Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-30-2016, 04:15 PM   #16
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Phoenixville, PA
Posts: 122
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
A smartphone lens? Have you seen it? (hint: it fits into a smartphone).
Oh so I guess you are unable to see a lens in a cell phone! Think before being sarcastic

12-30-2016, 04:48 PM   #17
f22
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 117
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
An interesting first post. Especially how touchscreen is seen as the second important feature, while "articulated/tilting LCD screens, WiFi/NFC, onboard flash unit, AF tracking in movie mode, and GPS" are second-tier

Joking aside, sure, there's much to improve regarding the AF. However, it's not like Pentax could work exclusively on AF; first because they'll never be done - it's a continuous improvement, and as Pentax is catching up the competition moves forward as well. So working on these secondary features is important as well, because they are actually useful, and they do help selling the cameras.
Not second tier. Just that these have already been implemented. Yet the SAFOX systems still lag the Sony and Canon models that use faster processor's with more focus points. I was merely saying that Pentax does an amazingly good job in their sensor technology like PixelShift, and their value packed lenses. If they raised the bar in AF and also in touch screen, they would gain market share from other competitor's. That's all I was saying. I think there is room for improvement with every manufacturer, not picking on Pentax.

---------- Post added 12-30-16 at 07:54 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by kenspo Quote
Do you really think that they dont work on these matters?
Well they certainly lag Sony and Canon processors in both number of focus and contrast points by a huge margin. The SAFOX Prime M has 11 focus points in the K50; not dramatically more in the K1. All I was saying is that looking at 299 in Sony's Alphas, there's a large gap for Pentax to bridge.
12-30-2016, 04:58 PM   #18
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 11,588
QuoteOriginally posted by abhaskare Quote
Oh so I guess you are unable to see a lens in a cell phone! Think before being sarcastic
Try again. It's about its size, not existence. 5mm f/1.8, that makes for ~3mm, perhaps less.
12-30-2016, 05:03 PM   #19
f22
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 117
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
I think licensing/patenting issues and processing power is what's holding Pentax's AF back. Maybe that's why Pentax's AF performance seems to be a few generations behind in some areas.

But it's good enough for my needs. I'd like to see Pentax improve their apps, both for the Theta and for the Wi-Fi enabled DSLRs. A proper PC gallery for the Theta and a nice file transfer app for the DSLRs would be a good start.
Agree. The BION Z and EXMOR uses hundreds more focal points. I'd like to see Pentax focus on Auto Focus because regardless of all the other groovy shit you can put on a camera, a soft focused subject spoils the picture that could have been a stunner. Thanks for suggesting possible reasons why they trail and have only incrementally more points even in the K1. I'll bet cost is also a major contributor to using lesser powered processors

---------- Post added 12-30-16 at 08:12 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by pathdoc Quote
It's not the time or even the focus points per se (though having more of them does help); it's the tracking algorithms that continuously compute the camera-to-subject distance and determine not only the distance itself but how quickly that distance is CHANGING, so that it can shift the focus point by the right amount in the time it takes the shutter to fire; e.g. if there is a lag of 1/250 between when the button is pushed & the mirror starts to flip (and AF is lost) and the image is recorded, how far is that subject going to move in 1/250 of a second? Variables include how often that distance is measured, how accurate the measure is, and how accurately the AF module drives the lens to that particular distance. And that's just an oversimplification; in fact, there's a complex control-feedback loop going on in many directions at once, and woe betide the designer who cannot show their original work, otherwise the patent infringement suit will do terrible things to your company (as it did when Minolta were shown to have stolen AF technology from Honeywell).
That's a very good explanation of the additional parts going into AF. I do see the models which testers and industry reviewed seem to favor processors that also have hundreds of points covering 75-85% of viewing area, in addition to the speedy processing and algo's. Seems if you can detect more info about the framed subject, the processor may have less difficulty with acquisition? So your point is very valid.

12-30-2016, 05:22 PM   #20
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 11,588
QuoteOriginally posted by f22 Quote
Not second tier. Just that these have already been implemented. Yet the SAFOX systems still lag the Sony and Canon models that use faster processor's with more focus points. I was merely saying that Pentax does an amazingly good job in their sensor technology like PixelShift, and their value packed lenses. If they raised the bar in AF and also in touch screen, they would gain market share from other competitor's. That's all I was saying. I think there is room for improvement with every manufacturer, not picking on Pentax.
They are improving their AF, and I hope they'll be able to use the experience gained with the latest SAFOX iterations for a new, more advanced AF. We agree here.

