Pentax: Is it really that bad for moving objects?

bobell69 · 01-17-2013, 10:30 AM

A couple of images to add to this topic. First one was taken at Seaworld last Spring. I was following the action of the Orcs in the pool and then grabbed this shot of the water splashing over the crowd. Second image was taken this past week at a hockey game. Low light, high speed. Original Image was shot in jpg and has not been sharpened or the noise reduced. Only adjustments were contrast, tone and clarity.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

normhead · 01-17-2013, 10:56 AM

After,all these threads, some guys will always post some pictures and say, you can get it done with Pentax, which, the picture prove, and some others say, you can get it done better with Canon or Nikon, but, the guys who say Canon or Nikon is better, never have the side by side images to show you what they are talking about. They say, "they get more keepers, but they can't say how many more, they say "it feels faster", but they can't say how much faster. I'm a show me kind of guy. I've been listening to this kind of stuff for years, and no one has ever done a side by side comparison to back up what they "feel" is true. The only experiment done is a test setting comparing focussing in different systems, suggested Pentax's lock focus more accurately, better than any other system tested. So as much as I trust the guys who jump up and down about the vast improvement int the Nikon and Canon auto-focus systems, I've seen nothing that couldn't have been influenced by the "placebo" effect. After years on the forum, I still can't decide what we are dealing with. There is no information that would tell me if and when it would ever mean anything to me. The wife did a great shot with a 10 year old Pentax F 70-210 telephoto zoom and froze a low flying military plane in flight the other day. So maybe someone can explain to me, how it would have been better if I was shooting Nikon or Canon. Honestly, you would not have gotten a better picture. You can practically see the smile on the pilots face.

Everyone is selling superior Nikon and Canon tracking, but I can't figure out for the life of me what they are selling. The one piece of data I did see showed Pentax being slower in low light situations, but in good light the difference between the Pentax and the fastest system, was .15 seconds. I'm sure when you're trying to lock focus that's a big deal to some.But in most situations, I wouldn't pay what you have to pay to get it.

In lower light levels, like wedding photography etc, the Nikons and Canons were much better. I just don't ever shoot in that type of situation, so the difference is functionally non-existent, in my work.

TimonW · 02-27-2013, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by normhead

After,all these threads, some guys will always post some pictures and say, you can get it done with Pentax, which, the picture prove, and some others say, you can get it done better with Canon or Nikon, but, the guys who say Canon or Nikon is better, never have the side by side images to show you what they are talking about. They say, "they get more keepers, but they can't say how many more, they say "it feels faster", but they can't say how much faster. I'm a show me kind of guy. I've been listening to this kind of stuff for years, and no one has ever done a side by side comparison to back up what they "feel" is true. The only experiment done is a test setting comparing focussing in different systems, suggested Pentax's lock focus more accurately, better than any other system tested. So as much as I trust the guys who jump up and down about the vast improvement int the Nikon and Canon auto-focus systems, I've seen nothing that couldn't have been influenced by the "placebo" effect. After years on the forum, I still can't decide what we are dealing with. There is no information that would tell me if and when it would ever mean anything to me. The wife did a great shot with a 10 year old Pentax F 70-210 telephoto zoom and froze a low flying military plane in flight the other day. So maybe someone can explain to me, how it would have been better if I was shooting Nikon or Canon. Honestly, you would not have gotten a better picture. You can practically see the smile on the pilots face.

Everyone is selling superior Nikon and Canon tracking, but I can't figure out for the life of me what they are selling. The one piece of data I did see showed Pentax being slower in low light situations, but in good light the difference between the Pentax and the fastest system, was .15 seconds. I'm sure when you're trying to lock focus that's a big deal to some.But in most situations, I wouldn't pay what you have to pay to get it.

In lower light levels, like wedding photography etc, the Nikons and Canons were much better. I just don't ever shoot in that type of situation, so the difference is functionally non-existent, in my work.

