[normhead]

Show me where I have pulled a slight of hand by associating faster AF with more accurate?. If you had taken the time to read my post is was discussing better AF and with that I imply both speed and accuracy, with better accuracy comes less of the need to use more DOF ( the need to hide AF errors in that DOF) when the focus plane is better placed on the subject target less DOF is need to give the appearance of more of the subject is in focus.

Man you are piece of work, I did read your post. Where the heck do you get this condescending "you didn't read my post " attitude. If you didn't get your point across that's on you. I read at a 97% english comprehension level among university bound students. if you aren't getting through to me, you are getting through to possibly 3% of the population.

You might want to consider that next time you think I didn't understand what you wrote.
Maybe it's you're so locked into your head, that you don't realize that what you wrote doesn't mean what you think it did. Just another possibility for you to consider.

I understood exactly what you wrote, and my comment stands as written. There is no correlation between fast AF and accurate AF. And there have been actual tests, timed tests, where they also kept track of the accuracy of the cameras used (which were all in the same price range as a K-5. They were on a test bench with stationary targets, and the fastest focusers were not the most accurate. I don't know how you cooked up your images to show otherwise, but maybe we analyze it as a study in deception.

But I have to ask you Ian, since you're such a propagandist for Nikon, how did I manage to get images better than all thiose Canon and Nikon shooters on the weekend. Why didn't I suffer poor images beacause of my lack of warp speed AF. Why did the cost and AF speed of the cameras used have so little to do with what got posted at the end of the day?

How is it possible, that my 3 year old K-3 took on a 1Dx and a number of other pro grade cameras with great AF , endless buffers etc. and came out with the best I.Q. images.

Until you've factored that into your endless mind messing calculations and demonstrations, you aren't worth reading.

I have to say this is not uncommon. The best photographer produces the best I.Q. with what they have. Folks like yourself who spend their time all locked up in the benefits of their gear very rarely seem to come out with the best results. Just get'er done and quit with all the propaganda.

My problem is that I read what you wrote and took you at your word. Then when caught with your pants down, as usual you cook up a whole distraction of unrelated stuff to try and make yourself look knowledgeable. It's getting old.

I don't care who has the bet AF, who spent the most, what the advantages are to some other system, if I'm getting better than the guys around me with what I have, I see no need to upgrade anything, despite your endless sales jobs. I'll upgrade when I see shot taken that I'd like to take, taken with better gear, that I can't get with my gear. And that just isn't happening, despite the fact I'm often shooting beside guys with $20,000 rigs.

That's what photography is about my friend. Not this endless mindless you put yourself through.

I shoot day after week, with people using all kinds of different equipment. And I often see the images the guys shooting beside me post. Your endless rants about the benefits of super fast AF etc... I can listen to you, or I can look at the images and make up my mind. And they tell me two different things.

If these things are so great as you say, why doesn't it show up in the images?

---

Last edited by normhead; 04-02-2017 at 02:07 PM.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

My AF works just great with inexpensive lenses, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Let me correct your statement above "My AF works just great for my expectations with inexpensive lenses."

People have very different expectations with there equipment

If you are happy with this then that's okay

I would at least expect to have the focus plane near the front of the target



Especially given that you had the time to pre focus the camera prior to capturing the image

---------- Post added 04-02-2017 at 02:06 PM ----------

I have to say this is not uncommon. The best photographer produces the best I.Q. with what they have. Folks like yourself who spend their time all locked up in the benefits of their gear very rarely seem to come out with the best results. Just get'er done and quit with all the propaganda.

And people that don't look for better than average photographs are always quick to display




I for one an always looking for ways to take better photography









I am not in the least interested in taking images like yours

Birds In Flight are not that difficult for a cameras AF unless they are erratic like swallows most birds fly at very consistent speeds



---------- Post added 04-02-2017 at 02:13 PM ----------

Man you are piece of work, I did read your post. Where the heck do you get this condescending "you didn't read my post " attitude. If you didn't get your point across that's on you. I read at a 97% english comprehension level among university bound students. if you aren't getting through to me, you are getting through to possibly 3% of the population.

