[leaton]

What's the big whoop about auto focus, whether it is perfect or not.
Everything that is engineered has it's compromises and limitations.
But the whole concept seems silly to me.
If you don't like the camera's focus choice, just turn it yourself, it's
so simple.
So you are sitting right next to your TV and you complain because the
remote control won't work. Just set the remote control down and
push the buttons on the stinkin TV!

[RiceHigh]

How about if there is no button on the TV?

The analog is not a kidding one, some recent Samsung LCD monitors do NOT have any button!

The fact is MF on AF SLR, especially cropped factor DSLR, is handicapped. (as explained in my last reply to Simon)

What's the big whoop about auto focus, whether it is perfect or not.
Everything that is engineered has it's compromises and limitations.
But the whole concept seems silly to me.
If you don't like the camera's focus choice, just turn it yourself, it's
so simple.
So you are sitting right next to your TV and you complain because the
remote control won't work. Just set the remote control down and
push the buttons on the stinkin TV!

[RiceHigh]

But I doubt that you are. If you can see that your camera has failed to find correct focus (as surely happens in all sorts of marginal situations), do you click anyway and complain about the results? I suspect, like me, you will select a different AF point, use AF lock or (heaven forbid!) take manual control.

Simon

I'm sure one can see the focusing errors in the final photos, when they came up, but not totally thro the finder, and those final results are all that counting, right?

I think Pentax has come up with a solution already, only if they revert back to SAFOX VII rather than the SAFOX VIII (as the MZ-S, or even the cheap MZ-30) do not have any major problem). However, the 1.5X crop factor do cause troubles anyway, I know. They need to make an at least 1.5X more accurate AF system, I bet, based on the same old design.

The original SAFOX and MF can co-exist very well in my 1987 SFX, why not a 2007 Pentax? .. Two decades mean many advancements in electronics world.

[egarrard]

The degree of 'professionalism' doesn't depend upon nor is it contained in the equipment. It is also not indicated by how much the 'pro' spends versus any other photographer--it IS in how much he or she earns from photography----i.e. money flow entirely opposite to what you suggest.

So the pornographer is the real pro?

[bdavis]

So the pornographer is the real pro?

People who make money are pros. Yes, people who take pictures of naked people and sell them can be considered pros, but it wouldn't really matter what they shot--as long as it sold.

Discussions of the merits of pornography don't belong here, in this thread or in this particular section of the forums. They might belong in the general talk section, as long as they are intelligent, but you might want to exit this thread if all you've got to contribute is the shock factor.

[rfortson]

Wow! It's amazing how quickly this forum is disintegrating. Sad, too.

[rprii]

OMG . . . we have become DPR . . . :<)

[Simon]

Wow! It's amazing how quickly this forum is disintegrating. Sad, too.

I fail to see how a good give-and-take discussion is evidence of disintegration. In my book it shows how alive and meaningful a forum is.

Edit: OK, on second thoughts, maybe there is an undercurrent in some of the posts here - but it's no big deal compared with what I've seen elsewhere.

Simon

[jfdavis58]

Also, I am sure that you just have NOT read my article before you have jumped on me seriously in your several posts. I just wish to ask: what tests I have done? and what recommendations I have made? How come they are "ridiculous"??

Read your article-at least the parts that make some grammatical sense however technically illogical. This quote of yours typifies the problems: no real test, but you end by suggesting people open their camera and fix-it anyway.

Had you done extensive research, as claimed, you might know that the so-called bf/ff test (of which the most popular derivative is the Jackson chart) is NOT a test of BF/FF issues at all; it's a demonstration aid... END OF FREE HINT. Send address for future communications; I'll invoice you for technical services.

Kicking a dog is inhumane, drop kicking a baby is uncivilized. I've done neither. As to apology, are you familiar with the phrase: "when hell freezes over"? It's always hot in my kitchen; can't stand it? Get out.

In conclusion and for all the great entertainment: I must say I admire your stamina; never before have I seen it shoveled so fast for so long.

[Adam]

I'm seeing repeated anger and arguing in RiceHigh's threads- we really need to stop this, guys, or at least discuss the cause.

