[BigMackCam]

Focus peaking on the K3 is not very good. I can focus better in the viewfinder than with the K3's focus peaking. Focus peaking on my Fuji X-M1 camera is superbly implemented, much better than on Pentax.

Each to their own, I guess. If you can manually focus a fast normal-to-wide-angle lens at reasonable distance (rather than close up) through the viewfinder with excellent accuracy (at the pixel-peeping level), you're doing better than me. Maybe my eyes aren't what they used to be

It must be a subjective thing, as I find the K-3's focus peaking works extremely well. It's not perfect, but I think it's very good. That said, I prefer the implementation on my Sony cameras. The ability to change the level and colour of the peaking is very helpful. Still, I get equally good results with the K-3.

What I find less satisfactory is having to hold the camera up to eye level for live view, as this shooting position just feels unnatural to me (especially with bigger, longer lenses). A tilting or articulating screen (or an LCD loupe, perhaps) would make all the difference, but - for me - nothing beats looking through an EVF with focus peaking and magnification for manual focus work...

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 02-02-2017 at 04:47 AM.

[ffking]

I find the K-3's focus peaking works extremely well. It's not perfect, but I think it's very good. That said, I prefer the focus peaking implementation on my Sony cameras. The ability to change the sensitivity and colour of the peaking is very helpful indeed.

It'll be interesting to see the KP implementation - it's obviously something the're working on - maybe the K3iii will have more still in the Sony direction.

[BigMackCam]

It'll be interesting to see the KP implementation - it's obviously something the're working on - maybe the K3iii will have more still in the Sony direction.

Hopefully, I'll get to try the KP at The Photography Show in March. I'm looking forward to trying the "Highlight Edge" and "Extract Edge" modes to see if they significantly improve on the current focus peaking implementation...

[Edgar_in_Indy]

It's like 12-bit color, they have to save some goodness for the high-end cameras.

Maybe, but my old K-x, which was the entry level camera, had 10x magnification.

You did your homework by checking manuals, and this might not apply to your K-30, but is worth trying just in case. Make sure your AF setting is explicitly set to MF.

For example, my K-5 can go to 10x zoom if I flip the AF mode switch to MF. If I leave the switch in AF zoom level stops at 6x.

Yes, that's with it set to MF. The K-30 only goes to 6x for some reason.

[fwcetus]

I wish they gave me adjustable colours, even if it's just 3 different colours (green, blue, and red).

That would be a great improvement.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

I'm not sure that focus peaking would even be necessary if they would start including high-resolution LCD screens on cameras, like phones have had for years. I don't understand why the resolution of screens, even on high-end cameras costing four figures, has remained so low.

Cost and battery life.

Given that even budget smart phones, like the Lumia 735 which retails for $120, have 720p (1280x720 pixels) touchscreens and will run for hours on a battery that is much smaller than a DSLR battery, I'm not sure I'm convinced. The Samsung Galaxy J3, which sells for $150-$200, even has an AMOLED 720p screen.

Meanwhile, even a camera like the K-1, which costs near $2000 and where the screen will be used for judging focus, is stuck with a screen that is basically just VGA resolution.

[luftfluss]

Given that even budget smart phones, like the Lumia 735 which retails for $120, have 720p (1280x720 pixels) touchscreens and will run for hours on a battery that is much smaller than a DSLR battery, I'm not sure I'm convinced. The Samsung Galaxy J3, which sells for $150-$200, even has an AMOLED 720p screen.

Meanwhile, even a camera like the K-1, which costs near $2000 and where the screen will be used for judging focus, is stuck with a screen that is basically just VGA resolution.

Samsung manufactures their own AMOLED screens, so that cost is in-house. Many smartphones are manufactured by monolithic OEMs (like Foxconn), so their costs are reduced vs a tiny manufacturer like Pentax.

Phase-detect AF, screwdrive, and shutter are operations that smartphones are not tasked with - and some of these are mechanical operations - so IMO it's difficult to compare smartphone battery usage with that of DSLRs. If a better LCD results in, say, a 10% reduction of CIPA's battery life rating, the manufacturer will be reluctant to accept that penalty. I see far more people complain about battery life than LCD resolution.

Personally, I would like a larger, higher-res LCD. I'd take a reduction in battery life and simply carry a spare with me.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

Samsung manufactures their own AMOLED screens, so that cost is in-house. Many smartphones are manufactured by monolithic OEMs (like Foxconn), so their costs are reduced vs a tiny manufacturer like Pentax.

I'm kind of talking about the camera industry in general though, not just Pentax. As far as I know, no ILC camera is currently offered with an HD display.

