[biz-engineer]

At any point in time, if we consider only one parameter, there is always a camera better than others. Say, Ricoh is the market leader in Pixel shift , if we consider that pixel shift is a must have (questionable). Nikon has the leadership with autofocus. Canon leadership in portfolio of lenses. Single point AF is very much used, the Pentax one is as good as others. When Ricoh will align with Canon's 65 points AF, it will be way better than now, but it won't be at D500, Pentaxians will still complain. Pentax would need to deliver a new AF in the future; whether it should be D500, is not justified , all of photographers don't need a D500, even Canon and Nikon know that, they feature lower performance AF modules in other camera models. When Ricoh would release a camera with 65 AF points and better tracking, and Canon release 150 AF points, Pentaxians will complain again, this is consumer behavior, and this is boring to death. If you want a killer AF, get yourself a D500, it's the best but it's $2K and 21Mpixels APSC, if you do landscape it is not the best, and if you do portraits it is not the best either. Then you can buy 2 cameras, or 3 , take the best for each type of photography you do, if not specialized, you end up with 3 to 5 camera models, that's ok when having the money to pay for it.

[BigMackCam]

Just to clarify that the low light autofocus performance is astonishing and indeed for studio or location portraiture I find the K1 (and the K3) amazing - and impeccably accurate, they hardly ever miss whereas my K5 was quite poor. My question however relates more to tracking motion. I am by no means an expert at sports and wildlife photography but I have experienced variability with the K3 - some poor tracking at daughter's school sportsday on K1, some iffy tracking of birds in flight on K3, some excellent tracking of a running dog coming straight at the camera on the K3.
...
I think the point I am trying to make is that from watching the video it looks like the D500 can pretty much track a bird in flight over the whole frame even if you are something of a numpty, whereas Pentax currently do not offer any cameras that can do that.
...
With all this technical capability then I can't understand why they seem to struggle so much with motion tracking, predictive autofocus and autofocus in video when surely it's probably a case of headhunting a couple of Nikon or Canon engineers and writing the software accordingly.

Why would a multi billion dollar company allow its products to be weaker than the competition in one particular area for decades??? I say this as a fan of the brand by the way.

I think that's well-written, properly-considered and perfectly valid. And I do think Ricoh has work to do with Pentax AF.C.

That said, for anyone who may have missed it, here's a very promising thread showing one member's bird-in-flight AF.C tracking experience with the new KP:

AF-C Examples with KP (pic heavy thread) - PentaxForums.com

Now, this is just one example, so we can't conclude anything from it. But, I do find it very encouraging.

[mecrox]

On this one, it's a fail for Ricoh. If their engineers and marketers are not technical enough, are too busy, they could open a 3 month student internship as a technical writer who would write some application papers aimed at customers.
I mean, it takes a few days to write a paper and then have it reviewed by peers and correctly over a few weeks. If a company like lensrental can do it, the only thing that come to mind about Ricoh is negligence.

I don't think it is negligence. Someone once said persuasively that there is a cultural mismatch at work. Folks in the East are far more comfortable getting their info from technical manuals than are folks in the West. There may be a lot in that. And I think some of the traditional optical companies are lost in the past. They just don't get the degree to which the world has changed. So many folks these days reach for FB, Instagram, YouTube and a website tutorial before all else. They expect to find what they want on there. They expect to find the info given to them by some kind of opinion-former come brand ambassador. Let's not even get into apps and smartphone competition.

Anyway, I've made up my mind about all of this. Pentax AF isn't nearly as bad as some of these hysterical poster boys are claiming, but it is not comparable to the better stuff from some others. Which means that if you major on sports/action then Pentax is not the best choice - while being an excellent choice for a lot of other things. The weak link which needs all the work is 3D tracking. But in the longer run this reluctance to engage with modern marketing and open up a conversation with users is locking the company into a slow decline by confining sales to the existing userbase almost entirely. I regret this, and it is so unnecessary, but it's Ricoh loss not mine.

[biz-engineer]

There may be a lot in that. And I think some of the traditional optical companies are lost in the past. They just don't get the degree to which the world has changed. So many folks these days reach for FB, Instagram, YouTube and a website tutorial before all else.

They've created a special website for the K1 (my guess, they outsourced the website), but it looks like it stopped there. What I thought about this website was a failed good idea because if you want a website to be effective, you must generate traffic. Unfortunately, if not linked to social media, that Pentax K1 site is only known by existing k mount users , I better there is nearly no traffic, no impact on customers outside the k mount user base.

[RobA_Oz]

AF is the new FF.