Here is my post Please point to the area where I said anything about AF speed

People that want better AF for actions work want so they can help their photography on many fronts
With better AF you need less spray and pray to capture that action shot.
You can use shallower DOF because of more accurate AF, this in turn allows photos to be taken with less noise.
With better AF you can rely on that AF so you can time the photo for peak moments in the action.
With better AF you can rely on the camera to track the action allowing you to focus more with the composition and placement of key targets in the frame.
With better AF you are not stuck into buying the most expensive lenses to see an improvement in how well the AF tracks in X,Y and Z movement.
With better AF you are open to other uses with the images that you have taken

Better AF was the sum of my post and you interject AF speed into that, so maybe your not at 97% as you think seeing as how you derived AF speed from 5 lines that refer to better AF with no mention of AF speed

[normhead]

You always do crap like this. Your photography isn' better. That's just your ego talking. You are shooting slow moving raptor against a bright sky. And you don't know how much harder it is top shoot a small fast moving bird form 15 feet? Honestly, your ignorance astounds me. Honestly Ian, I have seen many images from many photographers, and I have some of their images burned into my brain, because if i ever get a chance to take something like them, I'm going to do it. None of them are yours. You've never even taken a photo I remember. There are at least 20 guys on this site who have taken images I just love, but realize I will never have a chance to shoot. And there are many of the guys I shoot in the park with who have taken images I love, but I would have had to be there. You can post all the images you want, all I can say is I'm not impressed.

Of your example images, only one is moving at the camera. And it's soft. The images I posted are head on coming at me at high speed from a few feet away. It's taken a long time to get to this. But, I simply don't hold any of your images up as something I'd like to emulate. It's tough, because I know you throw this stuff out there thinking everyone is going "oooh awwww", but at least here. It's not happening.

So right back at you dude. I could take images like the ones you posted in my sleep, given the opportunity.

It's just incredible how many times you criticized my work, as if you are such a bad ass photographer. I always bite my tongue. This time you've gone to far, and this is what you have to expect next time you try and pull this nonsense. IMHO, your work has nothing to offer me. It doesn't inspire me, and I don't particularly like it.

Better AF was the sum of my post and you interject AF speed into that, so maybe your not at 97% as you think seeing as how you derived AF speed from 5 lines that refer to better AF with no mention of AF speed

And my point was sometimes the best AF is no AF, it's MF, so you're still wrong. Now you take your own medicine, go back and read my post and see how you missed that.

I have been in intervention type groups where people had to repeat back to the last person who spoke what they said, to their satisfaction, before they moved on to their own point. You do the opposite. You misrepresent what others have said, so you can counter with the point you want to use, regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with what they said. Then you post some images that have nothing to do with the conversation and think everyone is impressed. The images you posted, I could have nailed those with my A-400, I don't need any AF for those, What do they have to do with the conversation?

[monochrome]

The new Nikon AF looks great - but this contretemps isn't helping. The newest Nikon I own is an FE2.

Please, can we return to the perfectly competent Pentax AF?

[starbase218]

I've actually been playing with my two bodies (hmm that almost sounds wrong ) and I have been getting better results with the line-type sensors on the Nikon than with the line-type sensors on the Pentax (in terms of accuracy). Which is a good thing as the Nikon only has 15 cross-type sensors. I've also been contemplating things a bit, and I think that right now, the gap between Pentax and Nikon AF must be smaller than it was years ago (except maybe for the AF in the D500 which I don't own). The D7100 basically has an upgraded AF from the D300S, which was released in 2009. Pentax, meanwhile, has been pushing a lot of small improvements and tweaks going from SAFOX 8 to SAFOX 11.

No comment on AF-C though.

[Dan Rentea]

I've been here (I'm refering to this battle about af-c) when I've changed the system and yes, although I still think Canon has better af-c than Pentax, K1 was quite good in terms of af-c, coupled with these new Pentax lenses. I had the opportunity to shoot with K1 several times and I enjoyed it. The number of fps it doesn't concern me to much because 6D has also 4.5fps and I can make it work just fine for BIF and action shots. The only thing that "bugged" me when comes to K1 was the slow clearing buffer.

