[starbase218]

There's still innovation occurring in DSLRs such as K-1's advanced mirror mechanism and OVF overlay. And DSLR makers continue to increase the number of AF points, accelerate the processing of AF data, and extend the optical design of dedicated PDAF to handle both f/2.8 and f/8 optics.

To be honest, Nikon had LCD viewfinder overlays since at least 2008 (D300). AF points, grid, battery status, etc. Even the D200 had overlays. You may not want to consider it a recent innovation.

---

Last edited by starbase218; 03-31-2017 at 04:17 PM.

[gatorguy]

To be honest, Nikon had LCD viewfinder overlays since at least 2008 (D300). AF points, grid, battery status, etc. Even the D200 had overlays. It's just that Pentax hadn't caught up yet.

Many of the members here don't share your overt and persistent pessimism for the brand's focusing system but you almost sound offended that they won't join you in the bashing. Let folks enjoy their gear as their gear instead of trying to convince them they shouldn't

IMHO your consistent negativity is getting increasingly monotonous and distracting, actually discouraging others from taking part in the discussion but is perhaps something you hadn't realized. Your opinion of Pentax auto-focus was made abundantly clear pages ago and you clearly have no intention of changing it anytime in the foreseeable future. I think your steed is dead.

Responding to everyone's positive Pentax camera focusing experiences with just another negative one explaining how unimpressed you are with their results isn't being a good forum family member is it? There's no reason to make anyone here feel inferior. We all share the same interest even if our skills or knowledge may not all be the same. Accept that not everyone's experience with Pentax autofocus has been as unsuccessful or unpleasant as yours, and many of us expect only better things from it in cameras yet to come.

Thanks in advance for your consideration. . .

[normhead]

To be honest, Nikon had LCD viewfinder overlays since at least 2008 (D300). AF points, grid, battery status, etc. Even the D200 had overlays. It's just that Pentax hadn't caught up yet.

You seem to be under the impression that there is someone here who cares.

SImply stated, Pentaxians may lose on AF, but the gain with in body shake reduction.

And Nikon has yet to come up with an answer for Pixel shift.
Pixel_shift_images Slideshow by Norm_Head | Photobucket

On these images my Pentax did a fine job of tracking...



We have lots of images taken of Birds in Flight, some even taken with the K-5s and K-20Ds.





This one shot with an A-400, no AF at all. You should be asking yourself, why is this thing I think is so important, so un-important in so many images. Why do you keep showing us images demonstrating with AF what anyone can shoot with manual focus?




Taken with a very slow focusing SDM lens.


It doesn't seem to be an issue in anyone's mind but yours.

How about a few images that depend on frame rate, not AF to get sharp images,


My guess is, you don't get this image with a D750 because of the slower frame rate.

Notice with the two Grey Jay images the birds are coming straight at us. The lens used was a tamron 90, I would have hated to have lost either of these images because of no shake reduction. And how did the Pentax with the screw drive lens take images that I think are more compelling than anything I've seen above?

Whyare you going on and on about all things Nikon. I've worked beside Nikon D 800 -D810 shooters before, and they were struggling to get clean landscape images because of shutter shake. I was walking you, and held getting better images than they got. What ever you fascination is with Nikon, really, you should be keeping it to yourself. In many ways they are an inferior system.

[starbase218]

Many of the members here don't share your overt and persistent pessimism for the brand's focusing system but you almost sound offended that they won't join you in the bashing. Let folks enjoy their gear as their gear instead of trying to convince them they shouldn't

IMHO your consistent negativity is getting increasingly monotonous and distracting, actually discouraging others from taking part in the discussion but is perhaps something you hadn't realized. Your opinion of Pentax auto-focus was made abundantly clear pages ago and you clearly have no intention of changing it anytime in the foreseeable future. I think your steed is dead.

Responding to everyone's positive Pentax camera focusing experiences with just another negative one explaining how unimpressed you are with their results isn't being a good forum family member is it? There's no reason to make anyone here feel inferior. We all share the same interest even if our skills or knowledge may not all be the same. Accept that not everyone's experience with Pentax autofocus has been as unsuccessful or unpleasant as yours, and many of us expect only better things from it in cameras yet to come.

Thanks in advance for your consideration. . .

Thank you for your feedback.

You seem to be under the impression that there is someone here who cares.

