[Not a Number]

I remember one of my buddies with his completely uncool Canon SLR with this funny little light meter attached to the top that was coupled to the shutter speed dial, claiming it was just as good as Pentax, even though it looked totally geeky.

You mean like this?



Source: http://whitemetal.com/pentax/ap_ccem/

[brewmaster15]

To what degree do you guys feel the Lenses themselves play a role in this AF superiority discussion. Seems no matter how good any camera's AF system is, if the Lens is not up the job, you may as well be shooting in manual..well not entirely but you get my point.

al

[normhead]

To what degree do you guys feel the Lenses themselves play a role in this AF superiority discussion. Seems no matter how good any camera's AF system is, if the Lens is not up the job, you may as well be shooting in manual..well not entirely but you get my point.

al

MY guess is, the 150-450, the 70-200 and the 28-105 are probably up to very quick AF. The camera with my Tamron 300 SP AF on it is a very quick focusing system compared to my DA*60-250 and DA*200. In many cases it's not the camera holding the AF back. SDM is slow and always will be. It's moniker should be 'So Damn Maddening". The issue here is Pentax is slow, and late to the fast AF game. A frustrating combination. Other companies have gear you can buy if you choose to pay the price. It's a conundrum. SDM was compatible with K20D focussing speeds. The AF systems got faster, but they didn't update the lenses. One of the reasons I liked my 18-135 so much was that ring motor in it was so fast and quiet. But at that time there was nothing similar available. AL lot of the time the 18-135 was on the camera in part because it was so much faster focussing then the 60-250. To the point I now consider my 60-250 and DA*200 to be landscape lenses. IF there's action I want my Tamron 300 on the camera.

I'd like to believe the new 150-450 and 70-200 are better, but I don't own them so I have to take other people's word for it. They simply can't be as bad as SDM, but are they as good as Tamron , Sigma, Nikon, and Canon lenses? I'd guess not. Pentax has came really late to digital, then failed to realize they need to exploit the speed potential of digital, thinking people would be happy with film type frame rates. To the point that I can actally adnvace shutter release lever and fire off 2 frames a second with a film camera, but a Ricoh WG ( derived from the Pentax Optio W series) series can only do a frame every 1.5 seconds.

Pentax has definitely carved itself out as the company giving a skilled photographer a chance to produce very good quality images for a great price. IN that sense it's the opposite of a consumer camera. As with having to figure out the various combinations of AF hold, selectable focus points, etc. etc, instead of putting something like a "Sports" and tracking" settings the dials, much of Pentax is not very consumer friendly. They seemed locked in the 1967 mindset, of we want to make it easier for folks who know what they are doing as opposed to, we want to make this understandable for the average Joe. It's an antiquated way to view the industry. Good for us lifers, not so good for beginners.



---------- Post added 03-17-17 at 10:27 AM ----------

You mean like this?



Source: Die Cast Pro - Asahi Pentax CdS Clip-on Exposure Meters for S1/H1-S3v/H3v and SL

Ya, like that. How could anyone think something like that was cool?

[sibyrnes]

To what degree do you guys feel the Lenses themselves play a role in this AF superiority discussion.

I know the first time I tried the DFA 28-105 on my old K200D I was amazed by how quickly and quietly it focused! In that case the lens played a huge role!

[awscreo]

I could definitely say that my copy of DFA 28-105 is way faster to focus than any other lenses I own. Looking forward to trying other DFA lenses, maybe if I'll ever upgrade my tamron 70-200 to the DFA one.

[normhead]

I know the first time I tried the DFA 28-105 on my old K200D I was amazed by how quickly and quietly it focused! In that case the lens played a huge role!

It's surprising that they wouldn't have built a lens for the K200D, capable of taking advantage of it's AF potential. Everything I learn about Pentax before Ricoh messes up my mind. It makes you wonder, do we actually have a competitive AF system right now, just no lenses that can exploit it's speed. My use of the Tamron SP AF 300 2.8 suggests that to me. It's easily faster than any other lens I own, and it's screw drive. As long as I can remember, the lenses with the best focussing speed for Pentax, like the Tamron 70-200, have all been non-Pentax lenses. People say the DFA 70-200 is an improvement over the FA*80-200, but so were the Tamron and Sigma lenses in that length.

Pentax under Ricoh is different. Pentax releases the K-70, and they release a lens the 55-300 PLM which is matched to it's AF capability, and as a result very fast compared to other similar Pentax lenses. it's just one lens, but to us Pentax die hards, at least there's one. It's more important as a change in philosophy, the realization they need faster focussing lens designs, than an actual product.

Pentax being a relatively small player in the game, it doesn't get the attention. A year or two ago I saw and on-line comparison of Nikon, Tamron and Canon 70-200s and the Tamron did very well. (Sigma refused to supply the author a lens for the test.) In fact optically and operationally it was on par with or better than Nikon and Canon gear costing twice as much. The build quality was it's only weak point. At that time, Pentax didn't have a horse in the race. And even now, I expect, Pentax, like Sigma, would just refuse to send the guy a lens for this test.

I am completely confident in Pentax's ability to provide me gear that will get me the best possible image for what i do. But I am also aware, as a company they are anything but cutting edge or innovative. They remain 10 years behind the field. Which is fine for guys like me who are 20 years behind the field.

They are still 10 years ahead of me.

[mecrox]

That much volume is the CaNikon failing business model. It is evident Pentax does not want to be in Best Buy, or any other high volume / low profit margin distribution channel. They can't make enough, and refuse to gear up to make enough, product to supply that channel.

Yet we demand the same features and diversity of bodies as CaNiSony - at a 20% lower price. We want a small, nimble, premium, value product without any mass-market baggage. How much more money, per camera, are you willing to pay for a marketing campaign, dealer support, warranty, service, distribution, availability and everything else - because YOU are going to pay for that, nor 'RICOH'.

