[skyer]

To be honest, I don't see any tack sharpness in the examples the topic starter provided (those photos were shot on Nikon D3s and Canon 5D MkIII).
Actually, I haven't found in the topic any 'Wow!' photos with fast moving objects in terms of continuous AF. Maybe, the first photo in the post #66 is close to "Wow!" but it was shot in MF . Much of the rest have either a large DOF or a side moving object.
I think that it is quite possible that for the TC the Pentax K-5 IIs could act in similar situations just as well as his Canon/Nikon gear.
I guess, the shortage of "Wow!" photos can be explained by the fact that: 1) not many of us own expensive fast lenses; 2) not many of us can use such lenses adequately; 3) maybe the AF of Pentax gear is really not that fast.
The latter is only an assumption. However, frankly speaking, I haven't ever seen anything similar to such photos that were shot by Pentax gear:
http://cs323129.userapi.com/v323129892/6bff/ON6W-BlyWHs.jpg
http://cs323129.userapi.com/v323129892/6f95/90RD9bXjPLc.jpg
OLAF1704_1200 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
and extraordinary 2-nd picture from here - The Autofocus [JuzaPhoto] (however, notice, that the author got 8-10 truly sharp photos out of 600 shots!)

[CRPhoto]

Yet ANOTHER example of the subject moving laterally to the frame with the photographer doing half the work by panning. Again, it isn't that the photographer didn't grab a great shot, but it doesn't address the core topic of this thread.

I think I WILL have to take up Norm's taunt and do some example shots.... The toughest job for optical viewfinder auto-focus is when a subject is coming straight at (or straight away) from the camera lens. By the time the camera focuses and the mirror moves to present the image to the sensor or film, the subject may have moved out of the depth of field.

If you are shooting using the optical viewfinder, the only two reliable ways to counter this are to A- use a greater depth of field or B- to manually pre-focus on a distance and wait until your subject almost gets to that distance.

True. You are right, that's probably not a good example. There's mostly lateral movement on that previous picture. On this one the car is coming towards the camera, even though the car is sideways (it's drifting so it's supposed to be that way) you can see the tires tracks that indicate a corner. This might be a better example that my first pic.

[TimonW]

To be honest, I don't see any tack sharpness in the examples the topic starter provided (those photos were shot on Nikon D3s and Canon 5D MkIII).
Actually, I haven't found in the topic any 'Wow!' photos with fast moving objects in terms of continuous AF. Maybe, the first photo in the post #66 is close to "Wow!" but it was shot in MF . Much of the rest have either a large DOF or a side moving object.
I think that it is quite possible that for the TC the Pentax K-5 IIs could act in similar situations just as well as his Canon/Nikon gear.
I guess, the shortage of "Wow!" photos can be explained by the fact that: 1) not many of us own expensive fast lenses; 2) not many of us can use such lenses adequately; 3) maybe the AF of Pentax gear is really not that fast.
The latter is only an assumption. However, frankly speaking, I haven't ever seen anything similar to such photos that were shot by Pentax gear:
http://cs323129.userapi.com/v323129892/6bff/ON6W-BlyWHs.jpg
http://cs323129.userapi.com/v323129892/6f95/90RD9bXjPLc.jpg
OLAF1704_1200 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
and extraordinary 2-nd picture from here - The Autofocus [JuzaPhoto] (however, notice, that the author got 8-10 truly sharp photos out of 600 shots!)

I don't think the discussion is about tack sharp versus not, as much as hitting the focus or not. Of course a shot at f8 or f16 in broad daylight with a fast shutter is going to be sharper throughout the frame. But that's why fast glass costs money- we all need it for real life situations indoors and with fast moving objects in lower light. There's a difference between a shot missing and a shot being soft in most of the frame, but hitting the eyes. That level of precision is probably what is lacking in the Pentax system.

[TimonW]

True. You are right, that's probably not a good example. There's mostly lateral movement on that previous picture. On this one the car is coming towards the camera, even though the car is sideways (it's drifting so it's supposed to be that way) you can see the tires tracks that indicate a corner. This might be a better example that my first pic.

Definitely works for larger subjects like cars, I think we've established that (great shot by the way). I think to the visual eye, it'll look sharp unless the AF locked onto the road or the landscape behind it. But I'm curious how it would go if you had to focus on the driver's eyes at F/2.8 versus the car as a whole...I think the focus points would be way too big on a k5, right?

