[clackers]

I'm quite surprised that the guy from DPreview did actually aquired focus from time to time. Those guys from DPreview are known for not reading cameras manual and also for not getting subjects in focus. Seeing what a mess have done while testing K1's af-c on that biker was the best comedy show I saw lately.

I agree entirely with you, Dan.

In testing the Canons you would have done a better job than them and the public would have got valid reviews, whatever your findings.

[Dan Rentea]

I agree entirely with you, Dan.

In testing the Canons you would have done a better job than them and the public would have got valid reviews, whatever your findings.

You will be surprised, but I've tested K1 a little and I liked the af-c, considering that is not a sport/action orientated camera. As a former K-5 II and K-3 II user, K1 gave me more confidence. It's a wonderful camera and Rishi was so wrong with he's conclusions about K1's af-c... I don't think he has something against Pentax or not, but I think he did not put any effort in trying to actualy test the camera. If I'll put my hans again on a K1, I'm going to put it at work because it'a a joy to use the camera.

[BrianR]

And look in Frame 4, where there is no other player but the camera goes for the black background anyway!

I thought it was 3-d tracking his 'junk'. Actually I had thought it was on his shorts, I flipped that frame too quickly, my mistake.

In that second sequence, we're not good, it's acquired the opponent, and the kicker is now out of focus! Your editor back at Reuters cannot use that shot.

That's why I said "The bomb exploded in the next sequence", sorry if that was vague, but this sequence was an absolute fail on the tracking. I agree 100%!

In the third sequence, moving from frame 3 to frame 4 the camera incorrectly decides to focus on the guy with his back to us, instead of the tracked player.

This sequence turned off 3-d tracking. Again, is the camera not behaving as advertised? Just set up poorly by the user?

A bit of tint, but I don't think my glasses are heavily rose coloured. I do find these snippets of reviews more impressive than you do, but I absolutely withhold final judgement until I get a chance to try their latest AF out for an extended period of time. I'm certainly not willing to put any money on the line for this, which should sum up my view.

I think you should play with the camera you've got, using back button focus to take into account foreground obstacles. You won't make the same errors this D5 did.

I'll make completely different errors than the D5. The experience will come from not repeating them unnecessarily.

I've posted this one before, k5iis+da*300mm+AF.C+Multi Point, no cropping, f/8, back button focus. I had a clear line of sight on their run to this corner, and I found I could repeat the shot below pretty well. The focus plane is a bit behind, but I think it kept up pretty decently. This was my first stab at motocross (I had a nephew in the races), and I expect I'll be refining my technique a few more times this year. I'll try practicing with releasing the AF button for obstacles, but more intelligently positioning myself around the track will be the first priority for a lazy fellow like myself. Having better earplugs should also help.

[normhead]

Let me call Art Wolfe, Grant Atkinson or Oliver Wright and tell them to sell their 1Dx cameras because Imaging Resources said that their cameras are almost a quarter of a second slower to lock focus than K3 or K1. And I'm pretty sure that no one is going to buy the images from below because, well...these images only have 18mp instead of 24 or 36mp. I know, I know...you can take this kind of images using manual focus, however these are not images that you will ever hang on your wall and most probably will end up in your recycle bin.

Those images are awesome. However, what someone could have done with a K-3 is not adressed. SO you've shown you can take it with well whatever he was shooting, what you haven't established is you couldn't have taken he same image with a K-3. But I note, you didn't take them. I'm posting images taken in my area and I shoot beside guys with ! See, the difference between me an you Dan, is I have experience shooting beside really good photographers using the same gear as that guy, an I know that at lot of the time, my burst starts first when something happens. I also know I don't always get the best image, but sometimes I do. So you can mine the internet for great image taken with whatever camera, but you can't prove a guy there with a K-3 wouldn't have as good or better images.

You are imagining stuff, making up these scenarios where you have to have this great camera to take these images.

Normhead "Look how sharp the eye on this flying grey jay is, perfectly locked focus"
Dan.. "You picture sucks."
The picture is posted as proof of concept, Pentax can do BiFs and nail focus perfectly., the response, is a personal insult that nothing to do with the subject being discussed.

Which brings me to the big question.

Given that I shoot beside these guys sometimes as much as 4 or 5 days a week, how is it that my fair share of the time, I end up with the best image. In my experience, what my camera lacks in tracking it makes up for in initial AF lock in AF-s and burst.

