[Gimbal]

Seems sharp at this size, but at f/7 it's not that impressive though.

[max_pyne]

Seems sharp at this size, but at f/7 it's not that impressive though.

I know, but the only child pic I had... :-)

[normhead]

Yes, and contrary to what people think, when a lens is pre-focused at infinity, a target moving towards you makes it easier for the camera to acquire focus because the default AF direction is from far to near and the gear ratio near infinity is higher than close focus distance. My method is to use AF select one point of initial focus (not using Auto), setting the lens at infinity (or at least beyond the target), and waiting for AFC to acquire focus before triggering the shutter. With the DFA150-450, and DFA24-70, it works every-time. AF does not like is focusing from near to far, because it is contrary to the AF lock rule that is to lock focus on the nearest to camera subject. If the subject is beyond AF position it takes longer for the camera AF to find the target, for instance, in this case, with SDM lenses, the camera AF goes from intial AF position to nearest focus back again from near to far. If the lens is prefocused beyond the subject, the camera AF goes from far to near directly, in one go.

Link here K3 with AFC, shooting until buffer was full: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/190-pentax-k-1/319924-can-anyone-k-1-give...view-af-2.html .

Below example with a Pentax K5 and Tamron 70-200 screwdrive, indoor low light (not even with a K5II, K3 or K1). You can check the exif.

That's some good stuff there biz-engineer, thanks for figuring that out. Also , I love that pic.

[mgoblue]

We had another brief thread recently on this and whether the K1 can do fast small kids in low light with shallow depth of field. I still haven't really seen evidence for either the k1 or k3: A series of in focus shots of running towards camera child at say f2 indoors.

I do know that even my k50 and Tamron 17-50 in AFC at f5.6 can do a decent job outside with a 2 year old charging the camera from 20-6 feet or so. I've often had most of the frames in focus. It gets worse as the subject gets closer since everything, including depth of field, gets harder for the camera. At f2.0 capturing a series of child running towards the K50 is hopeless in my experience.

All of that is to say in good light with reasonable technique the k3 and k1 should both manage fine since the k50 can (dpreveiw notwithstanding). In poor light or with shallow depth of field I have been searching for evidence for weeks one way or the other and not finding it. Yes, pulling manual focus is an option but it is not that easy especially in an APSC viewfinder!

[reh321]

Seems sharp at this size, but at f/7 it's not that impressive though.

Your words seem to indicate that you have a problem with f/7.
Is that true??

[aleonx3]

Sorry, I fail to understand why people are trying to find a solution to a problem, which IMHO, seldom occurs. I am an event photographer, and I often shoot events when people are coming toward me (and I am also moving as well). I don't find that my k-5IIs nor my k-3 have ever been the limiting factor. How many times I am in a situation when a small child is running toward me and I have to keep the aperture wide-open (for whatever reason), and also with inadequate lighting? Probably none.

My advice for people who asked me about what camera to get, my response is the same, the current crop of any brand DSLR (in Pentax ks-2, k-3, k-1) are good enough for every kind of photography unless you are a professional sports photographer... The priority is to invest in your technique/knowledge and it will go a long way to get better results instead of relying on fast/expensive equipment as many have suggested "you got to have that to get that result".

Perhaps an example, this one is shot with the DA 18-135... aperture f7.1 Aperture priority mode -0,7EV, focus select (off center), use AF button to lock focus, re-frame. Everybody in the parade is moving toward me.... I was actually stepping into their path (walking backwards).
K3_P6769

[normhead]

Sorry, I fail to understand why people are trying to find a solution to a problem, which IMHO, seldom occurs. I

Because that's what they do.

My guess is, if you can't get your camera to do what others do, criticize it for what it might not be able to do. It's better than telling people it can't do something it can and then having folks point out "It's just you."

Reminds me of the D750 guys shooting images of his dog running straight at the camera. It did a better job than my K-3 did for sure, but, my K-3 did a good job, just not as good as the D750, I didn't like any of the pictures. his or mine, so it was all moot..

It's was pzrticlulary funny discussing low light performance. IN one thread we had a bevy of excellent low light images taken with a K- 3 or a K-5. The obvious question becomes, if you don't get images like that push the boundaries of your K-5 or K-3, what makes you think you'll take images that push the boundaries of a K-1, so you are taking advantage of what it has to offer ? Often the need for a better camera comes from having exceeded the capabilities of what you have. Watching people who are no where near exceeding the capabilities of what they have expound on the possibility of being able to all the sudden be taking advantage of the few areas where the K-1 is actually better, is pretty amusing to some of us.

