lens that looks a bit like that - in my case (having looked at it with a high magnification) I think it's oil.