After years of mis-step, denial, obfuscation and delay, we now have a competitive 35FF body with the Pentax name on it, in spite of numerous people on this Forum telling anyone who'd listen that it was never going to happen.

Someone will doubtless correct the above, to say "competitive everywhere but in AF", and they could be right, but note that we've now stopped marvelling at the competitive price. If Ricoh had put the effort required into matching the AF performance of its competitors, and put say $1,000US on the price, I wonder how many people would have bought it?

Anyway, now numerous (mostly other) people on this Forum are saying the same thing about AF performance, as was once said about a FF body.

I'm one of those who don't much care about improved AF performance, because I rarely shoot moving objects, but I wouldn't have paid an extra $1,000US for a K-1 - not for improved AF alone. I'd have maybe paid another $100US for a body that had it, but I doubt that would have covered the cost of a major revision in AF. I could be wrong.

For those who do care, keep talking about it. Talking about it got us a FF body, eventually.

[leekil]

The AF tracking issue is possibly not as bad is it is made out to be; in general on Pentaxforums, I have seen the recommendation of the use of non-screw drive lenses for tracking purposes, based on the claim of more granular movements to better follow small focus changes due to subject motion. But most kit lenses are screw drive, so that may be the first experience that people have with the Pentax tracking. Nikon, Canon, etc. have had silent focusing lenses for longer, which uses what is described as the more accurate focusing motor style. So it may not be as much an issue of the camera algorithm, as it is the lens technology being used. Catching up in the lens department, as well as getting the more accurately-focusing lenses out as kit standards may be the more necessary step to rehabilitate Pentax's focusing reputation.

This series of articles describes discovery & testing of Canon autofocus using newer lenses on new bodies, vs. any other combination, and how that is necessary for more accurate focus. The third article reveals that this lens-camera synergy had been developed/discovered quite a while ago by Canon, but it took a while for the product development to catch up:

Lens Rentals | Blog
Lens Rentals | Blog
Lens Rentals | Blog

[FantasticMrFox]

The AF tracking issue is possibly not as bad is it is made out to be; in general on Pentaxforums, I have seen the recommendation of the use of non-SDM lenses for tracking purposes, based on the claim of more granular movements to better follow small focus changes due to subject motion. But most kit lenses are SDM ...

Your post is a bit confusing. I originally thought you were talking about Sonic Drive Motor, which is commonly known as SDM in Pentaxland, but when you say most kit lenses feature it, you probably mean screw-drive motor (also 'SDM'), right? Even though technically most of Pentax latest kit lenses feature direct current (DC) motors.

---

Last edited by FantasticMrFox; 03-19-2017 at 06:17 PM.

[MarkJerling]

As can be seen in this thread, Pentax AF is now pretty good: AF-C Examples with KP (pic heavy thread) - PentaxForums.com

[totsmuyco]

I've always stated that I'm not at technical person. But my question is, if Nikon and canon are the best in AF, how is Pentax compared to Fuji, Sony and Olympus? I know the em-1 is good but, is Pentax that poor?

[BigMackCam]

I've always stated that I'm not at technical person. But my question is, if Nikon and canon are the best in AF, how is Pentax compared to Fuji, Sony and Olympus? I know the em-1 is good but, is Pentax that poor?

Mirrorless systems use a different form of AF than DSLRs, so we're not really comparing "apples to apples". That said, my own personal experience of Sony AF on their SLT hybrid cameras (the A99, A77 etc.) is that it's very good, and easier to achieve good results with AF.C than with Pentax. Same with the A7 Mark II mirrorless, from what I've been able to test, although I only have A-mount AF glass used with the LA-EA4 adapter.

Does that mean Sony's AF.C is better than Pentax? I don't think so... I just know that with my limited experience of tracking moving objects, I find it easier to do so with my Sony gear than with my K-3 or K-3II. But lenses also play a big role in AF.C performance, and my A-mount tele glass is faster focusing than my equivalent Pentax glass.

I'd be really interested to see what the KP is capable of with fast-focusing glass. We've already seen some very encouraging early results from it, using a consumer-level lens...

[biz-engineer]

Mirrorless systems use a different form of AF than DSLRs, so we're not really comparing "apples to apples". That said, my own personal experience of Sony AF on their SLT hybrid cameras (the A99, A77 etc.) is that it's very good, and easier to achieve good results with AF.C than with Pentax. Same with the A7 Mark II mirrorless, from what I've been able to test, although I only have A-mount AF glass used with the LA-EA4 adapter. Does that mean Sony's AF.C is better than Pentax? I don't think so... I just know that with my limited experience of tracking moving objects, I find it easier to do so with my Sony gear than with my K-3 or K-3II. But lenses also play a big role in AF.C performance, and my A-mount tele glass is faster focusing than my equivalent Pentax glass.

