[Nicolas06]

I shot at f4 because that's as wide as my Sigma will go and I used 12,800 because it was really dark and I needed fast shutter speed. And there was no spray and pray, I track dancers and make decisions.

Which is why I often have Moms & Dads with other brands and models say they just don't bother and buy my photographs.

There is a big difference between being a photographer and being a camera owner. I will make photographs because I know the lighting and the choreography and the dancers. There's is no technology silver bullet for that.

Your are an expert for a very specific practice and you sell to people that are mostly complete beginner so sure you get better result than them and the best gear doesn't make them better than you...

Now, would you have some other photographer that know his trade with pro level camera (say D5 +f/2.8 Nikon pro zoom), he would get the result signifcantly more easily than you and with the same practice would get better results than you. And to get to the same level as yourself, it may require him fewer years of experiance that yourself.

I say that is significant advantage for him.

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 04-01-2017 at 01:34 AM.

[Nicolas06]

Also, it will be interesting to analyze the artifacts in the RAW image created by all those PDAF-attenuated pixels. PDAF pixels lose at least 1 EV of DR. They'll be especially an issue in the bokeh parts of the image where all the left-hand PDAF pixels will be blind to the right half of the bokeh light. No doubt, the camera (or RAW developer) will just fill in the data as if it's a stuck pixel and most people won't care.

Again show us a comparison that show theses issues. Otherwise that just hypothesis on your side and as I never seen anybody with any problem with on sensor PDAF for picture quality...

[biz-engineer]

Again show us a comparison that show theses issues. Otherwise that just hypothesis on your side and as I never seen anybody with any problem with on sensor PDAF for picture quality...

Apparently, there is not free lunch, on sensor pixel used for AF receive 50% less light, explained by Fuji: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2151234617/fujifilmpd
"'The AF sensels are only arranged in the center area of a CCD, so when phase detection AF is activated the AF point is fixed to the center of an image.' Of course this means some sensels are receiving 50% less light than their neighbours. Yamashita suggests it need not be a big problem: 'we use several tens of thousands of pixels in the center area of a CCD, which is a very small number of pixels compared to the 12 megapixels used for imaging.' And, he says, they don't simply go to waste when taking pictures: 'sometimes they are used to compose image data and sometimes not, depending on the situation."

I guess the pixels used for AF are interpolated from the neighborhood.

Anyway, Fuji process their raw data quite a lot. Thanks to precise color processing, Fuji images look good when zoomed out, but as soon as iso increases a bit (400 ISO onwards), images look blotchy.
Fuji are really smart in marketing, they position their stylish camera for people's photo, studio, wedding (+ flash as work around for high iso)... People's photo don't require high resolution nor dynamic range.

[normhead]

People that want better AF for actions work want so they can help their photography on many fronts

People want AF adequate for their needs. People do not want faster AF just because its faster.

With better AF you need less spray and pray to capture that action shot.

The goal is to capture an image, setting up "less spray and pray" as on objective is non-sense. Many images are only obtainable with "spray and pray". Missing those images because you are focussed on fast AF, isn't an option for many of us. We select the best technique for the job.

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

Non-sense. I don't shoot shallower DoF for that reason, and neither should anyone else concerned with IQ. If you need ƒ8 to get the image you want, that doesn't change yo because you have faster or slower AF. That's a complete red herring. Depth of Field is a real thing. It must suit the subject, and in many cases it is too narrow, because of the limitations of the camera system, especially with larger format cameras. Also you are pulling a slight of hand by associating faster AF with more accurate AF. And there have been tests showing Pentax AF is more accurate than any other manufacturer, even though it's slower. More accurate AF is probably a function of slower AF, not faster AF.

I can't believe how many Nikon owners I have run into who honestly believe, they have it all.

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.

Only on very slow moving targets where even slow AF is adequate. The difference in AF speeds very rarely allow you the opportunity to focus on composition. Unless you think a tenth of a second is adequate time to consider composition and placement of key targets. Another nonsense statement. You make it sound like Nikon or Canon user has time to eat their lunch while a Pentax is focussing. Ridiculous.

With better AF you can rely on that AF so you can time the photo for peak moments in the action.

