Originally posted by tromboads Mee, Why would I want 9 shot in sequence of the same subject? I knew where I wanted the car to be, so I tracked it as It until it was in the position of where I wanted it, then I took it's picture.
Because that is the usage that gets the argument. Think of an athlete approaching a goal/scoring line. You would want multiple shots of that scene to get the exact one when they scored, most dramatic shot, shot with their eyes open, shot with their eyes closed... having a series of in focus shots gives the photographer more options on which one to publish.
Originally posted by tromboads Even if the camera just snapped it out the air in that single instant, well isn't that's even more remarkable given the speed of the AF lenses we have?
Yes single lock focusing is fine but, again, that isn't the bigger argument against focusing and Pentax. Of course DPR claimed the K-1 was both sluggish to lock focus initially AND poor to track.
Originally posted by tromboads But I'll play because something interesting did happen I suppose. I had turned around to talk to a mate then a car spun around behind me, The tyres squelching had me turned around and I snapped these in sequence.
"shrugs"
That's an exciting series. Probably more so for the drivers.
---------- Post added 03-20-17 at 04:50 PM ----------
Originally posted by rawr No amount of evidence will shake a deeply-held prejudice - old jungle saying.
Nonsense. There has been minimal evidence that proves or denies the AF tracking operates 'well.'
Take a look at this article..
Subject tracking: Why it matters to us and why it should matter to you: Digital Photography Review
Specifically the 12 shot burst of the kayaker in the water. That is the type of proof needed to put the old argument against Pentax to bed.