Err.. I was responding to photoptimist writing that overlays were something of a novelty. We weren't even discussing Pentax cameras, but mirrorless and DSLRs in general and where technology is headed. But you're right; I made a comment about Pentax which could be considered negative. I will rewrite my post (even though that was not my angle).

SImply stated, Pentaxians may lose on AF, but the gain with in body shake reduction.

And Nikon has yet to come up with an answer for Pixel shift.
http://s1132.photobucket.com/user/Norm_Head/slideshow/Pixel_shift_images?sort=3

If you are responding to me saying that I think IBIS is more at home on mirrorless cameras, we weren't talking about Pentax or Sony or Canon or Nikon, we were talking about camera technology in general.

As for PSR, you're right, Nikon doesn't have it. And some other features as well.

On these images my Pentax did a fine job of tracking...

We have lots of images taken of Birds in Flight, some even taken with the K-5s and K-20Ds.

I also posted some shots I took with my K-5 and even my K-7 with the 55-300 which I think are pretty much spot on in terms of AF.

It doesn't seem to be an issue in anyone's mind but yours.

I am open to the possibility that I'm doing something wrong. I guess I'll find out either way.

Notice with the two Grey Jay images the birds are coming straight at us. The lens used was a tamron 90, I would have hated to have lost either of these images because of no shake reduction.

Usually I'm having problems locking on to birds that come flying at the camera. Can I ask you some questions about these photos?

edit: Never mind. You're still editing your post and I'm not going to go there. Like I said before: you and I differ on some opinions. That became very clear when we were discussing my video.

---

Last edited by starbase218; 03-31-2017 at 04:49 PM.

[Rupert]

These threads always seem so silly to me.....if you need Nikon type AF, just go buy it! They will sell to you without hesitation. Reminds me of the review I read years ago that compared my Jeep Wrangler to a Nissan Maxima.....if you know what you need, just get it..how hard can that be? I do wonder if Nikon guys post threads like this longing for SR like Pentax has? Has the idea of owning two systems ever crossed anyones mind? I mean if it is life or death, surely it would be worth the investment?

Regards!

[starbase218]

I do want to say this: I don't care if someone says a certain system is inferior based on his or her shooting style. The only thing that matters to me is how does the camera contribute to the end-result I'm after? It is a tool, just like a lens or Lightroom or a memory card or something else.

[normhead]

I do want to say this: I don't care if someone says a certain system is inferior based on his or her shooting style. The only thing that matters to me is how does the camera contribute to the end-result I'm after? It is a tool, just like a lens or Lightroom or a memory card or something else.

And you think you have some kind of monopoly on this kind of thinking or that it's even unusual on the forum?

Just what is it you think everyone is doing here?

[starbase218]

And you think you have some kind of monopoly on this kind of thinking or that it's even unusual on the forum?

Just what is it you think everyone is doing here?

No I don't. And I hope not. What everyone is doing here is each member's individual business.

[normhead]

Thank you for your feedback.



Err.. I was responding to photoptimist writing that overlays were something of a novelty. We weren't even discussing Pentax cameras, but mirrorless and DSLRs in general and where technology is headed. But you're right; I made a comment about Pentax which could be considered negative. I will rewrite my post (even though that was not my angle).



If you are responding to me saying that I think IBIS is more at home on mirrorless cameras, we weren't talking about Pentax or Sony or Canon or Nikon, we were talking about camera technology in general.

As for PSR, you're right, Nikon doesn't have it. And some other features as well.



I also posted some shots I took with my K-5 and even my K-7 with the 55-300 which I think are pretty much spot on in terms of AF.



I am open to the possibility that I'm doing something wrong. I guess I'll find out either way.



Usually I'm having problems locking on to birds that come flying at the camera. Can I ask you some questions about these photos?

edit: Never mind. You're still editing your post and I'm not going to go there. Like I said before: you and I differ on some opinions. That became very clear when we were discussing my video.