Using a faster burst is a better strategy. The fastest human reflex in 20 year olds are .083 of a second. In older people they can be slow as .25 of a second. In other words shooting depending on AF to capture the moment is not better than shooting burst and in my experience, it's considerably worse. I shoot the moment, starting with a burst, in many many images, and it is very rare the first frame in the burst is the best image. I've proven to myself shooting burst is better than trying to hit the shutter button at the the right moment is a better strategy for wildlife, many many times.. It's how fast you can release the shutter, not speed of AF that makes that true. Many "moments" are gone before you can react. The goal here is to anticipate, and then shoot a burst, unless you have control of every aspect of the situation, as in seated in a studio, having a conversation with the subject. The real world happens at a much faster pace.

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.

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

With better AF you are open to other uses with the images that you have taken

Better AF rarely translates into better IQ when compared to images take with good technique, so no, absolutely not. If you are an amateur just starting out, maybe you train yourself to depend on AF, but that's a mistake. I depend on AF also, the error of your ways here is not in promoting AF, but in implying that the difference in AF between competing systems is often a factor in IQ. I will be preparing a gallery display soon of Pixel Shifted images. Now there is a technology that actually produces images that you can use for things you can't use ordinary images for. With AF no such advantage has ever been demonstrated.

Things that lead to make your images open to other uses are the things that directly affect image quality. Resolution, Dynamic Range and colour, the rendition of the lenses. How can AF be all that important is so many are still taking great images with MF?

I get that you all love your Nikon (and Canon) cameras, but this endless parade of nonsense statements really has to stop. You've made up your minds, we get it, reason doesn't affect you, we get that too. But on this site, your cheer leader attitudes are inappropriate. You don't take better pictures than others, you have virtually nothing to show for your "faster AF" that can't be done with almost any camera. You really need to look at other people who's work you consider to be better than yours, and figuring out how they did it, rather than just declaring the superiority of one small facet of some camera system and declaring it to be some kind of winner.

If you shoot Canon or Nikon as a preference you made a personal choice, Not a better choice, a different choice. It doesn't matter how hard you try and justify that choice it's still not better for everyone. And given the market share of Canon and Nikon, it's a lot more likely that there are Nikon and Canon shooters who would be better served shooting Pentax than the other way around.

I fail see what the purpose of coming on a Pentax forum and shouting "My personal choice is Nkon, and then making up a bunch of empty words and phrases to justify your personal choice.

As I said, it's irrelevant. No one cares about your personal choices. There are reasons for shooting with the fastest AF, there are reasons for shooting no AF (MF). The fact that you can list a parade of largely imaginary "facts" about why faster AF is better, that's all in your head, not in the real world. People will listen to you when your images are better than theirs and they want to know how to do what you did. Neither of you has posted that kind of work, although many on the site have, working with Pentax equipment. That's what is relevant to the Pentax forum. Not what a couple of off brand crazies justifying their personal decisions to people who don't care have to say about how bad their gear is.

It not about what gear you own, it's about what images you produce. You can talk about how fast your camera's AF is all you want. And the little kids on the play ground talk about who's daddy is the smartest or strongest.

How is this faster AF thing any different? I don't care about this mindless drivel, show me an image you got I can't reproduce because my AF is so slow or button it. No one cares about the endless drivel.

---

Last edited by normhead; 04-01-2017 at 06:14 AM.

[monochrome]

Thanks in advance for your consideration. . .

Nice of you to try . . . . I just skip over those posts and read the informative posts . . .

And there is a technological way to make skipping them easier.

[Nicolas06]

Apparently, there is not free lunch, on sensor pixel used for AF receive 50% less light, explained by Fuji: Exclusive: Fujifilm's phase detection system explained: Digital Photography Review
"'The AF sensels are only arranged in the center area of a CCD, so when phase detection AF is activated the AF point is fixed to the center of an image.' Of course this means some sensels are receiving 50% less light than their neighbours. Yamashita suggests it need not be a big problem: 'we use several tens of thousands of pixels in the center area of a CCD, which is a very small number of pixels compared to the 12 megapixels used for imaging.' And, he says, they don't simply go to waste when taking pictures: 'sometimes they are used to compose image data and sometimes not, depending on the situation."

