[stevebrot]

I agree with the OP, but it's not the number of focus points with which I have an issue, it's the spread. Focus and recompose is fine for most combinations of aperture and subject distance, but when you try to shoot a head and shoulders portrait at f/1.4 even a very small change in angle can shift the plane of critical focus away from the eyes. I admit it, I like cutting the tops of people's heads off. Putting the eyes close to the edge of the frame gives the picture a certain tension. So I'd like to see the 33 points spread over a wider area, but I guess using the points as they are now will force me to shoot a little looser [edit: and crop later] which I can afford to do with a 36mp sensor. It's not a deal breaker for me, just my 'druthers.

Answer? Canon Super-Precision Matte S-type screen*. Take control of the camera and you don't have to worry about the AF points, their position, or how fat they are.


Steve

* Available now from focusingscreen.com for current model Pentax APS-C bodies and will likely will be available for the K-1 (they support D810).

(Never uses PDAF where focus is critical...exercise in futility...)

[rawr]

Anyone else have this same opinion?

You forgot to note that with Nikons like the D500, you cannot individually select most of the focus points.

153 focus points (including 99 cross sensors and 15 sensors that support f/8), of which 55 (35 cross sensors and 9 f/8 sensors) are available for selection

Nikon | Imaging Products | Nikon D500

So those gazillion focus points may not be as helpful for user-controlled AF as you think.

And if you shoot with telephoto or with a teleconverter, many a time all you will be able to use (on even these new Nikons) is about 9 AF points, or less.

[narual]

Answer? Canon Super-Precision Matte S-type screen*. Take control of the camera and you don't have to worry about the AF points, their position, or how fat they are.


Steve

* Available now from focusingscreen.com for current model Pentax APS-C bodies and will likely will be available for the K-1 (they support D810).

(Never uses PDAF where focus is critical...exercise in futility...)

Better answer: live view zoomed in with focus peaking. Especially with fast lenses. I've had a much better success rate with my f/1.2 lens using live view than I ever did with the ees screen, though it's definitely world's better than the stock one.

[clackers]

Better answer: live view zoomed in with focus peaking. Especially with fast lenses. I've had a much better success rate with my f/1.2 lens using live view than I ever did with the ees screen, though it's definitely world's better than the stock one.

I think if you're on a tripod, it makes good sense.

I've even stood holding a flash on the subject, and used the touch screen on my phone to select focus with the Flu Card.

---

Last edited by clackers; 03-12-2016 at 01:19 AM.

[Digitalis]

Doubt I'll be using sel-1 much for everyday shooting.

I know people who actually do that.

[Gimbal]

As @Digitalis has posted before, the grass might be greener, but you still have to mow it !!!

"but you still have to mow it"
Not really, any Husqvarna automower will take care of that.

[Digitalis]

any Husqvarna automower will take care of that.

Until it hits a patch of rocks that come flying at your house at high speed shattering every pane of glass.

[Madaboutpix]

I know people who actually do that.

Using SEL-1 for much of their everyday shooting? Well, I actually happen to do so, primarily because I've come to distrust focus-and-recompose. And I don't consider myself a sports or action AF guru or anything.

I have found that in combination with back-button AF I have become much better at nailing shots of people (usually family), zoo animals, and pets. Either I move the AF point around to come to lie on the point of interest (usually the eyes, or the closest eye). Or I pre-select an off-centre AF point that fits my compositional intention and wait till the subject moves to target. Spray and pray, I hear people hissing, but with a little practice it goes beyond that, as you become more nimble at moving and/or anticipating the AF point (or the SEL-9 AF points I have occasionally used as a variant). Admittedly, it works best for subjects that are not moving about that much, or are temporarily at rest.

Keeper rate that way? Not stellar, not even close, but I usually return with a couple of nice shots where the focus is dead on. And those are the ones I'm after.

[Gimbal]

Until it hits a patch of rocks that come flying at your house at high speed shattering every pane of glass.

That wont happen though.
The pivoting razor blade style knifes have nearly no inertia to transfer to rocks. They do cut grass, but that's about all it can take on.

[MikeD]

You don't find that when you recompose that you loose the focus when you have very shallow DOF?