Norm, I get your point. I'm not talking about focusing speed, but real life focusing consistency. I'm a wedding shooter. So if you want to do a test that answers my question (as I have done with Nikon, Canon, Sony) take a wide open prime like the 31 1.8 or 43 1.9, and have your wife or other person walk at a brisk pace towards you (simulates a grand entrance at a reception). For me, I can't afford to miss any shots, and even if a camera works for 90% of the day, if it falters in that situation, which is a high difficulty situation for an AF system, I can't use the camera as much as I like it. Or, I have to carry a third just for that. I would say that both Canon and Nikon I trust my liability to them. Not so sure about Sony and Pentax.

TimonW · 02-27-2013, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by Zafar Iqbal

I do weddings - here's some of my recetly posted wedding photos_ https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-30/192015-post-your-k-30-photos...ml#post2239200

The fastest AF lenses I own are f2.8's (except for FA 50mm 1.4 but I haven't used it for any weddings yet). AF accuracy (or lack of) with moving subjects would be clearer to see if I had faster lenses. My impression is, that my K-30 can do the job but not without me being nervous about it missing the focus. As you mentioned, some can be technique related and I'm not going to say the K-30 AF sucks, but tracking subjects moving towards the camera is though for my camera. Focusing in low light can slow too but I do not know whether I'm expecting too much on this one - I'm talking about spontanois moments when guests pose. Their motivation is up and peaking for a few seconds, but sometimes it takes the camera those few seconds to lock and I miss the shots I really wanted.

I do not have any experience with other brands so I can't really say how good or bad K-30 is in relation. I feel somewhat same with it though - I've even dared thoughts about shooting weddings with only 21mm and 70mm lenses - I love them but they also generally focus faster and more accurate than my zooms. that's the impression at least. Never did scientific tests.

Thanks, this helps. I appreciate the perspective from a wedding shooter. I really think scientific tests of taking pictures of a static object and counting how fast it focuses isn't a good real world test, so this is exactly what I needed to know.

normhead · 02-27-2013, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by TimonW

Norm, I get your point. I'm not talking about focusing speed, but real life focusing consistency. I'm a wedding shooter. So if you want to do a test that answers my question (as I have done with Nikon, Canon, Sony) take a wide open prime like the 31 1.8 or 43 1.9, and have your wife or other person walk at a brisk pace towards you (simulates a grand entrance at a reception). For me, I can't afford to miss any shots, and even if a camera works for 90% of the day, if it falters in that situation, which is a high difficulty situation for an AF system, I can't use the camera as much as I like it. Or, I have to carry a third just for that. I would say that both Canon and Nikon I trust my liability to them. Not so sure about Sony and Pentax.

I get your point, and part about the lenses you use is particularly relevant. Are you aware that because of criticism of the auto-focus, and I know this from talking to Pentax reps.. the low light focusing capability and F 2.8 cross type focussing sensor were the main improvement added to the K-5 II? I'd be interested in knowing how they stack up against the Canon and Nikon systems you trust, if you ever get around to it. That aspect is so un-important to me I didn't even buy a K-5 II, so I'm probably never going to find out, otherwise.

In any case, I wouldn't recommend buying a camera based on performance necessary for an aspect of professional photography the buyer isn't involved in. I love wedding guys. I hang out with them when I go to weddings, and admire what they do. But I don't want to be one. And I don't want to pay for (or carry around) the equipment they use.

TimonW · 02-27-2013, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by normhead

I get your point, and part about the lenses you use is particularly relevant. Are you aware that because of criticism of the auto-focus, and I know this from talking to Pentax reps.. the low light focusing capability and F 2.8 cross type focussing sensor were the main improvement added to the K-5 II? I'd be interested in knowing how they stack up against the Canon and Nikon systems you trust, if you ever get around to it. That aspect is so un-important to me I didn't even buy a K-5 II, so I'm probably never going to find out, otherwise.