My apologies for the edits..... I tend to need to see something before picking up on how it might be said better

The key to the head on photos, on Pentax anyway, is the same as the way you did it with MF this instance is set your camera so you have part of an expected flight path in the frame. Determine the limits of your depth of field. Focus behind the start of your depth of field. Start the shutter burst before the bird is in focus. Hold down the shutter button, until the bird has flown through the are that comprises your depth of field. This technique requires no tracking AF, or even any AF at all, although when we use it, that camera may from time to time actually move the focus point forward and take more in focus frames than you expected. So what you have is an MF technique, that requires no auto-focus at all, yet is improved by whatever AF tracking capability your camera may provide. For the Grey Jay head on images, there isn't a Nikon or Canon made that will track these guys in flight, because they move so fast you can't keep them in the frame. SO there you go, you can sit there with your supposedly faster Nikon AF and get nothing using tracking. Or, you can shoot with a lower FPS camera like a D750 or D7100 and have 6 chances for a good image in stead of 8.

If your camera doesn't have the best AF, but it has the best frame rate, you compensate to level the playing field. Because

The only thing that matters to me is how does the camera contribute to the end-result I'm after?

The only thing I'm interested in is how do I get it done with what I have. How other companies do it, and who thinks they might be better or worse is irrelevant.

[starbase218]

Forgive me, but... you are posting shots taken with MF in a topic that concerns AF. I mean, I thought you posted those pics to show that you can get good results from AF with birds flying toward the camera. Which may still be true, but that's another matter.

Before, you kind of accused me of saying the 16-50 is a rubbish lens. I never said that either. I mean, is it so strange that I sometimes react the way I do with comments like these? Sorry, but if it is, then I just don't get it here.

[normhead]

Forgive me, but... you are posting shots taken with MF in a topic that concerns AF. I mean, I thought you posted those pics to show that you can get good results from AF with birds flying toward the camera. Which may still be true, but that's another matter.

Before, you kind of accused me of saying the 16-50 is a rubbish lens. I never said that either. I mean, is it so strange that I sometimes react the way I do with comments like these? Sorry, but if it is, then I just don't get it here.

Now you are just making up stuff. I was the one who said the 16-50 was a slow focusing SDM lens, the first SDM lens released, and that it was seriously under powered, to the point of burning out the circuit board that supplied power to it and the motor itself. .I also said many brilliant image on the forum have been taken with it, which is all that really mattered to me. You introduced the word rubbish in relation to it. Not me. You also made a video about it's biggest weakness, and implied that was somehow typical of Pentax.

Funny how you always declare any related information to be another matter. You do a series of tests, where you show one camera focusing faster than the other, (albeit with one of the slowest focusing Pentax lenses ever) and claim AF accuracy is another matter as well. This seems to be a psychological defence to keep you from having to deal with the issue raised.

I explain that the technique I use is better for this circumstance, and could be better for others as well, showing how I get the image, and you say, well it's not the technique I'm talking about. Yet according to you, it's all about the image .

You claim to just care about how to get the image, yet you seem to have some other agenda. If i can get the image why would it matter if AF is used. Whether or not the image was AF or MF. is irrelevant to the final image. If it's all about the image, it's all about getting the most out of your camera, and deciding whether or not to use an MF technique or to try and use tracking with an AF system, sure the AF system might work better one one system, but as i have clearly explained, an MF frame rate with a higher FPS has a very good chance to produce the better image/ SO who cares about the superior Nikon AF. I just camera bout the image. If the camera can't produce as good an image, I don't care if it has better AF. I don't even see how that is relevant.

If you say, Pentax AF won't allow me to get this type of image, and I say, here's how you get that kind of image with a Pentax, how is that irrelevant?

[starbase218]

Funny how you always declare any related information to be another matter. You do a series of tests, where you show one camera focusing faster than the other, (albeit with one of the slowest focusing Pentax lenses ever) and claim AF accuracy is another matter as well. This seems to be a psychological defence to keep you from having to deal with the issue raised.

I will take this one point and reply to it. I have said this before, but I did test with other lenses as well (most notably the Pentax 35/2.4 and Nikon 35/1.8) and had similar results. I wrote this down several times, yet you keep mentioning how I made Pentax look bad by using the 16-50. I also wrote down that the Pentax DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 is actually about as fast as the Nikon AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 when going through the focus range (from infinity to MFD and back again).

It is these kinds of comments, repeated after I confronted them head-on, that make me think you won't accept my answer anyway. Even if I were to post another video concerning focus accuracy, I think you'd just find another thing to nitpick on. So why should I bother?

About AF accuracy: no I did not test that. From my own experience, I have more confidence in the Nikon. Maybe it's not another matter, but I haven't tested it, so if I did, it could go either way.

