Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-05-2013, 01:01 PM   #91
Senior Member
Stickl's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Oulu
Posts: 262
So I'm still thinking that Pentax K-5's AF is good enough for tracking toward -coming subjects.. And I have some examples to show why I think in that way. And now you can't say that there's long DOF (even though it wasn't on the snowmobile photos also, look again if you won't believe) and that those subject aren't coming towards to me etc..

1/500, f/4.5, 2 meters away, 150mm.. DA 55-300 and K-5,



1/1000, F/8, 5 meters away, 300mm, DA 55-300+K-5.


03-05-2013, 02:00 PM   #92
Site Supporter
JimJohnson's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Lake Superior - Michigan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,206
If I have to react fast in unpredictable directions, I'll use an AF spray & pray with my K-r (which is not in the same league as the K-5). However, if there is an opportunity I have found I get more keepers if I manually pre-focus to a spot and simply wait until my subject is almost there - - - 'almost' defined as meaning 'depends on how fast the subject is moving, my depth of field, and how much of the frame is filled by my subject'. It boils down to the same level of practice as panning, just done a little differently.

For better or worse, most of my subjects are relatively still when I release my shutter, so I can always use more practice with moving subjects.
03-05-2013, 02:03 PM   #93
Junior Member




Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 38
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by skyer Quote
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!
Sharpness has a lot to do with the depth of field, we're not talking about sharpness of a photo as much as where did the AF hit. What I've found with the few Pentax and Sony cameras I've shot with (versus Canon/Nikon) is that with moving objects towards or away, it's just not that precise...you'll see the focus hitting the ears behind the subject or missing in front or in back. When you switch with the same settings to a single AF versus continuous, the shot locks on with a lot more precision. For a wedding shooter, you need that precision.
03-05-2013, 02:41 PM   #94
Junior Member




Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 38
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by skyer Quote
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.
Maybe for nature/landscape it's important to just get one or two sharp shots (basically answer the question - "is it possible to get a sharp shot.") On the flip side, for an event photographer, sometimes you need every shot to come out consistently.

03-05-2013, 06:54 PM   #95
Forum Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 64
I am personally very curious about K5's focus versus other brands, especially 5D3 and D800.

I am satisfied with K5 with everything except for focusing. Got bugdget for an upgrade, but still hesitating if it worth to get 5D3 just for focusing, for which I don't know how much improvement I can get....
03-05-2013, 07:25 PM   #96
Junior Member




Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 38
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by ruoyun.huang Quote
I am personally very curious about K5's focus versus other brands, especially 5D3 and D800.

I am satisfied with K5 with everything except for focusing. Got bugdget for an upgrade, but still hesitating if it worth to get 5D3 just for focusing, for which I don't know how much improvement I can get....
I'd go the 5d3 any day. But that's just me. The AF is really great.
03-05-2013, 08:18 PM   #97
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,365
Even the K200D can focus on moving subjects in low light.




Last edited by john5100; 03-06-2013 at 05:51 PM.
03-05-2013, 08:57 PM   #98
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, PRofMA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,053
QuoteOriginally posted by Arpe Quote
Now I don't do tests, other than field tests, and I don't just have a "feeling", I KNOW that the Nikon D300s is waaaay better than the K-7 (similalrly aged tech) for focus speed and tracking.
No doubt at all about that. The D300 AF module was Nikon's first real attempt to go after Canon's 1D for sports. I've used a friend's D300 and subsequent D700 and that AF module is quick and accurate (I'm sure the 70-200's ring motor helps as well).

I remember back when Canon had that mirror box alignment issue w/ the 1DmkII...a sports photographer took photos of a baseball player running to first base near where he was and was complaining that the 1DmkII was obviously broken because all 15 shots weren't in focus

And yes if you're doing sports or weddings for money and can write the gear off, which AF system is more accurate is an obvious choice. For the rest of us, a weekend rental is a quick way to find out what "the other side" is like and whether it's worth the cost/weight...

03-05-2013, 09:11 PM   #99
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Orel, Russia
Posts: 193
QuoteOriginally posted by Stickl Quote
1/1000, F/8, 5 meters away, 300mm, DA 55-300+K-5.
I like your second shot. It looks atmospheric.
03-05-2013, 09:36 PM   #100
Pentaxian
Miguel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Near Seattle
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,708
QuoteOriginally posted by kenyee Quote
And yes if you're doing sports or weddings for money and can write the gear off, which AF system is more accurate is an obvious choice. For the rest of us, a weekend rental is a quick way to find out what "the other side" is like and whether it's worth the cost/weight...
Stop making sense!