Phase-detect AF, screwdrive, and shutter are operations that smartphones are not tasked with - and some of these are mechanical operations - so IMO it's difficult to compare smartphone battery usage with that of DSLRs. If a better LCD results in, say, a 10% reduction of CIPA's battery life rating, the manufacturer will be reluctant to accept that penalty. I see far more people complain about battery life than LCD resolution.

Personally, I would like a larger, higher-res LCD. I'd take a reduction in battery life and simply carry a spare with me.

And smartphones are basically handheld personal computers that are running operating systems, generating graphics, running apps, and receiving and broadcasting radio signals the entire time...things that cameras mostly don't have to worry about, and they still run HD resolutions...and many run resolutions much higher than HD. I'm simply not convinced that battery consumption is much of a factor here.

But yes, I would gladly pay a little extra for a true high-res LCD display.

[luftfluss]

I'm kind of talking about the camera industry in general though, not just Pentax. As far as I know, no ILC camera is currently offered with an HD display.



And smartphones are basically handheld personal computers that are running operating systems, generating graphics, running apps, and receiving and broadcasting radio signals the entire time...things that cameras mostly don't have to worry about, and they still run HD resolutions...and many run resolutions much higher than HD. I'm simply not convinced that battery consumption is much of a factor here.

But yes, I would gladly pay a little extra for a true high-res LCD display.

The camera runs an OS (heck, you can even use a hacked version on some Canons) and generates graphics. And when the camera is on it's constantly powering the sensor.

But performing a mechanical operation - like screwdrive, IBIS, sensor cleaning, etc - those mechanical operations require a surge of power that is not similar to anything a smartphone does. Smartphones don't need to overcome mechanical inertia. It might be somewhat akin to looping 3dMark or running Doom on your phone constantly. And the popup flash also uses a bunch of power.

If you compare the CIPA battery life rating between the K-5 IIs and the K-3, all the incremental improvements in the K-3 (including a larger LCD) result in a 40% decrease in battery life rating.

Also consider that cameras are not maximized for optimal battery life the same way phones are.

With my K-5 II, I shoot manual focus exclusively. Even with a 3 year old battery I can still get 1000 shots, which is twice what I get with my K-01 shooting mostly AF. Not a great comparison, but I think that indicates that everything involved with AF uses a lot of battery power.

Even if a better LCD would reduce battery life by 10%, a camera maker won't do it, until somebody else does.

[RGlasel]

Focus peaking says the entire wooden vase is in focus, even at f1.7. Forgive my blasphemy, but I believe the truth lies in narrower apertures.



First f4.0, then f1.7, yes, they don't align perfectly because I was shooting handheld, but you get the idea.

[mikeSF]

Focus peaking says the entire wooden vase is in focus, even at f1.7. Forgive my blasphemy, but I believe the truth lies in narrower apertures.



First f4.0, then f1.7, yes, they don't align perfectly because I was shooting handheld, but you get the idea.

you cant handhold at f/1.7 and expect to make any determination about focus accuracy.

[photoptimist]

Some of the disappointment lies in a misunderstanding of what focus peaking really means. It does not necessarily mean "these pixels are in focus". Instead, it means there's a very high pixel-to-pixel gradient in intensity. Such gradients are often found only in focused parts of images but they can also be found in slightly-defocused parts of extremely high contrast elements (e.g., edges of backlit elements, black-on-white objects).

As others have stated, one can't just focus until focus peaking pixels appear and assume that's the right focus setting. Instead, one needs to adjust back and forth to find the two ends where focus peaking fades for the part of the scene you want in focus and then adjust the focus ring to the mid-point.

If that feels like a manual version of CDAF's hunting behavior it's because it is! The camera has no way to know the underlying sharpness of contrasting elements in the scene (as rendered by the lens which might also add some softness) until it pushes from defocus to focus and back to defocus again.

[RGlasel]

you cant handhold at f/1.7 and expect to make any determination about focus accuracy.

I always try to lead by example, a bad example if necessary.

[mikeSF]

I always try to lead by example, a bad example if necessary.

[rawr]

1. If you turn on the flashing red highlight warning, this can work in conjunction with the focus peaking in a bright scene - you look for where they coincide and fine tune appropriately.

As Clackers mentions, I suggest people who use focus-peaking give this tip a try. Works well.

My experience with focus peaking on K-3 and K-1, with the tip above and generally, has been positive. Works well, very useful. Sony has it better implemented, to be sure, but not hugely better.

Spare a thought, BTW, for our Nikon and Canon DSLR brethren - they can only dream of having access to focus peaking.