I guess the pixels used for AF are interpolated from the neighborhood.

Anyway, Fuji process their raw data quite a lot. Thanks to precise color processing, Fuji images look good when zoomed out, but as soon as iso increases a bit (400 ISO onwards), images look blotchy.
Fuji are really smart in marketing, they position their stylish camera for people's photo, studio, wedding (+ flash as work around for high iso)... People's photo don't require high resolution nor dynamic range.

Still, blabla and not practical example of where the drawback is actually visible on an actual image. Here the only thing we have an hint at is that there so few photosites around so many that nobody would ever see the difference...

[Nicolas06]

The goal is to capture an image, setting up "less spray and pray" as on objective is non-sense. Many images are only obtainable with "spray and pray". Missing those images because you are focussed on fast AF, isn't an option for many of us. We select the best technique for the job.

True but that's borring and time consuming to have to go through all the similar pictures to get the one that's good. But if all where in sharp and focus, you'll not have opportunity to keep the one that by chance was in focus, but as this issue is fixed to focus more on other aspects like subject expression, composition etc.

Non-sense. I don't shoot shallower DoF for that reason, and neither should anyone else concerned with IQ. If you need ƒ8 to get the image you want, that doesn't change you're because have faster or slower AF. That's a complete red herring. Depth of Field is a real thing. It must suit the subject, and in many cases it is too narrow, because of the limitations of the camera system, especially with larger format cameras. Now you are confusing faster AF with more accurate AF. ANd there have been tests showing Pentax AF is more accurate than any other manufacturer, even though it's slower. More accurate AF is probably a function of slower AF, not faster AF.

I think you say the same differently or look at the same thing differently. Nobody care what the camera would do at f/2.8 is the scene required f/8. But to be able to get shoot f/2.8 when the scene benefit of it is a quite valid claim and mean this is valid reason for fast lens and AF that dast enough to nail focus even with the typical shallow dof of a wide apperture.

I can't believe how many Nikon owners I have run into who honestly believe, they have it all.

Usually the most precise focus is achieved either by MF or by using constrast AF that are said to have the same perfect precision. People often correct for back/front focus using constrast AF as reference. And while both Pentax and Nikon support it, they are far from being the king for constrast AF or even MF focussing. A mirrorless body would make much more sense for that type of situations.

Only on very slow moving targets where even slow AF is adequate. The difference in AF speeds very rarely allow you the opportunity to focus on composition. Unless you think a tenth of a second is adequate time to consider composition and placement of key targets. Another nonsense statement. You make it sound like nikon or Canon user has time to eat their lunch while a Pentax is focussing. Ridiculous.

I trust my camera (K3) to do the focus on the AF point I select. The camera take care of the Z axis only. I select the composition I want in advance by selecting the AF point and I concentrate on framingand I can burst just fine. The issues I have is that while K3 has decent Z tracking it is not outstandardingX/Y tracking and that no, the camera would not track well in X, Y I have to do it manually.

The only difference doing it with all AF points, center point or off center point is the typicall composition you'll hand up with. If you (or the camera) selected the right focus point your composition will be usually better for what is in focus, and if you selected the wrong one your composition will be usually worse for what is in focus.

In your spray and pray mode, it is perfectly legitimate to either hope at least the camera would always get the focus right (X/Y tracking) so you have more frame to select the best composition out of it or it is perfectly legitimate to use a specific AF point so when things align you get a better photo that is not ruined because you can't crop sufficiantly to get the best composition.

So yes, that open more choice. You don't have to use them through.

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

Mine work very differently with different lenses. It doesn't work with MF lenses so I don't use them. With some AF lenses it is quite slow and unnacurate (like FA50 f/1.4 on K5 or DA50-135) with other it is fast and efficiant.

In particular in Pentax land, only the new lenses have truely great AF support and all the pro APSC zooms (16-50, 60-250, 50-135) use SDM with far from ideal AF speeds meaning you need other lenses for the best experience.