That beeing said, why don't you guys go out and shoot instead of arguing about AF-C? It's not like everyone's work who commented here, on this thread, is depending only on AF-C, isn't it? Spring is here and we can benefit from it and get out from studio and have fun. This AF-C debate it's getting old...

I took these images with my old 6D, two days ago. I was out with some friends that have Nikon, Sony and Pentax and we all got good images. We even managed all of us to trigger my Godox AD360 flashes with my X1T-C and my XT32 triggers. And guess what? We all used AF-C for a few shots with the girl on the swing. And AF-C worked great on all cameras. :P

[starbase218]

I've been here (I'm refering to this battle about af-c) when I've changed the system and yes, although I still think Canon has better af-c than Pentax, K1 was quite good in terms of af-c, coupled with these new Pentax lenses. I had the opportunity to shoot with K1 several times and I enjoyed it. The number of fps it doesn't concern me to much because 6D has also 4.5fps and I can make it work just fine for BIF and action shots. The only thing that "bugged" me when comes to K1 was the slow clearing buffer.

That beeing said, why don't you guys go out and shoot instead of arguing about AF-C? It's not like everyone's work who commented here, on this thread, is depending only on AF-C, isn't it? Spring is here and we can benefit from it and get out from studio and have fun. This AF-C debate it's getting old...

I took these images with my old 6D, two days ago. I was out with some friends that have Nikon, Sony and Pentax and we all got good images. We even managed all of us to trigger my Godox AD360 flashes with my X1T-C and my XT32 triggers. And guess what? We all used AF-C for a few shots with the girl on the swing. And AF-C worked great on all cameras. :P

Yeah but she's not really moving.

All kidding aside, nice shots!

And you are right. We can talk all day long, but instead of talking we could shoot. Work with it, play with it, try out stuff. And then if the AF works for you, that's all that matters. And if it doesn't, you know that too.

---

Last edited by starbase218; 04-03-2017 at 04:31 AM.

[Nicolas06]

You always do crap like this. Your photography isn' better. That's just your ego talking.

That's 100% applicable to yourself. A mirror maybe. The difference are his shots are technicaly correct at least: sufficiantly sharp and detailled.

Nobody care how difficult it was. If the subject is moving or not or whatever. This is the technique. The result is what count.

Technique can be interresting on how to improve. Sure. And that's an interresting discussion, but when you arguments are your technique so much better you don't need the better gear and you show some blury shot that you think are perfect and criticize the sharp shots of other we have a problem.

Your point could be that yes what you do is more difficult. But why then your buddy photos you also posted is sharp and detailled and yours is not?

This isn't a problem of the subject being hard to catch, this isn't a problem of other picking easiers situations, as it was all the same!

With all the explanations you give on how great a photographer your are, how you did teach photography in school, how you don't need better AF because you'd technique is so good, we expect of each shot to be perfect and ready to make the front page of the next national geographic release.

You are not there yet... And untils your shots are always crip, detailled and sharp all the time, in particular as crisp and detailled as the other shooting in the same conditions, I think your point on how we don't need the better hardware are not very valid.

And that everybody can see it: just compare the photos you posted and other posted.

[Dan Rentea]

Do I have to grab popcorn? The af-c seems still a sensitive subject on this forum. Let's hope that K3 Mark III will put an end to this "battle", assuming that the release date will not be in the same time with 7D Mark III and D500 Mark II.

This year I plan to photograph mostly Kingsfishers and European Bee-eaters (challenging bird when they are in flight) and I intend to test again a Pentax K-3 II (which was the last Pentax camera I owned), but this time with a Pentax 150-450mm lens and see how improved is the af-c with this lens, compared to DA300mm f4 lens, which was slow as hell, despite beeing very good opticaly.

[awscreo]

Do I have to grab popcorn? The af-c seems still a sensitive subject on this forum. Let's hope that K3 Mark III will put an end to this "battle", assuming that the release date will not be in the same time with 7D Mark III and D500 Mark II.