I guess this thread really did answer my question- I noticed how few wedding/event photographers are using this system and with the image quality I wondered why. I think it comes down to being able to know exactly what you're going to get and barring user error, be able to rely on your camera to get the money shot. I'm still going to keep my eye on Pentax- the 645D seems to have none of the precision issues(shot a wedding with it), and the k5ii AF seems to at least match Sony AF in low light, so maybe the prospects are looking up!

[Lowell Goudge]

I never thought so, even with the PZ1 and about a 14 generations old AF system I could take this shot

[kkoether]

While these were shot at F11 they are running right toward me. Good thing I trust these two. It can be rather intimidating! I had forgotten about these. Shot with my K200D & DA-L 55-300mm.

[skyer]

I don't think the discussion is about tack sharp versus not... There's a difference between a shot missing and a shot being soft in most of the frame, but hitting the eyes.

Then what is the point of the whole topic? I really don't find 'hitting the eyes' in your examples. In the post #23 it looks like the focus was on the head of a woman in red (but she's not moving). In the post #27 the eys of a woman also don't look that sharp.
I don't say that the AF was inaccurate (maybe the shutter speed was too long) but the main objects simply don't look that sharp. So I supposed that such images could be shot by Pentax gear as well.
When I had a K-5 I had a lot of images like yours with no tack sharpness. It was due to the AF inaccuracy and that was very frustrating! (However, the objects usually didn't move at all ) I just couldn't stand the instability of the AF accuracy.
Now I have a K-5 IIs and it's a whole new story! The AF accuracy has significantly increased! Now it's usually tack sharp where I pointed the AF area.
As for for the low light AF, I don't have any experience with Sony cameras but I'm truly impressed with such abilities of the K-5 IIs! I photographed a birthday recently. At the end of the party there was a scene with people around the cake with a one lighted candle on it. I made 4 or 5 shots. The camera focused reasonably fast and all of the images were sharp! And I was also impressed by the ISO capabilities, some images were shot at 1/30, f2.8, ISO 32000!

[Miguel]

Any chance you could lend those kids to someone with a K-30 or K-5 II? I'm sure they'd be returned in good shape.

LOL!
They are teenagers now, so. . .yes take them please, but their maintenance costs are beyond your cameras, in fact they'll try to talk you out of your cameras too. That's kinda what's happening with my K20D.

M

[skyer]

I never thought so, even with the PZ1 and about a 14 generations old AF system I could take this shot

Oh, come on, what's so special about that shot?! Compare it to the one I posted above - http://cs323129.userapi.com/v323129892/6bff/ON6W-BlyWHs.jpg I don't only mean the composition here but also the AF accuracy on the most important parts of the image.
However, I think that even if my camera also had 50+ focusing points, it would be very very hard to focus just on the eyes.

[Ken T]

[Miguel]

Actually, I haven't found in the topic any 'Wow!' photos with fast moving objects in terms of continuous AF.

If you want to see "WOW" photos taken of moving objects by different camera brands and lenses, then I recommend you get beyond our extremely small sample size here and look at examples from a broader population of shooters. For sports, Sportsshooter.com is worth checking out. Click on any photographer profile and view their work. I believe all were shot with either NIkon or Canon tools. Check the classified and you'll find one Pentax item.

For birds and wildlife, simply go to the Avian gallery or the Editor's Picks of the Nature Photographers Network and randomly click on what looks to be good. Pentax is represented by less than 1% of everyone. That doesn't mean that Pentax makes lousy stuff; it just means that other brands are used more frequently by a broad base of talented shooters who publish there. It's about technical capabilities of the cameras and broader lens choices available so you can get the shot consistently. The brand itself doesn't matter, though there is a strong correlation between brand market presence and support services available.

Most of this is irrelevant for the majority of members here--their requirements (including budget) are simply less severe and a K-5 and a Bigma will bring satisfactory results. But for a handful of others it does matter, and with time and success the path almost inevitably leads to whoever makes the best tools. Personally I wish there were four or five brands to choose from for capturing action as both Nikon and Canon have bothersome constraints in their body and lens lineups.