However, spending big in improving the AF likely won't gain enough market share to compensate. As for the touchscreen, I'm guessing the effect would be negligible.

I'd like to be proven wrong, though.
12-30-2016, 05:25 PM - 1 Like   #21
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,294
QuoteOriginally posted by f22 Quote
That's a very good explanation of the additional parts going into AF. I do see the models which testers and industry reviewed seem to favor processors that also have hundreds of points covering 75-85% of viewing area, in addition to the speedy processing and algo's. Seems if you can detect more info about the framed subject, the processor may have less difficulty with acquisition? So your point is very valid.
There's a snake swallowing its tail problem here, because the more focus points you have, the more processing power you need to manage the data coming from them. The other thing that can make a difference, though, is exactly which focus points are engaged with a moving object. If, for example, you have (for argument's sake) ten strung out horizontally across the middle of the viewfinder and numbers four through eight are detecting an object, then eight drops out and three drops in, the processor can gain some information about the angular movement of the subject ACROSS the field of view and put that together with distance information to form a better picture not only of how fast it's moving towards or away from the camera, but which focus point (#2) it needs to pay attention to next. Multiply that for the dozens scattered across the viewfinders of some cameras and you get an idea of how complicated things can get, and why faster processors are essential for really good AF on a moving subject.

On the other hand, I have not heard anything too terrible about Pentax's AF performance on static subjects; there it seems to be among the best. Very precise when it locks on; the problem is getting a lock under certain circumstances in the first place.
12-30-2016, 05:49 PM - 1 Like   #22
f22
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 117
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by pathdoc Quote
There's a snake swallowing its tail problem here, because the more focus points you have, the more processing power you need to manage the data coming from them. The other thing that can make a difference, though, is exactly which focus points are engaged with a moving object. If, for example, you have (for argument's sake) ten strung out horizontally across the middle of the viewfinder and numbers four through eight are detecting an object, then eight drops out and three drops in, the processor can gain some information about the angular movement of the subject ACROSS the field of view and put that together with distance information to form a better picture not only of how fast it's moving towards or away from the camera, but which focus point (#2) it needs to pay attention to next. Multiply that for the dozens scattered across the viewfinders of some cameras and you get an idea of how complicated things can get, and why faster processors are essential for really good AF on a moving subject.

On the other hand, I have not heard anything too terrible about Pentax's AF performance on static subjects; there it seems to be among the best. Very precise when it locks on; the problem is getting a lock under certain circumstances in the first place.
I think that the companies that have more powerful processors and gather more information about what your composing, it can better predict, in a split second, whether you are focusing on the person in front of, or the mountain range behind them, and to focus on the front of their sombrero, or their eyes. There seems to be a clear advantage to the processor to decide where that focus point should be. That was all I was trying to suggest. Clearly if fewer points and smaller focus areas were better, then the development would be going the opposite direction from what it is going.

And as some other poster's have suggested, that I should go 40 years back in time to manual focusing, then why even have an AF lens? If you're going to invest in all the high end features, why downgrade the capabilities by choosing not to take advantage of them? Just get a really basic camera and be happy. But don't jump all over someone's suggestion that Pentax might want to maybe think about getting to where other companies clearly are going. The Pentax's I've got excel in image quality. But if you've tried to photograph difficult faster subjects moving towards, away, and across the viewfinder, a smarter processor is a good idea. Mr. Manual Focus can't possible beat a computer chip in processing speed. Maybe they're photographing immovable subjects so you can manual focus successfully in those situations?
12-30-2016, 06:45 PM - 2 Likes   #23
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton, Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 686
QuoteOriginally posted by f22 Quote
And as some other poster's have suggested, that I should go 40 years back in time to manual focusing, then why even have an AF lens?
Speaking for myself, yes. . . That's exactly what I did. After many repeated frustrations, I gave up on AF -- at least until somebody makes a telepathic camera that knows what I want to focus on! So, I got a Sony Alpha A7 and adapters for old, manual-focus Pentax-K and M42 thread mount lenses. I don't even have an autofocus lens for it. However, the Sony is always in live view and has great focus peaking and magnification. It's the easiest and most natural camera to focus manually that I've ever had.

Getting back to the original question. . . I'd like to see Pentax improve their controls. My K-S2 came with a mode dial labelled: P / AUTO / SCN / A-HDR / U1 / U2 / B / M / TAv / Av / Tv / Sv. Is that supposed to be user-friendly? Intuitive, even?