Thanks.

[jeffkrol]

You all may want to read this: It's about KM AF but it looks to have some parrallels to the Pentax line:
Google Groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems

[RiceHigh]

Read your article-at least the parts that make some grammatical sense however technically illogical. This quote of yours typifies the problems: no real test, but you end by suggesting people open their camera and fix-it anyway.

I do not and have never suggested people to open their camera and fix anything by themselves - pls re-read if you still get it/me wrong.

Had you done extensive research, as claimed, you might know that the so-called bf/ff test (of which the most popular derivative is the Jackson chart) is NOT a test of BF/FF issues at all; it's a demonstration aid... END OF FREE HINT. Send address for future communications; I'll invoice you for technical services.

Again, I have NEVER mentioned anything at anywhere for what you say in the above! Pls don't put words in my mouth. If you want to say your own, just say it but don't quote about me for what you say, solely.

I do not need your "technical services". If you disagree anything in my article, pls discuss point by point, preferably with proper quotes for reference, but don't do it personal anymore. Thank you.

(And if you still really hate my articles or posts, just completely skip all these and I don't want to argue with you on something I have never written anymore)

[RiceHigh]

You all may want to read this: It's about KM AF but it looks to have some parrallels to the Pentax line:
Google Groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems

Yes, that's already in Comment #1 of my blog entry. So, it is confirmed that the design of AF (D) SLR are similar for what that can be calibrated. Anyway, Pentax do have filed a patent for the SAFOX as well as the adjustable AF module mounting..

[Dana G]

All right, folks, so far nobody's made a computer that can do anything as complicated as the average human two year old child. A computer obeys instructions.

That means the operator must make sure the computer is given proper input (sufficient contrast and light in the case of AF) and the correct part of the frame is being focused on.

That's why the Katz Eye screens are so popular. I'm amazed that AF cameras don't include a split prism or microprism collar. You'd think the manufacturers would get the idea, from the fact that Katz Eye is backorder ed up the wazoo!

It's no big deal. No machine can match the accuracy of a good eye. So why argue and fret? It won't help at all!

[Ray Pulley]

Read your article-at least the parts that make some grammatical sense however technically illogical. This quote of yours typifies the problems: no real test, but you end by suggesting people open their camera and fix-it anyway.

Had you done extensive research, as claimed, you might know that the so-called bf/ff test (of which the most popular derivative is the Jackson chart) is NOT a test of BF/FF issues at all; it's a demonstration aid... END OF FREE HINT. Send address for future communications; I'll invoice you for technical services.

Kicking a dog is inhumane, drop kicking a baby is uncivilized. I've done neither. As to apology, are you familiar with the phrase: "when hell freezes over"? It's always hot in my kitchen; can't stand it? Get out.

In conclusion and for all the great entertainment: I must say I admire your stamina; never before have I seen it shoveled so fast for so long.

I am no Ricehigh fan, but picking on someone's english who is a non-native english speaker is simply childish.

To the main point: if you look at Ricehigh's simple photos of the toys in different lighting using the same camera/lens and camera settings, you will clearly see that the autofocus shifts in different lighting conditions.

There are lots of theories about why this might happen, but he is not the only one to make this observation.

His toy photos are simply photos like anyone might take of whatever subject they choose under whatever lighting conditions prevailing at the time. No test charts to argue about, no measurbation, just simply out of focus images based of the intended subject.

What is so difficult about admitting that there might be a real technical issue or a Quality issue with some Pentax cameras? It happens to all brands at one time or another.

Your camera might work perfectly, or maybe it is good enough for your purposes, and that is fine, but that does not make Ricehigh's out of focus images acceptable. Sure, he can manually focus, but that will not work for most moving objects, which is one of the main advantages of AF. Those who shoot sports in dimly lit arenas with tele lenses and wide open apertures would get few usable shots with an AF system that performs like this. It is also not always possible to stop down to hide the issue with greater DOF.

Yes Mr. Ricehigh seems to enjoy beating a dead horse, as the saying goes, but his images of the toys simply speak for themselves.

Ray