This year I plan to photograph mostly Kingsfishers and European Bee-eaters (challenging bird when they are in flight) and I intend to test again a Pentax K-3 II (which was the last Pentax camera I owned), but this time with a Pentax 150-450mm lens and see how improved is the af-c with this lens, compared to DA300mm f4 lens, which was slow as hell, despite beeing very good opticaly.

This thread reminds me of presidential debates

[normhead]

I went to Imaginag Resources who seem to have come up with some standardized way of testing AF, just looking for speed of focus times, and put together the following chart....

I have to say, after all the tests on the lack of AF in Pentax I was a little surprised. I've become so accustomed to the Pentax AF sucks noise I just want to find out how much slower it is.

Surprise it isn't. At least not according to the Performance tests at Imaging Resources. Maybe I'm just missing something here, but have all those folks raving about Nikon and Canon AF been wrong? I mean, we are comparing for the most part to cameras that cost 5 times the price.

Canon 1Dx-----K-3---- Nikon D4s------Nikon D500



We had s thread awhile ago showing how a D7100 is better than a K-3.

Yet, the D7100

On the I.R. tests it's slow, slow , slow.

Yet we have folks on the forum constantly whining about Pentax AF.

Are there some reputable standardized tests somewhere I can use to understand the difference between the reports of the Nikon and Canon favouring people on the forum? The I.R. test show the K-3 as being .01s slower than a Canon 1Dx.

What am I missing here?

Nikon P7100 Review - Performance
Nikon D4S Review - Performance
Canon 1DX Review: Initial Test - Performance
Canon 1DX Review: Initial Test - Performance
Pentax K-3 Review - Performance

But what about the K-1 you ask...
K-1 AF


Am I missing something, or has there been a bunch of bull poop passed off as fact on this and many other forums?

According to IR, only the 1Dx auto focuses faster than a K-3, none are faster than the K-1.

I was expecting to find out how much slower Pentax's were. The IR results are simply shocking to me. A lot of people I thought had a teeny tiny bit of integrity just lost a lot of cred, at least in my book. Can you actually trust any of these Canon and Nikon have better AF freaks?

"Lucy, you got some splaining to do."

---------- Post added 04-06-17 at 09:53 AM ----------

That's 100% applicable to yourself. A mirror maybe. The difference are his shots are technicaly correct at least: sufficiantly sharp and detailled.

Nobody care how difficult it was. If the subject is moving or not or whatever. This is the technique. The result is what count.

Technique can be interresting on how to improve. Sure. And that's an interresting discussion, but when you arguments are your technique so much better you don't need the better gear and you show some blury shot that you think are perfect and criticize the sharp shots of other we have a problem.

Your point could be that yes what you do is more difficult. But why then your buddy photos you also posted is sharp and detailled and yours is not?

This isn't a problem of the subject being hard to catch, this isn't a problem of other picking easiers situations, as it was all the same!

With all the explanations you give on how great a photographer your are, how you did teach photography in school, how you don't need better AF because you'd technique is so good, we expect of each shot to be perfect and ready to make the front page of the next national geographic release.

You are not there yet... And untils your shots are always crip, detailled and sharp all the time, in particular as crisp and detailled as the other shooting in the same conditions, I think your point on how we don't need the better hardware are not very valid.

And that everybody can see it: just compare the photos you posted and other posted.

Yawn.
I don't need you to like my photography Nicholas. Getting your approval is not on my list of things to do.
My examples were chosen not as examples of my best photography but as examples of the points under discussion. So yes, when Ian tosses his best work out there regardless of relevance, it's probably going to be better.

If I'm so bad. maybe you should just ignore me. I took you off my ignore list. You're back on, since you clearly just hate my guts and as far as I can tell it has nothing to do with photography. I just wish I could make it so you can't read my posts.

[starbase218]

I was expecting to find out how much slower Pentax's were. The IR results are simply shocking to me. A lot of people I thought had a teeny tiny bit of integrity just lost a lot of cred, at least in my book.