Better AF rarely translates into better IQ when compared to images take with good technique

Nailing the focus is part of the technique, so AF is part of that "good technique". Better AF make things easier meaning it allow more people to achieve nice results and experienced result to achieve better result. As such it shouldn't be discarded.

[biz-engineer]

Still, blabla and not practical example of where the drawback is actually visible on an actual image. Here the only thing we have an hint at is that there so few photosites around so many that nobody would ever see the difference...

I have no evidence to prove how much is the contribution to noise of the area taken by on sensor dual pixel AF. The area covered depends on the need for low light AF capability, for -3ev sensitivity, the area is comparable to what's used for PDAF on DSLR. No miracle, law of physics apply. Can you provide evidence that on sensor dual pixel AF has no effect? Strangely we can't compare Fuji on sensor AF DR and SNR to Pentax with DXO, the Fuji are not tested.

[normhead]

True but that's borring and time consuming to have to go through all the similar pictures to get the one that's good. But if all where in sharp and focus, you'll not have opportunity to keep the one that by chance was in focus, but as this issue is fixed to focus more on other aspects like subject expression, composition etc.

See this is exactly the kind of defence that prevents people from seeing the truth. "I don't shoot burst but i do all these things you don't." Well nicholas, it's just possible I do all those things you do, and still shoot burst. You frame your argument by finishing what I do, and pretending you do something better. I'm surprised you don't see how offensive that is.

But here's an example

I'm sitting out on the ice with five other photographers, shooting this otter. Here's the image everyone got. Well actually, this is the middle frame of about an 8 shot burst a so for 1/8th of a second this image was available. The way his paw is lifted so you can see the size of his feet, none of the single frame shooters got that. But let's assume maybe they got something like it but not as good.


One Canon 1Dx shooter and myself continued with a burst. At one point the otter turned his head and slipped into the water. Tha Canon burst shooter and I both got this shot,

Shooting single frame, you would have had 1 or the other. I got both.. Shooting single frame you probably would have taken the first image, not the second (and the first wouldn't have been as good as mine.) . He would have been in the water before you got your shutter finger down on the second. The composition work was done on this before I even pressed the shutter button. that's just what most good photographers do. I'd already set up my camera angles so I had some grass and snow in the back ground. I wait for the animal to come to the spot where, I will have the best angle to the sun and the background I want. that is called preparation. When the otter gets to the spot I've decided to photograph him, I just shoot like mad, because I've already looked after everything else. I don't need time to consider composition, I already did. And his expression is totally unpredictable. And I focussed once in a 23 shot burst , AF had nothing to do with it. It's all about the preparation.

This is the real world. I have no idea what you are going on about.

And you think I don't focus on composition and subject expression because I'm shooting a burst? Well ya, if your preparation is lousy that might be true. But my preparation isn't lousy, and I've seen no evidence that single frame shooter's prep is necessarily all that good. See, that's so hard to comprehend, and demeaning as a statement, I'm just going to ignore the rest of your post. It got off to a really bad start.

That insulting nonsense just used up any goodwill points you might have had saved up. I can't really talk to someone who would believe his prep and consideration is better than mine, because he shoots single frame and i shoot burst. That's just insane.

[Not a Number]

Your are an expert for a very specific practice and you sell to people that are mostly complete beginner so sure you get better result than them and the best gear doesn't make them better than you...

Now, would you have some other photographer that know his trade with pro level camera (say D5 +f/2.8 Nikon pro zoom), he would get the result signifcantly more easily than you and with the same practice would get better results than you. And to get to the same level as yourself, it may require him fewer years of experiance that yourself.

I say that is significant advantage for him.

I love hypotheticals. You can frame them any way you want to make your point. How about this:

Now, would you have some other photographer that know his trade with pro level camera (say D5 +f/2.8 Nikon pro zoom), he would get the result signifcantly more easily than you and with the same practice gets the same or worse results as you.

Now how about in real case:

A friend and local full time staff photographer for a magazine came to a dress rehearsal a few years ago. He probably had 20k of Canon gear hanging off him, which he can do because he's 6'8" tall. As good as he is, and he is very good, his results were unremarkable. And at local events which we both covered for different publications, our results were very similar.

