Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-27-2013, 04:38 PM   #46
Site Supporter
JimJohnson's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Lake Superior - Michigan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,165
JinDesu and john5100 - your examples have subjects moving laterally to the lens, rather than straight at or away from the lens. This allows for panning to compensate for the motion, which is the primary tool used to avoid blurr rather than auto-focus. Don't feel bad, many of the other examples in this thread make the same mistake.
Stickl - your wedding example is also largely lateral movement. Your snowmobile shots are at f/8, meaning the depth of field will cover a lot of potential auto-focus sins.

Note that I am not saying you don't have some great photos. They are excellent, but none in my opinion definitively prove your claims about Pentax's auto-focus capability. Please don't take my comments as bashing Pentax. Far from it. I have no complaints about Pentax's auto-focus. Predictive auto-focus for a subject moving directly toward or away from the lens has to be the toughest challenge. I suspect every current camera system will be good in some circumstances and poor in other circumstances.

02-27-2013, 04:38 PM   #47
Junior Member




Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 38
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Meanwhile in another thread

From a guy using both a K-5 and a K5- IIs


Which would mean it's quite possible the above opinion is out of date.
The K-5 ii is much better in low light, but the overall AF in regular light is still the same.
02-27-2013, 07:03 PM   #48
Veteran Member
FrancisK7's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Montreal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 474
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Which would mean it's quite possible the above opinion is out of date.
Possibly, but it still doesn't change the fact that AF points with Pentax are as big as a house and in no way represent the range of what we have in the viewfinder. Not to mention the perpetual hunting in lowlight, but I haven't played around with a K5-II yet so maybe it has improved.

Post D800-AF fix, I can say without a shadow of a doubt that I would never use a K5 again in lowlight if given the choice to use a D800 instead. I still use my K5 for weddings for exterior ceremony or daylight shots, but for interior ceremonies or darkly lit venues, the Pentax AF still has a lot of work to do to catch up in that department.

Thankfully the K5's ISO performance is stellar so even if you have to shoot at ISO3200 to get decent shutter speeds inside (like the after party if we stay in the wedding theme) it still makes it a viable option.

But the opinion that the Pentax AF may now be as reliable as the Nikon or Canon (in the II model of the K5) surely is wishful thinking.
02-27-2013, 07:29 PM   #49
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,781
"Don't call me Shirley"

QuoteQuote:
But the opinion that the Pentax AF may now be as reliable as the Nikon or Canon (in the II model of the K5) surely is wishful thinking.
Waiting for someone who had a a K-5 II and a fast focussing Canon or Nikon to jump in here and tell us what they think. I'm not thinking it will be on par, but they have closed the gap. The only question is how much.

I'm waiting for the same comparison with low light.

Like you I'm expecting to here the same old same old, but Pentax has put some R&D dollars into trying to catch up. I'd like to know what they got for their money. According to the numbers the K-5 II is now ahead in low light focusing capacity. I just haven't heard anyone in a position to try the new system out in the real world say anything, negative or positive.

02-27-2013, 07:38 PM   #50
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,497
Totally OT - RE: the wedding shot - why does the young man have that look on his face? She's lovely!!

What a capture!!
02-27-2013, 07:53 PM   #51
Junior Member




Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 38
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by JinDesu Quote
You don't quite understand, the combination I was using is like throwing a ball at the side of a barn... a mile away! Yeah, I wouldn't suggest using a Tamron 70-200 for sports over a Sigma. But I know that there are many k-5 users who use the Sigma 70-200 or the DA*60-250 to do sports and have done well to catch action. The DA*50-135 isn't as good for action.
Not your shot, I was referring to Stickl's shots
02-27-2013, 07:55 PM   #52
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,781
QuoteOriginally posted by JimJohnson Quote
Note that I am not saying you don't have some great photos. They are excellent, but none in my opinion definitively prove your claims about Pentax's auto-focus capability. Please don't take my comments as bashing Pentax. Far from it. I have no complaints about Pentax's auto-focus. Predictive auto-focus for a subject moving directly toward or away from the lens has to be the toughest challenge. I suspect every current camera system will be good in some circumstances and poor in other circumstances.
You really need to quit talking and post some photos. I can't believe a photographer would describe what he's talking about in words, when apparently you have so many great images that illustrate exactly what you're talking about. Criticizing what's wrong is pretty pointless if you can't post an example of what's right. Once that's done I'm sure someone can find an example that will meet your criteria.
02-27-2013, 07:57 PM   #53
Junior Member




Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 38
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by JinDesu Quote
You don't quite understand, the combination I was using is like throwing a ball at the side of a barn... a mile away! Yeah, I wouldn't suggest using a Tamron 70-200 for sports over a Sigma. But I know that there are many k-5 users who use the Sigma 70-200 or the DA*60-250 to do sports and have done well to catch action. The DA*50-135 isn't as good for action.
Actually, looking at the shot again, the focus looks to be on the far right wing tip

02-27-2013, 08:05 PM   #54
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,781
QuoteOriginally posted by TimonW Quote
Actually, looking at the shot again, the focus looks to be on the far right wing tip
The fact that you can pick apart images made with Pentax equipment, doesn't in anyway prove that the person who posted the image ( or the critic) could do better with Nikon or Canon equipment.

You're not doing what you think your doing, and what you're doing is pretty much worthless. When you nail a shot you nail a shot. If you're trying to argue that you can't nail a certain type of shot with Pentax equipment, fine, but you really can't prove a negative. You can have 10 guys standing there shooting and 9 of them can miss the shot and 1 guy can nail it. And the guy could conceivably be using Pentax equipment. And the other nine could be Nikon or Canon users. That wouldn't prove anything. Just like this kind of sitting and nit-picking at others images doesn't prove anything.

Theres some guy on here saying he has to nail every shot or he's not a photographer. Well then, by his own definition he's not a photographer. Nobody nails every shot in action sequences. At least not anyone I've ever worked with. Show me I'm wrong.
02-27-2013, 09:55 PM   #55
Junior Member




Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 38
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The fact that you can pick apart images made with Pentax equipment, doesn't in anyway prove that the person who posted the image ( or the critic) could do better with Nikon or Canon equipment.

You're not doing what you think your doing, and what you're doing is pretty much worthless. When you nail a shot you nail a shot. If you're trying to argue that you can't nail a certain type of shot with Pentax equipment, fine, but you really can't prove a negative. You can have 10 guys standing there shooting and 9 of them can miss the shot and 1 guy can nail it. And the guy could conceivably be using Pentax equipment. And the other nine could be Nikon or Canon users. That wouldn't prove anything. Just like this kind of sitting and nit-picking at others images doesn't prove anything.

Theres some guy on here saying he has to nail every shot or he's not a photographer. Well then, by his own definition he's not a photographer. Nobody nails every shot in action sequences. At least not anyone I've ever worked with. Show me I'm wrong.
Sorry, I'm not criticizing the shot or the photographer. My comment was meant to say in dry humor that with Pentax, I've observed that even when you hit a moving object you have to stop down so far, at that point, there's no clear point of focus...and to respond to his comment that it takes such precision to hit a bird in flight at f/5.6. Maybe on Pentax it does. My point is, maybe Pentax shooters just don't know what they're missing.

Ok, let's step away from the wedding photography debate and talk normal everyday photography.

Below are two shots...

1. This was a shot with a Canon at F/2.8 with a "slow" Sigma 180 2.8 macro, a slow focusing lens by Canon standards. Not saying more accurate than Pentax, but it seems that the lower standards from some of these comments seem to suggest that maybe it is a lot slower and the expectations are low.