All I have for myself is my own experiences. All the tests in the world won't change those.

You like the 18-135. Yet Photozone has objectively tested it and thinks it's terrible. But you don't lose any credibility by liking the 18-135 in my book.

And it's the D7100, not the P7100.

[Dan Rentea]

I went to Imaginag Resources who seem to have come up with some standardized way of testing AF, just looking for speed of focus times, and put together the following chart....

I have to say, after all the tests on the lack of AF in Pentax I was a little surprised. I've become so accustomed to the Pentax AF sucks noise I just want to find out how much slower it is.

Surprise it isn't. At least not according to the Performance tests at Imaging Resources. Maybe I'm just missing something here, but have all those folks raving about Nikon and Canon AF been wrong? I mean, we are comparing for the most part to cameras that cost 5 times the price.

Canon 1Dx-----K-3---- Nikon D4s------Nikon D500

Are there some reputable standardized tests somewhere I can use to understand the difference between the reports of the Nikon and Canon favouring people on the forum? The I.R. test show the K-3 as being .01s slower than a Canon 1Dx.

What am I missing here?

I can't believe that people still buying those expensive cameras like 1Dx, D5, D500, 7D Mark II instead of buying K-3 for action photography... They probably haven't seen these tests from Imaging Resources.

Or, why not going with Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II? Look at this little camera's scores.



Wake up, Normhead. Pentax have some outstanding features on their cameras, but Af is not among them, although is decent enough for some action photography if you put some effort to understand how Pentax af-c works. But comparing top action cameras with K3...not even a beginner can't be fooled here.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

I can't believe that people still buying those expensive cameras like 1Dx, D5, D500, 7D Mark II instead of buying K-3 for action photography... They probably haven't seen these tests from Imaging Resources.

Or, why not going with Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II? Look at this little camera's scores.



Wake up, Normhead. Pentax have some outstanding features on their cameras, but Af is not among them, although is decent enough for some action photography if you put some effort to understand how Pentax af-c works. But comparing top action cameras with K3...not even a beginner can't be fooled here.

They are not testing AF speeds, what they are testing is how long it takes for a camera to take a photo when the camera was already pre focused on the target. I would not interpret this as a AF speed test.

All of the differences that we might be seeing is that different cameras have different latency to trigger the camera to focus and make adjustments. With the K5-K3II when shot in AF-C have a latency that is around twice as much as the same camera shot in AF-S, this means that it takes a significant amount of movement or miss focus before the body decides to adjust AF.

I know with other camera bands that latency can be smaller meaning the camera is making more frequent AF changes, even when on a tripod you will see these camera continuously adjusting AF even when the target is static. This could slow down the speed simply by the software of the camera needing to confirming target has not moved with a higher degree of certainty.

[Dan Rentea]

They are not testing AF speeds, what they are testing is how long it takes for a camera to take a photo when the camera was already pre focused on the target. I would not interpret this as a AF speed test.

All of the differences that we might be seeing is that different cameras have different latency to trigger the camera to focus and make adjustments. With the K5-K3II when shot in AF-C have a latency that is around twice as much as the same camera shot in AF-S, this means that it takes a significant amount of movement or miss focus before the body decides to adjust AF.

I know with other camera bands that latency can be smaller meaning the camera is making more frequent AF changes, even when on a tripod you will see these camera continuously adjusting AF even when the target is static. This could slow down the speed simply by the software of the camera needing to confirming target has not moved with a higher degree of certainty.

I know they are testing af-s, but I played with K1 and 5D Mark IV and when I changed the focus point from a subject standing at 1m from me to a subject standing at 2m from me, 5D Mark IV locked focus faster. Shooting in the field it's a completly different story than putting cameras on tripod in some controled enviroment and test their capabilities.

But K1 was quite fast, I admit that and I enjoyed also that the focus was accurate. I would have no hesitation in picking a K1 for a job which not implies to much action (the low clearing buffer is one of the reasons, and also the 36mp requires a faster shutter speed because of the demanding sensor).