Randy

You are 100% correct about a recomposing with a shallow depth of field especially when focusing on eyes and with macro. also with macro reframing can mess everything up. It's also my understanding (but I am not sure about this but isn't continuous focus speed and focus speed dependent on focus points).

[Fauxton]

Why is it so hard for Pentax to put in more auto focus points? It would be so much easier to focus on the eyes when you have more focus points. Nikon has models with over 50 and Canon over 100.
Anyone else have this same opinion?

Randy

slip:
the problem is that it is very difficult to have a large number of focus points and secondly have them spread out widely across the field of view. Also due to position the focus point sensitivity is also quite difficult to extend. At this point most mainstream AF modules can accommodate f2.8 apertures and some newer ones can do f8 as well. Most AF points are still f5.6. Not all AF points in most modules sensitive in both horizontal and vertical and fewer still have diagonal sensitivity. The number of AF points must be processed by the micro controller or DSP - that costs power and frankly, cost. And the appropriate AF algorithm needs development as well as the design within the body to support the extra space needed by an advanced AF module. My point being that the work is not trivial. And as Pentax is one of the smaller camera firms and has limited resources it will not be at the forefront in all aspects of camera design all the time. The K3 was competitive when it came out in 2013. It is decidedly behind when compared to the AF module on the 7DMkII or D500. However these models are quite new, cost quite a bit more, aimed at a different market and are heavier/larger. Should you need state of the art AF in a crop body then you might wish to try the 7DMkII or D500. If you wish state of the art AF in a FF body then the Nikon D5 or Canon 1DX Mark II. But as you know you can buy 3.5 K1s for the price of one D5 or 3.2 K1s for the price of one Canon 1 DXMKII. If you look at things that way you will have 3x33=99 AF points across your three K1's which may be a close match to the other two cameras - particularly as you can point 3 groups of 33 anywhere you please across a 360 degree field of view. And you'd have the benefit of not changing your lenses in the field as much. So I guess Pentax is a good deal after all?

[monochrome]

You are 100% correct about a recomposing with a shallow depth of field especially when focusing on eyes and with macro. also with macro reframing can mess everything up. It's also my understanding (but I am not sure about this but isn't continuous focus speed and focus speed dependent on focus points).

There's a pretty good reason macro is shot on macro focus rails in manual focus mode.

If we really need that precise a focus on an eye so that yawing the plane of the sensor 3" to one side causes softness how shallow is the focus zone? 1"?

If that's truly a use case for a portrait shooter then there are other cameras to buy. Or cameras that have eye-recognition autofocus.

Someone farther down will wonder why it is so hard to put a joystick on the SEL pad.

I don't believe AF.C per se is dependent of number of AF points, but tracking AF can be. AF speed is dependent on the entire system, including the lens design and lens motor.

[mike.hiran]

But the K-1 has a sel-9 mode, where you can more around a 9-point grid all the way to the edge of the frame. That speeds things up considerably. Doubt I'll be using sel-1 much for everyday shooting.

I don't trust the camera to choose the correct point of focus that I want - an eye, a nose, a chin? If there was eye recognition, which eye? I'd rather choose my point.

[stevebrot]

There's a pretty good reason macro is shot on macro focus rails in manual focus mode.

I had to chuckle a little. While it possible to do traditional focus using AF at 1:1 (sort of), it is much easier to move the camera/lens as a unit on a focus rail using manual focus. Even for close-up flower photography, I don't trust the AF to magically "find" the leading edge of the appropriate petal to fool the eye into accepting the limited DOF. Even when manually choosing the focus point, the AF tends to miss focus.

I don't trust the camera to choose the correct point of focus that I want - an eye, a nose, a chin? If there was eye recognition, which eye?

Agreed! The most difficult is the oblique profile where AF will usually lock at the cheekbone or nose rather than the leading edge of the brow or outer corner of the eye.


Steve

[Rupert]

Sorry, Randy, as a focus and recompose guy, I just need one very good AF point in the centre. It's all I want for sports, too, in AF-C.

I guess I'm not the only one that sees it this way. It is so damn easy and works so well, is fast, is accurate and easy enough for a guy like me to use consistently.
You could easily say I have never owned a Pentax with more than one focus point....because that one in the center is the only one I ever use.

It's not a thing to get defensive about...if you want 50 or think you need them, more power to you. Live and let live...but I only need one.

Regards!