In any case, I wouldn't recommend buying a camera based on performance necessary for an aspect of professional photography the buyer isn't involved in. I love wedding guys. I hang out with them when I go to weddings, and admire what they do. But I don't want to be one. And I don't want to pay for (or carry around) the equipment they use.

I hear ya...wedding equipment is expensive.

JinDesu · 02-27-2013, 12:15 PM

Shot with my lowly k-x and the slowmaster Tamron 70-200 F2.8.

First shot completely OOF. Second shot got it in focus, at F5.6. See - it's not THAT bad for moving subjects!

Of course - I only got two shots because my Tammy was racking in and out the entire time, and couldn't lock after the shot above. But I blame that on my Tammy

To be more serious - I've been able to shoot some subjects with continuous focus on my k-x. I don't trust it, but I also know my k-x is quite far behind in terms of AF. It really comes down to familiarity with your lens/camera quirks - some lenses will just not make it as an action lens (my Tamron), but that's the lens and not the body.

TimonW · 02-27-2013, 02:16 PM

Thanks for the example...I guess I would consider shooting at 5.6 throwing a ball at the side of a barn. Pretty hard not to miss

or at least get a part of the subject in focus. Best scenario is a person- you can tell if it misses easily, and there is a smaller target (like the eye).

lesmore49 · 02-27-2013, 02:21 PM

I've found my K10D, K-m and K-5 all do the job ...whether I'm taking photo's of flying Owls, ice racing cars, etc. For action photos I usually use my 55-300...but I've found my 70mm Limited works very well too, for these types of shots.

Stickl · 02-27-2013, 02:58 PM

My K-5 focused and tracked really well a snowmobile which was coming towards (not the easist job for camera to keep it's focus on snowmobile or any fast vehicle coming towards) for me. Took 5 photos and all of them was sharp ones. And the lens was DA 55-300, distance to snowmobile was maybe 5-10 meters, snowmobile's speed was something like 50 mph. So I don't see there's a problem with tracking subjects with K-5..

Here we go, five photos

Oh and I wanna show one wedding photo too, taken by me.
K-5 + Tamron 17-50/2.8 @ F/2.8, ISO 6400, 1/100, 50mm, maybe 3 meters away from me.

JinDesu · 02-27-2013, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by TimonW

Thanks for the example...I guess I would consider shooting at 5.6 throwing a ball at the side of a barn. Pretty hard not to miss

or at least get a part of the subject in focus. Best scenario is a person- you can tell if it misses easily, and there is a smaller target (like the eye).

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.

john5100 · 02-27-2013, 03:07 PM

KX with DA 18-250mm very spontaneous and I'm surprised that I got it.

KX with DA* 50-135mm

Dancer moving towards me in low light

K200D with DA 18-250mm

FrancisK7 · 02-27-2013, 03:14 PM

Regardless of whatever academic distinctions people make about the Pentax AF vs the competition, anyone who has used all systems will attest to the Pentax AF being slow and often missing the mark, particularly in low light situations.

normhead · 02-27-2013, 04:26 PM

Meanwhile in another thread

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

Originally posted by wtomlin76

I think there's a noticeable difference between the AF (especially low light) and IQ between the IIs and the K5.

Which would mean it's quite possible the above opinion is out of date.

TimonW · 02-27-2013, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by john5100

KX with DA 18-250mm very spontaneous and I'm surprised that I got it.

KX with DA* 50-135mm

Dancer moving towards me in low light

K200D with DA 18-250mm

Nice...the car is easier- it's moving laterally versus towards you so your focal plane isn't changing that much. The dancer moving towards you is a better example. For me, it's not about getting one shot, or even the shot 50% of the time. I'm getting paid to get the shot 100% of the time...

Thanks for the examples!