I can show you the images that convinced me I needed a K-5 instead of a K20D. I've yet to see side by side images showing why I might need a K-1 instead of a k-3II of K-70, also with Pixel Shift. It' always the intangibles that don't show up in the final output that folks talk about. "The AF feels snapper." What the heck does that even mean? "The low light performance i is better. " So show me the low light image that is so lights out fantastic it would have been a crime to miss it, that couldn't have been done with a K-3. It's not that it can't be done by good photographers, but, it can't be done by your average forum photographer and many of the people who are buying K-1s. If you know what you're talking about, you can demonstrate the difference in your images. If you can't demonstrate a difference in your images, you don't know what you're talking about. The end product of photography is images, not arguments. Some of us don't really care that you think it "feels better."

[TheOneAndOnlyJH]

Seems sharp at this size, but at f/7 it's not that impressive though.

Your words seem to indicate that you have a problem with f/7.
Is that true??

.
He's just saying that at f/7 the depth of field is quite large, so it's not as hard to focus well enough to get a sharp image at that resolution. (Even if somewhat out of focus when viewed at 100%, you wouldn't be able to tell at low resolution so it would still look sharp.) Hitting focus at a wider aperture (smaller f-number) is more impressive since it's obvious when you don't nail focus so you have to be even more precise.*see edit

Wide depth of focus at smaller apertures (higher f-numbers) is actually the reason for the phrase "F/8 and be there" used by photojournalists. Since so much is in focus at f/8 you don't need to worry about nailing focus exactly (just approximately), and you pretty much just have to be there to take the picture (as long as you have the right exposure settings, etc).

---

Edit* More impressive in terms of focusing technique and skill, that is. (Whether or not the picture itself is impressive depends on the content.) If you use a smaller aperture where more is in focus, you don't need perfect AF or MF techniques to get an impressive picture.

---

Last edited by TheOneAndOnlyJH; 07-07-2016 at 02:43 PM.

[normhead]

.
He's just saying that at f/7 the depth of field is quite large, so it's not as hard to focus well enough to get a sharp image at that resolution. (Even if somewhat out of focus when viewed at 100%, you wouldn't be able to tell at low resolution so it would still look sharp.) Hitting focus at a wider aperture (smaller f-number) is more impressive since it's obvious when you don't nail focus so you have to be even more precise ..

Ya, even if using a wide open aperture pretty much ruins your picture. You can't blame people for testing what they shoot. After all, if you generally avoid ƒ2.8 or ƒ4 for DoF issues, why would you care about a test done wide open? The question here is, is the DOF appropriate to the photograph, and is the resulting image good enough, at the preferred Dof. We really shouldn't be making up situations just to win an argument.

.Wide depth of focus at smaller apertures (higher f-numbers) is actually the reason for the phrase "F/8 and be there" used by photojournalists. Since so much is in focus at f/8 you don't need to worry about nailing focus exactly, and you pretty much just have to be there to take the picture (as long as you have the right exposure settings, etc).

Except on APS_c that would be ƒ5.8 which not only gives you FF ƒ8 like DoF, but uses the sharpest setting of most lenses, where as your ƒ8 on FF will already be degrading because of diffraction.

[mgoblue]

Some photographers may never need to take photos of children running in low light, some do and don't take photos of parades in bright light. Different strokes.

[reh321]

.
He's just saying that at f/7 the depth of field is quite large, so it's not as hard to focus well enough to get a sharp image at that resolution. (Even if somewhat out of focus when viewed at 100%, you wouldn't be able to tell at low resolution so it would still look sharp.) Hitting focus at a wider aperture (smaller f-number) is more impressive since it's obvious when you don't nail focus so you have to be even more precise .

Wide depth of focus at smaller apertures (higher f-numbers) is actually the reason for the phrase "F/8 and be there" used by photojournalists. Since so much is in focus at f/8 you don't need to worry about nailing focus exactly, and you pretty much just have to be there to take the picture (as long as you have the right exposure settings, etc).

I don't see why this is relevant. The OP did not ask how to test a camera or lens, nor how to be a super photographer admired by all; the OP did ask how to take pictures under particular circumstances. When I was using my MF Super Program to take pictures of my {super active} daughter, I almost always had my lens set somewhere around f/8, because I was more interested in getting good pictures of her than of demonstrating that I could nail focus exactly. As a "proud Papa", I was more interested in impressing people with images of my pride-and-joy {still an admitted "Daddy's girl" at age 25} than I was with impressing people with my {admittedly limited} skills as a photographer of events. As a professional software developer, I was always told to make the job easier, so that anyone could do it; that has always been my approach to photography also. As I have already commented several times at this Forum, I noticed professionally-taken photographs at the NCAA Basketball Finals this year were taken at a higher ISO, which allowed him to use smaller aperture as well as higher shutter speed; those guys are paid for results, not for demonstrating great skill nor for selecting the best equipment.

[aleonx3]

It's was pzrticlulary funny discussing low light performance. IN one thread we had a bevy of excellent low light images taken with a K- 3 or a K-5. The obvious question becomes, if you don't get images like that puck the boundaries of your K-5 or K-3, what makes you think you'll take images that push the boundaries of a K-1, so you are taking advantage of what it has to offer ? Often the need for a better camera comes from having exceeded the capabilities of what you have. Watching people who are no where near exceeding the capabilities of what they have expound on the possibility of being able to all the sudden be taking advantage of the few areas where the K-1 is actually better, is pretty amusing to some of us.