When I look at work by a nationally known ballet photographer who I know uses the latest top Nikon stuff and my work with a K3II and DA 50-135, it looks the same

[COLOR="Silver"]

You can always come up with a good hypothesis to fit the facts. Especially if you cherry pick the facts.

[photoptimist]

This thread is starting to be very funny.

Now it's only the inexperienced pros who may (or may not) find it harder to get good AF with Pentax cameras. If there is a difference in the AF performance of different brands, it seems like it's a difference that only occurs under obscure conditions that are corrected as the user learns their craft.

As someone who started taking pictures before any camera had AF and who has watched AF evolve over decades, I'm impressed with how good AF is on the K-1. And judging by the comments and images on this forum, it seems many others have no problems using Pentax AF to make great images.

So this whole "Pentax AF sucks" meme is just another example of internet hyperbole in which subtle differences that seldom cause real differences are amplified into bombastic statements about big winners and huge losers. Meanwhile there's enough actual differences between different brands (price, IBIS, size, WR, ergonomics, IQ, pixel shift, etc.) that reasonable people might reasonably prefer one over the other without searching for nearly indistinguishable nits.

[Nicolas06]

See this is exactly the kind of defence that prevents people from seeing the truth. "I don't shoot burst but i do all these things you don't." Well nicholas, it's just possible I do all those things you do, and still shoot burst. You frame your argument by finishing what I do, and pretending you do something better. I'm surprised you don't see how offensive that is.

It is so offencive that yourself didn't think I could do a burst and that I would advice to do never do a burst. But I never said that. if you had read it, you'd see I'd say that the benefit of better AF is that either:
- you don't have to do burst at all, so less time spent at home going through the photos... As you were advocating spray and pray to get 1 picture in focus. That was you not me basically explaining that many time the other frames in the burst were not in focus. And if they are not in focus well they are not usable anyway.
- you can still perform burst and because more of the photos are in focus you increase your chances to get a great shot.

Said more clearly this time: any miss focussed shot is a both a waste of time (to take it, review it and then delete it) but also a missed opportunity as even if that photo was at the best moment with the best composition, expression and all, if it is mis focussed, it goes to trash.

Hence great AF an important feature.

Shooting single frame, you would have had 1 or the other. I got both.. Shooting single frame you probably would have taken the first image, not the second (and the first wouldn't have been as good as mine.) .

Man you make it look it was so smart while basically it just keeping the finger on the shutter button or to press it several time in timely maner... To do that just require to set your camera to burst mode and I do that by default. Once the setting is enabled, this is done. Exactly like the off center AF points or back button AF. That just some config away and then a bit of training...

And you think I don't focus on composition and subject expression because I'm shooting a burst? Well ya, if your preparation is lousy that might be true. But my preparation isn't lousy, and I've seen no evidence that single frame shooter's prep is necessarily all that good. See, that's so hard to comprehend, and demeaning as a statement, I'm just going to ignore the rest of your post. It got off to a really bad start.

Of course not but again if the camera focus better you can concentrate on other things and you get more keppers meaning you are more likely to get that nice shoot.

Here for example the focus was on the center both time on your photos and the queue was cut... Likely that was exactly the perfect composition you wanted... But somebody else could have wanted a different composition not cuting the queue for example or with the head of the subject not that centered. And for them an off center AF point to get this composition would have made lot of sense. Like for you this centered composition was what made sense.

If like me you tend to prefer composition that are not centered (each with its aesthetics preferences) you would not always use center AF point. And by the way K3 and K1 do that just fine.

[Nicolas06]

This thread is starting to be very funny.

Now it's only the inexperienced pros who may (or may not) find it harder to get good AF with Pentax cameras. If there is a difference in the AF performance of different brands, it seems like it's a difference that only occurs under obscure conditions that are corrected as the user learns their craft.

As someone who started taking pictures before any camera had AF and who has watched AF evolve over decades, I'm impressed with how good AF is on the K-1. And judging by the comments and images on this forum, it seems many others have no problems using Pentax AF to make great images.