02-27-2013, 02:58 PM	#40
Stickl Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Oulu Posts: 271	My K-5 focused and tracked really well a snowmobile which was coming towards (not the easist job for camera to keep it's focus on snowmobile or any fast vehicle coming towards) for me. Took 5 photos and all of them was sharp ones. And the lens was DA 55-300, distance to snowmobile was maybe 5-10 meters, snowmobile's speed was something like 50 mph. So I don't see there's a problem with tracking subjects with K-5.. Here we go, five photos Oh and I wanna show one wedding photo too, taken by me. K-5 + Tamron 17-50/2.8 @ F/2.8, ISO 6400, 1/100, 50mm, maybe 3 meters away from me. Last edited by Stickl; 02-28-2013 at 02:16 AM.

02-27-2013, 03:07 PM	#42
john5100 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 1,725	KX with DA 18-250mm very spontaneous and I'm surprised that I got it. KX with DA* 50-135mm Dancer moving towards me in low light K200D with DA 18-250mm Last edited by john5100; 02-27-2013 at 03:15 PM.

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 & K-5 II	41	04-09-2012 06:41 AM

01-17-2013, 10:56 AM	#32
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	After,all these threads, some guys will always post some pictures and say, you can get it done with Pentax, which, the picture prove, and some others say, you can get it done better with Canon or Nikon, but, the guys who say Canon or Nikon is better, never have the side by side images to show you what they are talking about. They say, "they get more keepers, but they can't say how many more, they say "it feels faster", but they can't say how much faster. I'm a show me kind of guy. I've been listening to this kind of stuff for years, and no one has ever done a side by side comparison to back up what they "feel" is true. The only experiment done is a test setting comparing focussing in different systems, suggested Pentax's lock focus more accurately, better than any other system tested. So as much as I trust the guys who jump up and down about the vast improvement int the Nikon and Canon auto-focus systems, I've seen nothing that couldn't have been influenced by the "placebo" effect. After years on the forum, I still can't decide what we are dealing with. There is no information that would tell me if and when it would ever mean anything to me. The wife did a great shot with a 10 year old Pentax F 70-210 telephoto zoom and froze a low flying military plane in flight the other day. So maybe someone can explain to me, how it would have been better if I was shooting Nikon or Canon. Honestly, you would not have gotten a better picture. You can practically see the smile on the pilots face. Everyone is selling superior Nikon and Canon tracking, but I can't figure out for the life of me what they are selling. The one piece of data I did see showed Pentax being slower in low light situations, but in good light the difference between the Pentax and the fastest system, was .15 seconds. I'm sure when you're trying to lock focus that's a big deal to some.But in most situations, I wouldn't pay what you have to pay to get it. In lower light levels, like wedding photography etc, the Nikons and Canons were much better. I just don't ever shoot in that type of situation, so the difference is functionally non-existent, in my work.