---------- Post added 04-01-2017 at 04:17 AM ----------

Now you are just making up stuff. I was the one who said the 16-50 was a slow focusing SDM lens, the first SDM lens released, and that it was seriously under powered, to the point of burning out the circuit board that supplied power to it and the motor itself. .I also said many brilliant image on the forum have been taken with it, which is all that really mattered to me. You introduced the word rubbish in relation to it. Not me. You also made a video about it's biggest weakness, and implied that was somehow typical of Pentax.

Ok, you didn't say exactly that. What you did say is this:

I'm arguing that presenting this combination only from the standpoint of AF speed is a great disservice to the lens and the K-3. The K-3 AFs better with other lenses, and the 16-50 has qualities , not the AF system, but optical qualities, in it's abilities to render great images, that go well beyond it's AF deficiencies, and that make it a desirable lens even despite those deficiencies. Your review doesn't reflect the big picture.

I didn't create a review, as you suggested. Not of the K-3 and not of the 16-50. But you seem to assume I did, and you concluded that my review was unfair to the K-3 and 16-50 (which I loosely translated to "you accusing me of saying they are rubbish"). So first you assumed something, and then you criticized me based on that assumption. But the assumption itself was invalid.

Do you see why I have a problem with these kinds of replies?

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

This will burst belief bubbles, including the OP whose Aunts camera purchase planted seeds of Pentax capability doubt, but no Brand or Model of X, Y or Z will secure them perfectly focused photographs of children in swings. Practice, study, knowledge and experience will. I makes lots of photographs of dance in theater. Lots. 500k plus since 2010. 80 t0 85% are deleted but not because of the gear. I was late, I was early, too wide, too tight, vertical should be horizontal. horizontal should be vertical, upstage / down stage EV delta is too great, dancer not in character, I hadn't seen the choreography before, the dancer is new to me or I'm just having a bad day. But because I work at it, I get paid for it Dance Teacher Magazine April 2017 .

Art, in this case photography, like hitting a baseball, is simple and hard. The Siren Song of marketing tantalizes with promises of guaranteed success. It is a false promise.

In theater, I need a sensor than can tolerate ISO 3200 well, 6400 tolerably, 12,800 if necessary, a constant aperture lens of f2.8 or f4 and two wheels so I can quickly change shutter and aperture with lighting cues in the dark from rear of the theater. With high shutter speed, SR is off as is everything else that can slow down the process. I don't need a meter, I have a histogram and experience. Always DNG as color balance is , impossibly variable and I need all the editing latitude I can get. And most of the time, I am tracking dancers with a single. center, focus point. Do I have a callous on my thumb? Yes, that's what it takes.

Plenty of Moms and Dads at rehearsals and performances and some have newer and more expensive gear than me. I give them as much help as I can but just as in my classes, the camera manual is usually a foreign subject, as are the controls for Aperture, Shutter and ISO. Which is to be expected because they are Moms and Dads with children and jobs, really important stuff. They simply cannot devote the time to gain knowledge and experience as I can. But the box declarations and advertisements assure them they can make good photographs, just as "any school child" could in Kodak's early 1900's advertising.

Both of the attached images were made last weekend with one of my backup K5IIs bodies. First, the "slow" DA-135 and second, a screw drive Sigma 100-300/4. These aren't the only images I made with a dancer flying towards me. The fault, dear OP, is not in the camera, but the marketing hype and false expectations

One of the problems is that it not hard to take photographs like the above, if the photos are not cropped any then they look to be taken at about 50-70 feet away, just because the photos are taken at F4 does not mean that the photo are taken with shallow DOF. Just by guessing and the settings in camera data and the display size you more than likely had 10-14 feet of DOF or twice as much DOF as the subject is tall. Now how have is this on a AF system ?
I can show a great deal of photo taken with the DS thru to the K3II that are great actions shots, but here’s the problem great AF was not responsible for taking the photographs. The AF deficiencies are hidden by DOF, pre focusing and spray and pray to take the photographs.

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

[reh321]

You can use shallower DOF because of more accurate AF, this in turn allows photos to be taken with less noise.

You are tying shallow DOF and less noise together here.
Which one is your goal - shallow DOF or less noise??

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

You are tying shallow DOF and less noise together here.
Which one is your goal - shallow DOF or less noise??

You can not have one without the other in action photography