Now you can ridicule me and mock me and do the Dan thing, and tell everyone how much you don't respect me and blah blah blah, but that just makes you an ass, incapable of any kind of serious discussion. But the most distressing thing is, you don't seem to understand that to be in this kind of discussion, being a in a situation where different people using all different kinds of gear and paying attention is worth so much more than a bunch of internet wisdom based on test charts and speculation.

You can slag me all you want for my opinions, but at least they are based on real world shooting experience.

Also notice, I shoot what i post. I don't have to go all over the internet looking for images to make my case. They are right there on my hard rive.

It's funny how you believe being disrespectful helps you make a point. I put pictures up here that I'm quite happy with, and you seem to think I put them up for you to insult. You never discuss the point if the image. Because when I post images, it's almost always proof of concept. Rarely am I posting it because I think it's a great image. The evidence is irrefutable. SO instead to keep your fragile ego from getting bruised, you attack my work.You don't even have the balls to post your own work on here, or the a thick enough skin to put up with the abuse folks like yourself hand out on a regular basis. You hand it out but you can't take it. SO, you hide behind yo mama's skirts, yo momma in this case being the work of really good photographers who happen to use one brand or another.

And your arguments come down to "well this guy uses Canon or Nikon because of this or that", well that's nonsense. You don't know these people, you don't know their story, you're just an imposter trying to look smart by stealing and posting their work for your own ends. You weren't there when those images were taken, you know nothing about what it took to get them . You know what camera was used, but you extend those comments to insinuate it was the only camera that could have been used. You have some kind of psychological need to exploit other peoples work, which you know nothing about as if it were your own or somehow proved your point. As if somehow their expertise is transferred to you because you bought a very cheap camera made by the same company that made the very good camera that they use.

I have know idea why your ego is so wrapped up in telling people the camera they use to get the images they do isn't up to the job, but in my mind it's a sickness. And I'm completely mystified by your eagerness to insult everything Pentax, and refuse to admit there are strengths to Pentax that any photographer can exploit even when looking at high end equipment. Even for wildlife and action. Get help.

I'm right up front with this. I started shooting Pentax in '67, and I've never had a reason that made sense to me to change. I've known fast AF freaks since the early 90s when friends had F4s. Guess what, as a professionally trained photographer, I've never felt the need to go that route. I've always been able to get the shots I wanted, shooting Pentax. IF there were images I thought I could get that I wanted shooting something else, I would have switched. But based on what I see and hear and from my discussions with other people, I'm doing just fine. My message is simple, you can get it with your Pentax. Whether or not it wold be better or easier with something else is irrelevant as long as I'm getting what i want.

With Pentax AF... sitting with these guys with their gear some of which is Canon and Nikon gear cheaper than my Pentax gear and sometimes shooting with gear that cost a lot more, I know Pentax AF is competitive with anyone. Sometimes I lock focus and start shooting first. Until you actually get out and see how that works, there's probably nothing I can say to impress you with that. But that's because you have no respect for anyone who isn't a Canon or Nikon troll. In your mind, your insults are something other than a pathetic attempt to keep from seeing reality. The difference between you and me is, I'm out in the real world looking at the results from the people I'm shooting with. You're mining the internet looking for images that you think prove point. Sometimes the guy or girl with the D5200 and Sigma 150-600 gets the best shot. The gear seems to be a very small part of it.

Well Dan, here's the thing you don't have any images taken side by side, one guy shooting Pentax, one guy shooting Nikon or Canon. What you have is a few borrowed images and your imagination. I know you think that's worth something to folks, I just can't imagine what. If your point was that anyone who buys a 1Dx can get pictures like the ones you posted and anyone who buys any other camera can't, then you're just delusional.

What's interesting is the lengths you go through to maintain the delusion.

I have a choice, Dan's view or reality. Personally, I recommend reality.

And in the real world, with random circumstances, sitting with a bunch of people out on an ice flow waiting for an otter to stick his head up, sometime my Pentax locks focus and fires the first frame, before anyone else does, and sometimes it doesn't. You need to change your view to reflect that absolute undeniable fact.

You can't tell me there aren't circumstance where Pentax is fastest, and it's exactly as described in this article, if I prefocus on the spot I think the animal will come up and just need to confirm focus before releasing the shutter, I'm as fast or faster than anyone else. I'm usually faster, and sometimes that gets me the best image. All the tracking ability of the Canons and Nikons doesn't help them. It's just not appropriate to the image being taken. You make the best use of the camera you have,and you accept that sometimes you don't get the best image because of that, no matter what you shoot.