I can show you the images that convinced me I needed a K-5 instead of a K20D. I've yet to see side by side images showing why I might need a K-1 instead of a k-3II of K-70, also with Pixel Shift. It' always the intangibles that don't show up in the final output that folks talk about. "The AF feels snapper." What the heck does that even mean? "The low light performance i is better. " So show me the low light image that is so lights out phantasmic it would have been a crime to miss it, that couldn't have been done with a K-3. It's not that it can't be done by good photographers, but, it can't be done by your average forum photographer and many of the people who are buying K-1s. If you know what you're talking about, you can demonstrate the difference in your images. If you can't demonstrate a difference in your images, you don't know what you're talking about. The end product of photography is images, not arguments. Some of us don't really care that you think it "feels better."

+1, Norm, that's the exact argument I am have a hard time getting a grip on... I think some people are having that mentality of "you got to have a Nikon or Canon to get that shot", probably true back in those days of k20D/k-7. But now, while I can't deny still that the Nikon or Canon equivalent models often give "AF feels snappier" feeling, I have used my relatives 5DIII and D750/D810 (they are all non-Pentax users LOL). I don't get the feeling that the keeper rate (from focus accuracy perspective) is any higher than my k-3. I have a feeling that they use a simpler algorithm in order to get focus confirmation as fast as possible (if you do manual focusing, you know what I mean, not just one sweep). So, I will turn the question around; if my k-3 (or rather k-1 when I get it in the future) can do the job of D750/D810 or 5DIII, why spend extra money for those other heavier models?

---------- Post added 07-06-2016 at 08:01 PM ----------

.
Wide depth of focus at smaller apertures (higher f-numbers) is actually the reason for the phrase "F/8 and be there" used by photojournalists.

Not quite, you still have to make sure the focus point lands on the subject closest to you. This is a common mistake most people make (including many Canikon folks), let the camera choose focus point - mistakenly landing on the tail end of the DOF. Experienced photojournalists don't make that mistakes, only the green ones do.

[Nicolas06]

I don't see why this is relevant. The OP did not ask how to test a camera or lens, nor how to be a super photographer admired by all; the OP did ask how to take pictures under particular circumstances.

Theses circonstances included low light. Do that with f/7. Indoor low light at nice, fast moving subject f/7 and look at the noise and you'll understand that fast apperture for action/sport can be usefull for subject isolation at time but are often necessary to keep the iso in an acceptable range.

To shoot something that is fast moving at 1/250s say at f/7 you'll be 3200iso at best, many time in the 6400-25600 range where noise is actually an issue. So you try to get the best compromize with noise and apperture, and use a flash when it make sense.

[Nicolas06]

Perhaps an example, this one is shot with the DA 18-135... aperture f7.1 Aperture priority mode -0,7EV, focus select (off center), use AF button to lock focus, re-frame. Everybody in the parade is moving toward me.... I was actually stepping into their path (walking backwards).
K3_P6769

Man on this picture at least it look like the subject move slowly and in a predictible directlion. The field of view seems to be large too.

I think every camera can manage that, particularly closed down. The dof is more than 1 meter, if the camera is late by 0.1-0.2s on where the subject is, that only going to be 0.1-0.2meter so not really relevant.

Try an indoor basketball match for something more challenging.

[aleonx3]

Man on this picture at least it look like the subject move slowly and in a predictible directlion. The field of view seems to be large too.

I think every camera can manage that, particularly closed down. The dof is more than 1 meter, if the camera is late by 0.1-0.2s on where the subject is, that only going to be 0.1-0.2meter so not really relevant.

Try an indoor basketball match for something more challenging.

You totally missed my point, the OP wants to get a DLR so he/she can take pictures of his/her small kid moving around in good and not-so-good light. You are advocating that he/she needs a high-power AF camera in order to get the job done while I am just saying most modern day DSLR (yes, including Pentax of course since it is Pentax forum) can do the job just as well.

Another point is about taking photos with the subject running toward you at fast speed (which requires sophisticated tracking) that appeals to people, I have yet to see one that looks interesting. I am all ears if you can one that you care to share. Here are more "boring" examples, I am sure you can take the same with high-end fast AF non-Pentax camera, but can Pentax DLSR do the job? I say yes, you say no.

K3_P5242
K3_P5191
K3_P4946
K3_P5258
K3_P4553

---------- Post added 07-07-2016 at 11:08 AM ----------

Just a couple more photos in poor and inadequate lighting conditions (stage show).

K52P3276
K52P3274

Again, I am sure these can also be taken with an equivalent Canikon (more expensive) DSLR, but it can also be done with a Pentax DLSR.

I think I am done with this topic..