The K-1 seems like a further descent into madness with buttons that control what dials control, and a dial that controls what another dial controls. Come on! Just give us a dial for ISO and a dial for shutter speed, and put the aperture ring back on the lens where God intended! Just like the great old Pentax ZX-5n. Or like a new Fujifilm X-T1. If Fujifilm can do something like this, why can't Pentax?

12-30-2016, 07:19 PM   #24
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,501
I've used "Spot" AF mode for shooting wildlife, and on occasion more points when shooting landscape. I have never had difficulty using my AF, and more points are not necessary for me to do what I need. Pentax has been proven over and over by users that apply the needed settings and technique to acquire a desired image

The Pentax logo on the Pentax camera is the only one that should be there. Sidestepping a brand name on a Pentax product is not something that I am interested in. The entity is Pentax, and that is the line name.
12-30-2016, 08:59 PM - 1 Like   #25
npc
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 313
QuoteOriginally posted by Tony Belding Quote
The K-1 seems like a further descent into madness with buttons that control what dials control, and a dial that controls what another dial controls. Come on! Just give us a dial for ISO and a dial for shutter speed, and put the aperture ring back on the lens where God intended!
So True!
12-30-2016, 09:04 PM   #26
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Phoenixville, PA
Posts: 122
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Try again. It's about its size, not existence. 5mm f/1.8, that makes for ~3mm, perhaps less.
Yes, it is quite surprisinhg how they manage f1.8 in such a small size.
Pentax K-5 II vs Nikon D3400

One reference says focal length is actually 3.8 mm!
Attached Images
   

Last edited by abhaskare; 12-30-2016 at 09:06 PM. Reason: Added attachment
12-30-2016, 10:44 PM   #27
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2016
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 245
more lenses to put on it !
12-31-2016, 02:22 AM   #28
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 11,588
QuoteOriginally posted by abhaskare Quote
Yes, it is quite surprisinhg how they manage f1.8 in such a small size.
Pentax K-5 II vs Nikon D3400

One reference says focal length is actually 3.8 mm!
No, it's not surprising at all - the relative aperture opening is relative to the focal length; 3.8mm f/1.8, that makes for a ~2.2mm lens. It's not impressive that they have relatively "fast" aperture, these lenses are so small, almost pinholes.
As I said, look at them. Look at your smartphone, and ask yourself if its tiny lenses should be compared, cost-wise, to even the cheap DA 50mm f/1.8.

Phone camera modules are completely irrelevant for DSLR lenses.
12-31-2016, 04:36 AM   #29
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,294
QuoteOriginally posted by Tony Belding Quote
The K-1 seems like a further descent into madness with buttons that control what dials control, and a dial that controls what another dial controls. Come on! Just give us a dial for ISO and a dial for shutter speed, and put the aperture ring back on the lens where God intended! Just like the great old Pentax ZX-5n. Or like a new Fujifilm X-T1. If Fujifilm can do something like this, why can't Pentax?
I think you're taking things a bit too far here. The problem with putting numbers on the dials is that if you manage to give the camera another ISO or two with firmware fixes on the processor, you're sort of stuffed. As for the aperture ring, I don't mind them but I suspect they make life difficult for engineers trying to fully weather-seal the lens. It's worth noting that of the DFA macro lenses, the 50 still has its ring while the WR 100 does not.
12-31-2016, 05:01 AM - 1 Like   #30
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 11,588
The camera interface evolved for a reason - and that wasn't to make our life difficult
The MZ-5n's shutter speed dial has a limited range of settings: B and 2 to 1/2000 seconds, in one stop intervals. The K-1 allows from 30 to 1/8000 seconds, in 1/2 or 1/3 stops intervals. You just cannot write that on a dial. The Fujifilm X-T1 is similarly crippled (except that it has an Auto setting).
We shouldn't regress to ox carts just because they feel so nostalgic, and "God intended" us to use a bridle and not a steering wheel.
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!
ability, acquisition, af, camera, canon, da, distance, dslr, features, focus, improvement, k5ii, keeper, lens, pentax, photography, post, safox, shot, shots, sony, subject, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
what would you like to see in new K-3 firmware panonski Pentax K-3 50 03-24-2016 09:48 PM
What would you like to see in a 67D? ffking Pentax Medium Format 7 03-07-2016 09:36 AM
What features would you like to see in K-3's successor? (No FF!) mmichalak Pentax DSLR Discussion 82 04-06-2015 03:40 AM
What would you like to see in new DSLR? robert52 Pentax DSLR Discussion 21 08-25-2014 01:51 AM
What would you like to see in a Pentax compact camera? barondla Pentax Compact Cameras 16 04-15-2010 09:23 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:53 AM. | 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