[normhead]

Or in this case....


Miss focus on both of them.

---------- Post added 03-08-17 at 10:11 AM ----------

Forget how they focused, I want to know how they delivered the bridal portraits without Instagram?

My cousin used to charge $2000-3000 for the shoot, but often charge $4000-$5000 for the album afterwards, that almost always included a separate 30x40 portrait of the bride and groom to hang near the entrance to their mansion. But he was very high end.

High end enough he was miffed when Bill Gates didn't invite him to the opening party at his new house. I was like "You know Bill Gates? wow!" But clearly, he wasn't in the top 800 on the Bill Gates party list.

[zapp]

Simple question, lots of discussion...
Eye AF would be nice feature for Pentax, actually better tracking of any object with would be nice. I am not missng eye AF particularly, but if it was there it would help some of us. The key is the tracking ability of the AF system and here seom more basic improvemen is needed. You can patent everything and nothing that should not really stop someone developing a feature.

[starbase218]

Used to be, people used to realize photographers had skills. These days folks just expect technology to improve. If they can't get something right in five minutes, it needs technological improvement. They don't care that people did it in the past with no technological advances.

Now someone will offer up some lame excuses as to why they shouldn't have to develop their technique, the camera should do it all for them.

I'm beginning to understand why grumpy old men get to be so grumpy.

Maybe, but the other side of the story is that - at least with APS-C - today's viewfinders also aren't really suited to using manual focus anymore, probably precisely because they want you to buy in to their technological solutions. I wonder if those grumpy old men could get the same results with a K-3 as they did with an ME Super.

[Na Horuk]

Maybe, but the other side of the story is that - at least with APS-C - today's viewfinders also aren't really suited to using manual focus anymore, probably precisely because they want you to buy in to their technological solutions. I wonder if those grumpy old men could get the same results with a K-3 as they did with an ME Super.

It just doesn't make financial sense for Pentax to spend time developing and making a large viewfinder that works great for MF f1.4 lenses, when the vast majority of users will be using lenses that have some sort of AF capabilities.and are slower than f2.8. Better to optimize for that kind of lens.
Now, sure, having a big viewfinder is nice for manual lenses and gives you a cool feeling of being there, you can see focus precisely, but that is just not where technology is headed. Pentax has pretty good viewfinders, too. You don't often see such big coverage and full pentaprism on beginner and mid tier bodies.

[gatorguy]

Maybe, but the other side of the story is that - at least with APS-C - today's viewfinders also aren't really suited to using manual focus anymore, probably precisely because they want you to buy in to their technological solutions. I wonder if those grumpy old men could get the same results with a K-3 as they did with an ME Super.

Agree for the most part altho even with my quite old floater-filled eyes I still do quite a bit of manual tweaking if not outright manual focus with my K2's. But to make it reliable I did have to put Katzeye's with split-focus rings in both of them.

[monochrome]

I just have to wonder how these new f/1.4 D FA* lenses are going to Autofocus at all on a K-1 or whatever is coming this fall .