For the same size of camera body, mirrorless has the advantage over any DSLR, except in low light.
The whole problem of AF performance is the sampling time on the AF sensor itself, a small module does not allow fast sampling because of the integration time required on the AF sensor itself. A higher sampling rate of the AF sensor phase signal, keeping acceptable precision, requires a larger sensor area. Getting down to -3ev require more integration time or a larger sensor. My guess, it is hardly possible to fit a Canon 7DII / 5DIII AF module into a K1 body. All high performance AF DSLR are large and the AF module occupy a significantly higher volume than the Pentax Safox module. Some people buy Pentax DSLR because of the smaller size compared to Canon/Nikon. I'm sure Pentax could do another AF module to the level of Canon and Nikon but it would not fit into a KP (KP = size of XT2). + lens optical stabilization that help AF performance. Shaky image in front of the Pentax AF sensor is a serious problem for the AF loop regulation because of adding error to AF sensor reading. Given the amount of noise that Pentax users have made for years about Pentax AF, Ricoh is certainly very aware of it, but they remained silent for a very good reason.

[leekil]

Your post is a bit confusing. I originally thought you were talking about Sonic Drive Motor, which is commonly known as SDM in Pentaxland, but when you say most kit lenses feature, you probably mean screw-drive motor (also 'SMD'), right? Even though technically most of Pentax latest kit lenses feature direct current (DC) motors.

Correct, I absolutely meant the screw-drive lenses.

[MarkJerling]

Have a look at this thread: Pentax AF is Great - PentaxForums.com

[starbase218]

Of course Pentax can be used for sports. It may not be the best system for that purpose, but that doesn't mean you can't get good action shots. It just may be harder to do so.

Owning a Pentax K-3 system and a Nikon D7100 system, for me I can say it's not just sports where you notice the difference. It's just the overall feel of the AF system, which is more responsive with the Nikon. It's not even the lenses per se. I have the Nikkor 35/1.8, which takes more time to go through its focal range than the Pentax 35/2.4. But the AF is instant from the moment I press the button, and it doesn't take long making micro-adjustments. Say there's a person who has a beautiful smile on his or her face, and I want to capture that moment. It would be a shame if I missed it because I'm waiting for things like that. So, to me, you don't need to be shooting sports to benefit from a faster AF system.

But, as with all things, there's still a trade-off. The Pentax system is smaller, it has the Limited lenses, and it's build better. And you have the sensor-shift-enabled features. In a sense, it's a different kind of camera from the D7100.

[normhead]

It would be a shame if I missed it because I'm waiting for things like that. So, to me, you don't need to be shooting sports to benefit from a faster AF system.

Ya right, you miss so many smiles because your K-3 AF is so slow. What is it with these Canon and Nikon owners that they have all these make believe scenarios that "might " happen?

The guys shooting next to me ends up with almost exactly the same bursts I do, with their 1Dxs or D7200s or whatever they are shooting. I've never seen a D7100 in the park. With your D7100 and your maximum 6 fps burst mod (3 default) In this sequence of 19 images (with not one of them out of focus) there is exactly one where his paw is lifted which makes for a much more interesting picture. It would have been a shame if I'd missed it because I was shooting a paltry 3 fps with a D7100. Given that I have been out there for over 6 hours, shot over 600 images, and this is the favourite, it wouldn't have been sad, it would have been just downright tragic. So why is it owning both aK-3 and a D7100, you haven't noticed this?

At 8 fps there was exactly one frame that looks like this, don't even try and tell me your D7100 is anything like a match for my K-3. You're making me laugh here. And this applies to smiles, actions, gestures, everything. You simply are saying you don't know how to get what you need out of your K-3. K-70 at half the price would be better.

The things that make the K-3 special are buffer size and frame rate. If you aren't making use of those, you shouldn't even own a K-3.

Two can play this mindless stupid, my D7100 is better than your K-3 game, or vice versa game.



I mean honestly, what the heck are you thinking? Credibility is hard to come by dude. you shouldn't be risking it like that. What you won't see here,... you won't see people claiming their k-5 is better for something than someone's D7200. just because DxO rates the k-5 so high or something. Most folks here would find that completely embarrassing. I can't believe you did it in reverse with a straight face.

BY the way, this isn't something I dreamed up or that is in anyway untypical. This happened yesterday, Check the date on the exif, and it happens every time I go out. It's not some "well it would be a shame if I missed a smile someday, in a hypothetical, theoretical situation that could happen but probably hasn't." I don't have to mine my files to know why a K-3 is better than a D7100. I see it every single day out in the field.