M
03-05-2013, 10:26 PM   #101
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Orel, Russia
Posts: 193
QuoteOriginally posted by TimonW Quote
Sharpness has a lot to do with the depth of field, we're not talking about sharpness of a photo as much as where did the AF hit. What I've found with the few Pentax and Sony cameras I've shot with (versus Canon/Nikon) is that with moving objects towards or away, it's just not that precise...you'll see the focus hitting the ears behind the subject or missing in front or in back. When you switch with the same settings to a single AF versus continuous, the shot locks on with a lot more precision. For a wedding shooter, you need that precision.
I understand what you mean. However, sometimes it is very hard to see what was hit by the AF at all due to the long shutter speed. So it becomes questionable wether some softness of an object is because the AF missed or because of the movement (of photographer/object). That is why it's better to compare a continious AF looking at objects that are freezed in the photos.

I am not a wedding/professional photographer but I think that wedding photographers don't usually need continious AF at their work. And when they do need, Pentax gear is able to capture slow moving objects rather well (taking into account the existance of cool photos of fast moving objects that were shot with Pentax).
The most part of wedding photographers complaints on the AF of their cameras (all systems) that I am aware of is a poor performance in dim light. And that exactly thing was greatly improved in the K-5 II/IIs. I would very like someone to compare the new K-5's AF with cameras of other brands in such situations. In my experience, the K-5 IIs focuses very confidently, precisely and rather quickly when one can barely see anyhing with his/her own eyes.
03-05-2013, 10:33 PM   #102
Junior Member




Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 38
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by skyer Quote
I understand what you mean. However, sometimes it is very hard to see what was hit by the AF at all due to the long shutter speed. So it becomes questionable wether some softness of an object is because the AF missed or because of the movement (of photographer/object). That is why it's better to compare a continious AF looking at objects that are freezed in the photos.

I am not a wedding/professional photographer but I think that wedding photographers don't usually need continious AF at their work. And when they do need, Pentax gear is able to capture slow moving objects rather well (taking into account the existance of cool photos of fast moving objects that were shot with Pentax).
The most part of wedding photographers complaints on the AF of their cameras (all systems) that I am aware of is a poor performance in dim light. And that exactly thing was greatly improved in the K-5 II/IIs. I would very like someone to compare the new K-5's AF with cameras of other brands in such situations. In my experience, the K-5 IIs focuses very confidently, precisely and rather quickly when one can barely see anyhing with his/her own eyes.
Makes sense. But as a wedding photographer myself, I can tell you that you absolutely need continuous AF. Bridal processional, grand entrance, that cute kid running across the dance floor...but the guys with the real money are those landscape and wildlife photographers. Even wedding photographers can't afford a $10,000 600mm prime lens, or a $5000 wide angle (like the 25 FA). Lot of smart people on this site though- I'm realizing there's ways to work around a lack of continuous AF (like single-shot lock and fire).
03-06-2013, 11:03 AM   #103
Veteran Member
kkoether's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huber Heights, OH, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 573
QuoteOriginally posted by TimonW Quote
I'm realizing there's ways to work around a lack of continuous AF (like single-shot lock and fire).
There in lies the secret. Learn your equipment and how to make it take the shots you want. My K200D does fine by me. I just look at what I want to accomplish and figure out the best way to approach the shot. The great thing about digital is it's easy to practice technique and get instant results.

Last edited by kkoether; 03-06-2013 at 05:40 PM.
03-06-2013, 12:58 PM   #104
Senior Member
Stickl's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Oulu
Posts: 262
QuoteOriginally posted by skyer Quote
I like your second shot. It looks atmospheric.
Thank you!
03-06-2013, 05:50 PM   #105
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,365
We complain about AF. Imagine photographing this in the mid 1960's. Learning a camera is better than relying on technology alone.
http://www.auto-power-girl.com/high-resolution-wallpapers/vintage-shelby-rac...ing-2008-7.jpg
http://www.auto-power-girl.com/high-resolution-wallpapers/vintage-shelby-rac...ing-2008-8.jpg

K200D again


I like the old lady in this one. I tried to keep her little purse in the image.

Last edited by john5100; 03-06-2013 at 05:58 PM.
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 09:54 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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