So this whole "Pentax AF sucks" meme is just another example of internet hyperbole in which subtle differences that seldom cause real differences are amplified into bombastic statements about big winners and huge losers. Meanwhile there's enough actual differences between different brands (price, IBIS, size, WR, ergonomics, IQ, pixel shift, etc.) that reasonable people might reasonably prefer one over the other without searching for nearly indistinguishable nits.

Sure saying that Pentax AF sucks is not very precise and it is exagerated. I said many time that for me Pentax AF (starting with K3) is decent. It does great AFS and decent AFC on a single point. It fail to perform for X/Y tracking through so I never use it.

Some camera are worse (including Pentax own camera like older K5) as they struggle in low light and the off center AF point are too big...

Some camera have good X/Y tracking and better Z tracking implementation.

This doesn't say anything on the photographer capabilities but to me, and we are all entitled to our opinions, AF help a lot to get nice results. And if the machine does it better, it free up my limited mind capacities for other things so if things get challenging, I get improved results.

Likely it is because I am an amateur that know nothing and that I never liked MF, but that's how it is. And I am not alone in the bandwagon of people that like to have the camera doing its best to focus on the subject.

[normhead]

I'd respond, unfortunately, as stated before, you've already used up all your accumulated goodwill for the day. I am absolutely certain you can dream up some reason why I'm wrong for every image an every situation. The reason this is so fresh in my head is I just shot last week. I'm not making up imaginary situations, I'm telling you what went down. If you want to replace that with speculation and conjecture that's your prerogative. Oh incipiently , there was a working pro shooting beside me some days,

This guy


Here is an image he posted...


See here's the thing. You're guessing what might happen. I know what happened. Please spare me your wild speculations about how good a pro's might have been compared to mine. I already know. IMHO, mines better. I actually had images identical to this, I didn't even keep them.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Depth of Field is a real thing. It must suit the subject, and in many cases it is too narrow, because of the limitations of the camera system, especially with larger format cameras. Also you are pulling a slight of hand by associating faster AF with more accurate AF. And there have been tests showing Pentax AF is more accurate than any other manufacturer, even though it's slower. More accurate AF is probably a function of slower AF, not faster AF.

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.

As for slower AF is more accurate you can be no further than the truth, If we take a look at how and what people are shooting with for action photography and the shallow DOF they are using it would become very quickly evident when shooting the lenses that the correlation with speed and accuracy is not there.


This is where the cameras AF point was


and here is how much it missed by

This shot was taken of a target that is traveling at 30 meters per sec and the camera was ably to place the focus plane within 0.1 meters of the targeted area of the AF points. To give you an idea of the complexities of the calculations and accuracy needed to do this you have to look no further than how long it took that target to travel that 0.10 meters (30.5MPS / 0.1m= 0.003secs) Accurate and fast AF.

Here is another test that I have done that would argue against the speed and accuracy

For the 70-200 F4 it takes about 0.3sec to take this test and remember that the D800 can only take image every 0.25sec so during the test you really see no difference in the frame rate. I then take note to the accuracy.




In the same light the 70-200 F4 along with the 1.4 III can do it in0.3-0.4 sec with very little problems AF accuracy




as you can see that the tc has very little influence on AF in this light level, In this light level it would be about the limit that I would use 7-200 F4 with the TC anyhow.

The sigma 150-600 sport is a little slower at 0.4 sec but it’s a lot harder for a 400-600mm F6.3 lens to do the same thing in overcast light.



---------- Post added 04-02-2017 at 01:41 PM ----------

Using a faster burst is a better strategy. The fastest human reflex in 20 year olds are .083 of a second. In older people they can be slow as .25 of a second. In other words shooting depending on AF to capture the moment is not better than shooting burst and in my experience,

Its called prediction, Man can throw a ball and predict where the person running will be when the ball makes it to the player, no reflexes need for that.

If I rely on FPS to capture a car moving at 50 km per hour with a camera doing 7 FPS then the cars moves at around 2 m per frame is a very sure way of falling to capture that car in front of a banner or corporate logo,

Even with paintball and action you have to rely on timing to place the a player at key points in the field FPS seldom give you the key times in that actions. A person can travel 0.5 meters to 0.8 meters with a camera that can do 7-9 frames per sec.