2. Peacock dashing full speed ahead (all 5 shots in this sequence were as sharp or sharper than this (zero post processing, SOC, sharpening at 0)


But I would beg to differ on your last comment- professional photographers are PAID to nail every shot, I think it makes you more of a photographer if you have higher standards for yourself and your clients. I'm not creating an artificial standard- You miss a key moment, and that's a lawsuit or you don't get paid. Thus the need to have high performing gear.
Attached Images
   

Last edited by TimonW; 02-27-2013 at 10:02 PM.
02-27-2013, 10:37 PM   #56
Pentaxian
JinDesu's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,624
QuoteOriginally posted by TimonW Quote
Sorry, I'm not criticizing the shot or the photographer. My comment was meant to say in dry humor that with Pentax, I've observed that even when you hit a moving object you have to stop down so far, at that point, there's no clear point of focus...and to respond to his comment that it takes such precision to hit a bird in flight at f/5.6. Maybe on Pentax it does. My point is, maybe Pentax shooters just don't know what they're missing.
Let's be clear - I was making a joke about how even my k-x with it's 4 year old AF, entry level system, on the slow focusing (and jittery) Tamron 70-200, caught the bird flying in the air.
02-27-2013, 10:44 PM   #57
Junior Member




Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 38
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by JinDesu Quote
Let's be clear - I was making a joke about how even my k-x with it's 4 year old AF, entry level system, on the slow focusing (and jittery) Tamron 70-200, caught the bird flying in the air.
Gotcha. Went over my head a little. Sorry, I get it now =) Could it be that AF hasn't really improved past your K-x since?
02-27-2013, 10:56 PM   #58
Pentaxian
JinDesu's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,624
QuoteOriginally posted by TimonW Quote
Gotcha. Went over my head a little. Sorry, I get it now =) Could it be that AF hasn't really improved past your K-x since?
Unlikely, because many k-5 users tout their AF over their older k-x. And the k-5II is supposed to be even better in low-light, which is where I know my k-x suffers. It may not be 7D/D4 good, but the k-5 isn't bad.

This is discounting the people who have had k-5 with the tungsten AF issue though.
02-28-2013, 02:37 AM   #59
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: outer eastern melbourne, australia
Posts: 357
I've been able to shoot Australian Rules Footy - which is arguably one of the more unpredictable sports in terms of ball movement, and undoubtedly one of the biggest playing fields -with both my K10 and more recently my K5. AF-C isn't great to say the least, especially on the '10, so I'm often looking for work-arounds. I probably shoot more in AF-S, tbh, but thats as much because it's difficult to keep the focus point on the desired player as much as irregular predictive patterns from the AF system. In any event, I can get results that many people tell me are excellent. Including AFL club websites:




I bought a 7D as well, used it for a while, decided it's much-vaunted AF system wasn't offering a huge step up relative to the K5, and so i sold it. Had i had a tonne of Canon glass, the decision would have been reversed. But I love the dynamic range and colors of the Pentax, so maybe the Canon was always doomed.

My biggest gripe is the scarcity of long, fast glass for sporting use. Sigma is our saviour, but even they won't mount their 120-300 2.8 in Pentax. So i use the 70-200, and the 150-500mm. Then use the 5's ISO ability to make the long siggy work. Something the 7D couldn't do.......


swings and roundabouts, boys and girls, i'm afraid, unless funds are unlimited. The pro's use Nikon and Canon for sports for several reasons. but unless you can afford the specific models, everything else will require a compromise somewhere along the line. My photography of sports is good or bad because i'm good or bad. I've stopped worrying about the camera arms race.

Last edited by saladin; 02-28-2013 at 02:46 AM.
03-02-2013, 09:10 PM   #60
Senior Member
CRPhoto's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Jose, Costa Rica
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 254
I wouldn't say it's bad for moving objects. I think it's just fine. No complains.

Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
a99, af, camera, canon, dslr, lenses, nikon, pentax, photography, sony, subject, system
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K7 High ISO is really that bad? minahasa Pentax DSLR Discussion 27 01-16-2013 07:16 PM
Is the DA 18-135 really that bad? Rich7333 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 22 09-17-2012 10:18 AM
Pentax cont. AF really that bad for kids sports? gti5notrkt Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 33 09-06-2012 05:10 PM
Is the SDM failure rate really that bad coreyhkh Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 108 07-21-2012 07:33 PM
K-5, what focus mode for moving objects? mikknu Pentax K-5 41 04-09-2012 06:41 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:44 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top