Good. Fast. Cheap. Pick two.

If Ricoh really thought that then they would shutter their camera business while their chairman stood on a corner outside at the lunch hour asking passers-by for a dime for his sandwich, so low-rent had they become. Ricoh have no choice but to play the game while they are in it - either that or get out of it and invest the money in something else which will offer a better return to their stockholders.

Besides, a lot of this is not about money but about attitude. How much would it cost to put a user-friendly guide to AF on Pentax cameras on their websites? For Ricoh, peanuts. How much would a video tutorial on Pentax AF cost? Again, peanuts. How much would it cost for a brand ambassador or two who could front the video? A few hundred annually for expenses and loaners and perhaps an honorarium for giving a presentation at a trade show instead of a lot of photocopier executives boring everyone senseless. This stuff is regularly done by amateurs for about ten bucks. Clearly a pro job in several a languages would cost more but honestly the sums here are negligible. Other companies can do this and a few have quite good "photo academy" pages on their websites. With Pentax, my impression is that the company camera culture back at Tokyo HQ just doesn't understand the twenty-first century and is still stuck in an old school era. It's not doing them any good. Even their experienced users are having trouble working out AF settings. If Ricoh want new customers then they need to know what those customers are looking for and deliver it. A change of approach would make a huge difference to perceptions.

[biz-engineer]

The only tracking the camera has to do is to adjust the focus for the subject coming closer, and Pentax cameras just don't do that well. Instead of keeping the subject in focus smoothly, they make bigger jumps, and everything in between jumps is out of focus.

Sure, that was my expectation as well, and disappointment when using Pentax K3 AFC until I had a chance to show it to owner of the 7D.
He said "Yes, that's the same with 7D AI servo, it is not mean to adjust for each shot but it is meant to track the subject's trajectory and that's why not all shots are in focus".
Every using of Pentax K3 AFC wondering why not all shots are in focus in AFC mode, should first use a 7D and read the manual.
Expecting all frames in focus in AFC is plain wrong because that's not how predictive AF is supposed to be, but the idea on Pentax forum is sticky.

[FantasticMrFox]

Expecting all frames in focus in AFC is plain wrong because that's not how predictive AF is supposed to be, but the idea on Pentax forum is sticky.

You want to tell me predictive AF is supposed to produce out of focus shots?

There are cameras out there that get 95% keepers in that exercise, like the D500. I know, the D500 isn't a fair comparison to the K3, but the D7100 also has a much higher keeper rate. Same with the A6000. I shot alongside a friend using one on sports events several times, and it tracked so much better than a K3, irrespective of lens. He could essentially aim it at the action with one hand while looking at me and talking to me and would get >80% keepers.

[awscreo]

You want to tell me predictive AF is supposed to produce out of focus shots?

There are cameras out there that get 95% keepers in that exercise, like the D500. I know, the D500 isn't a fair comparison to the K3, but the D7100 also has a much higher keeper rate. Same with the A6000. I shot alongside a friend using one on sports events several times, and it tracked so much better than a K3, irrespective of lens. He could essentially aim it at the action with one hand while looking at me and talking to me and would get >80% keepers.

weird, i thought a6000 was notorious for it's bad CAF. Hence a much improved CAF in 6300 and 6500..

K-1 seems to be fast enough and precise enough for my amateur needs)
https://flic.kr/s/aHskMFhnmR

[monochrome]

@mecrox Ricoh Imaging sales are half the size of Leica.

[monochrome]

We really should wait for the APSc flagship to continue this discussion. The entire AF system is built for APSc - K-1 isn't especially suited to top flight tracking AF. It is good enough, and much better than the reputation it has, but not designed to be an AF beast.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Mark,

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 did try to change the settings for focus hold, focus priority and 9 point focus so I'm not a complete numpty either.

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.

I have no intention of leaving Pentax, I love what they do and am too committed to the lenses and ergonomics anyway to change brand for something that is only a side interest of mine. The root of my question is that it seems to me that Pentax have demonstrated they have immense technical and engineering capability. They have mnanaged to deliver a truly innovative full frame DSLR with all sorts of innovations - astro tracking, illumination, the rear articulating screen, pixel shift, the swinging mirror box for compactness - it's a technical tour de force not to mention getting amazing quality out of the sensor. 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.



Jonlg

Large R&D

A large professional user base that supplies feedback to R&D and a R&D that listens to that feedback and then improves on it.

They made huge AF improvements years ago that now can trickle down to the less expressive models .

They have the hardware and software that can recognise the target, track that target based on size and color thru the AF array.

[biz-engineer]

Besides, a lot of this is not about money but about attitude. How much would it cost to put a user-friendly guide to AF on Pentax cameras on their websites? For Ricoh, peanuts.

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.

[ffking]

One thing that (to my knowledge) no camera/lens company has never done is to lay out the trade-offs that have to be made in any design. We know a few of the obvious ones such as optical quality vs cost, aperture vs size etc, and we also know a few of the slightly more technical, but still fairy intuitively obvious ones like AF speed vs AF accuracy in lenses like macros where all the action doesn't take place at or near infinity. Ricoh recently revealed that the PLM motor isn't currently powerful enough to be used in lenses with heavy elements - and there are many more things we don't or didn't know, I'm sure. The trouble is that it's human nature to want it all - edge to edge sharpness and great rendition in a small fast compact 10x zoom with blistering AF (and no focus breathing) for under £/$/E 100. I think that if I were a lens or camera designer, I would get very disheartened - you give people what they say they want and suddenly they want the things that are incompatible with it too. Design is compromise and yes, always wanting better drives design forward, but we too easily forget that the things we want might just run counter to the things we things we already have and value.