02-27-2013, 10:34 AM	#33
TimonW Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 38 Original Poster	Originally posted by normhead After,all these threads, some guys will always post some pictures and say, you can get it done with Pentax, which, the picture prove, and some others say, you can get it done better with Canon or Nikon, but, the guys who say Canon or Nikon is better, never have the side by side images to show you what they are talking about. They say, "they get more keepers, but they can't say how many more, they say "it feels faster", but they can't say how much faster. I'm a show me kind of guy. I've been listening to this kind of stuff for years, and no one has ever done a side by side comparison to back up what they "feel" is true. The only experiment done is a test setting comparing focussing in different systems, suggested Pentax's lock focus more accurately, better than any other system tested. So as much as I trust the guys who jump up and down about the vast improvement int the Nikon and Canon auto-focus systems, I've seen nothing that couldn't have been influenced by the "placebo" effect. After years on the forum, I still can't decide what we are dealing with. There is no information that would tell me if and when it would ever mean anything to me. The wife did a great shot with a 10 year old Pentax F 70-210 telephoto zoom and froze a low flying military plane in flight the other day. So maybe someone can explain to me, how it would have been better if I was shooting Nikon or Canon. Honestly, you would not have gotten a better picture. You can practically see the smile on the pilots face. Everyone is selling superior Nikon and Canon tracking, but I can't figure out for the life of me what they are selling. The one piece of data I did see showed Pentax being slower in low light situations, but in good light the difference between the Pentax and the fastest system, was .15 seconds. I'm sure when you're trying to lock focus that's a big deal to some.But in most situations, I wouldn't pay what you have to pay to get it. In lower light levels, like wedding photography etc, the Nikons and Canons were much better. I just don't ever shoot in that type of situation, so the difference is functionally non-existent, in my work. Norm, I get your point. I'm not talking about focusing speed, but real life focusing consistency. I'm a wedding shooter. So if you want to do a test that answers my question (as I have done with Nikon, Canon, Sony) take a wide open prime like the 31 1.8 or 43 1.9, and have your wife or other person walk at a brisk pace towards you (simulates a grand entrance at a reception). For me, I can't afford to miss any shots, and even if a camera works for 90% of the day, if it falters in that situation, which is a high difficulty situation for an AF system, I can't use the camera as much as I like it. Or, I have to carry a third just for that. I would say that both Canon and Nikon I trust my liability to them. Not so sure about Sony and Pentax.

02-27-2013, 10:38 AM	#34
TimonW Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 38 Original Poster	Originally posted by Zafar Iqbal I do weddings - here's some of my recetly posted wedding photos_ https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-30/192015-post-your-k-30-photos...ml#post2239200 The fastest AF lenses I own are f2.8's (except for FA 50mm 1.4 but I haven't used it for any weddings yet). AF accuracy (or lack of) with moving subjects would be clearer to see if I had faster lenses. My impression is, that my K-30 can do the job but not without me being nervous about it missing the focus. As you mentioned, some can be technique related and I'm not going to say the K-30 AF sucks, but tracking subjects moving towards the camera is though for my camera. Focusing in low light can slow too but I do not know whether I'm expecting too much on this one - I'm talking about spontanois moments when guests pose. Their motivation is up and peaking for a few seconds, but sometimes it takes the camera those few seconds to lock and I miss the shots I really wanted. I do not have any experience with other brands so I can't really say how good or bad K-30 is in relation. I feel somewhat same with it though - I've even dared thoughts about shooting weddings with only 21mm and 70mm lenses - I love them but they also generally focus faster and more accurate than my zooms. that's the impression at least. Never did scientific tests. Thanks, this helps. I appreciate the perspective from a wedding shooter. I really think scientific tests of taking pictures of a static object and counting how fast it focuses isn't a good real world test, so this is exactly what I needed to know.

02-27-2013, 11:39 AM	#35
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by TimonW Norm, I get your point. I'm not talking about focusing speed, but real life focusing consistency. I'm a wedding shooter. So if you want to do a test that answers my question (as I have done with Nikon, Canon, Sony) take a wide open prime like the 31 1.8 or 43 1.9, and have your wife or other person walk at a brisk pace towards you (simulates a grand entrance at a reception). For me, I can't afford to miss any shots, and even if a camera works for 90% of the day, if it falters in that situation, which is a high difficulty situation for an AF system, I can't use the camera as much as I like it. Or, I have to carry a third just for that. I would say that both Canon and Nikon I trust my liability to them. Not so sure about Sony and Pentax. I get your point, and part about the lenses you use is particularly relevant. Are you aware that because of criticism of the auto-focus, and I know this from talking to Pentax reps.. the low light focusing capability and F 2.8 cross type focussing sensor were the main improvement added to the K-5 II? I'd be interested in knowing how they stack up against the Canon and Nikon systems you trust, if you ever get around to it. That aspect is so un-important to me I didn't even buy a K-5 II, so I'm probably never going to find out, otherwise. In any case, I wouldn't recommend buying a camera based on performance necessary for an aspect of professional photography the buyer isn't involved in. I love wedding guys. I hang out with them when I go to weddings, and admire what they do. But I don't want to be one. And I don't want to pay for (or carry around) the equipment they use.