M

[skyer]

to Ken T:
It's close to what I mean. However, I think it's obvious to you that the shot could be more crisp. I guess there is some motion blur and perhaps some softness because of a not very good lens.

to Miguel:
In general, I agree with you.
Fortunately, I've just found some really good images (crisp with accented focus on main areas) that had been taken by people with Pentax gear. These images contain objects in motion or objects that are known for their fast movement.
Garganey [JuzaPhoto]
Osprey [JuzaPhoto]
Rule [JuzaPhoto]
Female kestrel [JuzaPhoto]
Ermine [JuzaPhoto]
Kingfisher [JuzaPhoto]
Night Heron juv. [JuzaPhoto]

I find that pictures no worse than those from Canon or Nikon. Now I am very glad to comprehend that our gear is capable to deliver similar output. I think that the greater impact some images from Canon/Nikon may have is mostly due to their longer focal length not due to the cameras.

[normhead]

If you want to see "WOW" photos taken of moving objects by different camera brands and lenses, then I recommend you get beyond our extremely small sample size here and look at examples from a broader population of shooters. For sports, Sportsshooter.com is worth checking out. Click on any photographer profile and view their work. I believe all were shot with either NIkon or Canon tools. Check the classified and you'll find one Pentax item.

For birds and wildlife, simply go to the Avian gallery or the Editor's Picks of the Nature Photographers Network and randomly click on what looks to be good. Pentax is represented by less than 1% of everyone. That doesn't mean that Pentax makes lousy stuff; it just means that other brands are used more frequently by a broad base of talented shooters who publish there. It's about technical capabilities of the cameras and broader lens choices available so you can get the shot consistently. The brand itself doesn't matter, though there is a strong correlation between brand market presence and support services available.

Most of this is irrelevant for the majority of members here--their requirements (including budget) are simply less severe and a K-5 and a Bigma will bring satisfactory results. But for a handful of others it does matter, and with time and success the path almost inevitably leads to whoever makes the best tools. Personally I wish there were four or five brands to choose from for capturing action as both Nikon and Canon have bothersome constraints in their body and lens lineups.

M

The problem with this type of logic, is, if you have one brand at 5% market share, and another two at 40, then each of the main two brands should have 8 times the number of images as the smaller company, just by virtue of more shooters. That also means that if there's to be a "best in class" image, they are 8 times as likely to have one of those shots taken with thier camera even if the cameras are exactly the same. A few people said Pentax is not good at predictive focus, and looking at some of my pictures, my dog , moving straight towards me is always at the front of the area in focus, what I haven't seen would be even one image to suggest any other camera is different. The only other mention I've heard of this is sa guy with a K-30 took s few images with the bird in question, coming towards him and some of the in focus DoF was ahead of the bird, indicating predictive tracking. SInce that is what we are talking about, maybe that's what we should focus on, images with narrow DoF in which you can see from teh ground underneath the object where the DoF is. As I said with my K-5 therewas no evidence of predictive focus.

But I only have my own images so I'd like to see some image where there is clearly predictive focus at work.

For example in this image, there was about a 5 foot depth of field, but the dog clearly almost moved out of the DoF before the picture was taken. If the camera really has predictive tracking one third of the DoF should be in front of the Dog, two thirds should be behind him. That would be the type of image you'd need to prove predictive tracking in AF.

[normhead]

As far as I can tell given the following two examples can you tell which one was taken with the Pentax. Explain your logic.





The main difference between the two as far as I can tell is one photographer is tracking a captive bird who likely did the same flight path over and over and who was going to be flying towards him multiple times, and is probably much closer to the bird, while the other appears to be a wild bird, and photographer probably got far fewer tries to come up with a keeper, but that's just speculation.

[skyer]

As far as I can tell given the following two examples can you tell which one was taken with the Pentax. Explain your logic.
The main difference between the two as far as I can tell is one photographer is tracking a captive bird who likely did the same flight path over and over and who was going to be flying towards him multiple times, and is probably much closer to the bird, while the other appears to be a wild bird, and photographer probably got far fewer tries to come up with a keeper, but that's just speculation.

Sure! Actually, I had already described them, but that's OK.
Just to make a note, all of those pictures were shot not by me. I found them in other photo forums.
The first picture was shot with Nikon D4 + 300/4.
The second picture was shot with Pentax K-5 + 300/4.

As for the first picture, you are right that the bird was flying multiple times. The bird was like a domestic one. The second bird looks more wild. According to your investigation, Pentax K-5 is better than Nikon D4 in tracking fast moving objects Who knows, maybe it is.

Reading numerous complains on AF in Nikon D4 and Canon 1Dx in various threads, I tend to think that it is really an experienced photogropher who determines a final result, not a camera. However it's very good to know that some people are able to take really great photos of fast moving objects with Pentax.