02-27-2013, 12:01 PM	#36
TimonW Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 38 Original Poster	Originally posted by normhead I get your point, and part about the lenses you use is particularly relevant. Are you aware that because of criticism of the auto-focus, and I know this from talking to Pentax reps.. the low light focusing capability and F 2.8 cross type focussing sensor were the main improvement added to the K-5 II? I'd be interested in knowing how they stack up against the Canon and Nikon systems you trust, if you ever get around to it. That aspect is so un-important to me I didn't even buy a K-5 II, so I'm probably never going to find out, otherwise. In any case, I wouldn't recommend buying a camera based on performance necessary for an aspect of professional photography the buyer isn't involved in. I love wedding guys. I hang out with them when I go to weddings, and admire what they do. But I don't want to be one. And I don't want to pay for (or carry around) the equipment they use. I hear ya...wedding equipment is expensive.

02-27-2013, 12:15 PM	#37
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Shot with my lowly k-x and the slowmaster Tamron 70-200 F2.8. First shot completely OOF. Second shot got it in focus, at F5.6. See - it's not THAT bad for moving subjects! Of course - I only got two shots because my Tammy was racking in and out the entire time, and couldn't lock after the shot above. But I blame that on my Tammy To be more serious - I've been able to shoot some subjects with continuous focus on my k-x. I don't trust it, but I also know my k-x is quite far behind in terms of AF. It really comes down to familiarity with your lens/camera quirks - some lenses will just not make it as an action lens (my Tamron), but that's the lens and not the body.

02-27-2013, 02:16 PM	#38
TimonW Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 38 Original Poster	Thanks for the example...I guess I would consider shooting at 5.6 throwing a ball at the side of a barn. Pretty hard not to miss or at least get a part of the subject in focus. Best scenario is a person- you can tell if it misses easily, and there is a smaller target (like the eye).

02-27-2013, 02:21 PM	#39
lesmore49 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Western Canada Posts: 12,343	I've found my K10D, K-m and K-5 all do the job ...whether I'm taking photo's of flying Owls, ice racing cars, etc. For action photos I usually use my 55-300...but I've found my 70mm Limited works very well too, for these types of shots.

02-27-2013, 03:05 PM	#41
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Originally posted by TimonW Thanks for the example...I guess I would consider shooting at 5.6 throwing a ball at the side of a barn. Pretty hard not to miss or at least get a part of the subject in focus. Best scenario is a person- you can tell if it misses easily, and there is a smaller target (like the eye). 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 DA60-250 to do sports and have done well to catch action. The DA50-135 isn't as good for action.

02-27-2013, 03:14 PM	#43
FrancisK7 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery Posts: 474	Regardless of whatever academic distinctions people make about the Pentax AF vs the competition, anyone who has used all systems will attest to the Pentax AF being slow and often missing the mark, particularly in low light situations.

02-27-2013, 04:26 PM	#44
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Meanwhile in another thread From a guy using both a K-5 and a K5- IIs Originally posted by wtomlin76 I think there's a noticeable difference between the AF (especially low light) and IQ between the IIs and the K5. Which would mean it's quite possible the above opinion is out of date.

02-27-2013, 04:38 PM	#45
TimonW Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 38 Original Poster	Originally posted by john5100 KX with DA 18-250mm very spontaneous and I'm surprised that I got it. KX with DA* 50-135mm Dancer moving towards me in low light K200D with DA 18-250mm Nice...the car is easier- it's moving laterally versus towards you so your focal plane isn't changing that much. The dancer moving towards you is a better example. For me, it's not about getting one shot, or even the shot 50% of the time. I'm getting paid to get the shot 100% of the time... Thanks for the examples!