And, I'd be just as good or bad shooting with a Canon or Nikon. It's simply a personal choice, all technical choices are comprises. It's not something to get all up in everyone's face about. With AF, what I shoot most, sitting with an animal waiting for it to do something interesting shooting first frame confirm and lock, Pentax gives me an advantage. And that's exactly what the IR tests confirm. Other cameras may have advantages in tracking etc. but that's not what is important to me as wildlife shooter. Pentax AF is tailor made to what i do, 99% of the time.

And for that the K-1 is better than a 1Dx, whether or not some Canon shooter can ever figures that out is irrelevant.

Deal with it.

---

Last edited by normhead; 04-09-2017 at 07:09 AM.

[mee]

Beholder3 is a fearless slayer of anti-Pentax myths, Mee.

At least he helps by providing instruction. He even came up with a spreadsheet of suggested settings for newbie photographers.

If someone who's only shot flowers thinks they can just shoot action, they're going to be disappointed. You'll shrug your shoulders and suggest they buy a D500? Come on! If they don't skill up, they'll make the same mistakes and be out of pocket too.

Beholder, Biz-engineer and Normhead produce pictures they've taken themselves to back their assertions, I haven't noticed you do that, BTW!

What assertions have I made? Besides the results thus far in the OP and subsequent personal photos haven't proven what they sought out to prove. So I don't see your point.

I do find the results unsatisfactory, Mee.

Amazing - you defend them, but Nikon don't.

The company doesn't recommend the feature for sports, according to DPR.

I stated an opinion, you responded in attack mode against my opinion, I keep responding with the same responses in defense of my opinion, you keep ignoring my actual responses and repeating the same aggressive comments towards me. Not sure where you expect to go with this, clackers.

I have stated my opinions on the tracking abilities of the Nikon as it was reviewed by professionals and you disagree with the conclusion I have made. Am I not allowed a differing point of view? What is the end result you are looking to accomplish with such a dialog?

Nikon wouldn't recommend for sports the latest AF system Pentax uses either, so what? Doesn't mean you cannot use either for sports. I simply find the results impressive for the tests they conducted with the Nikon. I find it is a couple generations ahead of Pentax currently.

Doesn't mean your Pentax products (or mine for that matter since we use the same camera model) are worthless. I don't make value for what you use, you decide what works for you and then use it. I see no need to get protective as a result of someone making a comment that is positive towards another company's products.

You look at the following footage from the D500, expensive for you in the States as it is here in Oz, and it's only APS-C.

Watch the focus point go again and again out into the grass.

If you can't do better than that with AF-C on your camera, it's time to take up painting instead!

And before you say, "Well, I hear about Canon" ... FWIW, DPR say the corresponding Canon system is worse.

3D AF Nikon D500 - YouTube

Again, you're focused (no pun intended) on the price. Why? We've been discussing AF tracking in general, irrespective of price of the camera using it.

Yes, in the sample you've picked, the focus point bounces around the subject (dog) and, at one point if you watch carefully, onto the knees of people in the background. But look at the speed of that dog, it's texture, and how quickly the camera is continually adjusting the focus. In a very quick burst series I find that that is impressive. The focus lock in that series not so much, but I'm sure it is getting attention too over time. Fur texture like that on a dog is probably complex for a tracking system. Remember the camera doesn't know it is tracking a dog, just that it has locked on to a texture or pattern.

As I've mentioned twice thus far, and you seem to be avoiding, I already stated the Nikon 3d focus tracking is not an infallible system. I've said it, Nikon has said it, DPR has said it. Everyone agrees to it. I simply am impressed with what it can do as shown in the reviews. It is a clever feature.

[starbase218]

I want to add one thing, which I think should be obvious: I think nobody is denying that Pentax can be used for action photography. With regard to that, I must admit that some shots that have appeared recently on this forum have surprised me. I have also learned some things by reading how e.g. normhead took the shots that he took, mitigating the AF disadvantage. So I think it is not so much about what is possible with which camera and/or lens. Every lens can be focused to every distance, so in theory any shot can be captured, whatever the gear. I think it is more about what each of us prefers to use and has confidence in. And I think everyone should decide on that for themselves. After all, it is about the end-result, not about the tools that you use to get there.

[BrianR]

With AF, what I shoot most, sitting with an animal waiting for it to do something interesting shooting first frame confirm and lock, Pentax gives me an advantage. And that's exactly what the IR tests confirm.

If you've prefocused on an animal (or location an animal is coming to), and hold the half-press until something interesting happens, all the other cameras in the OP with the 'pre-focused" line are faster than the K1 or K3 at releasing the shutter when you press it fully. Assuming AF.S and AF tied to the shutter release, I'm not sure why you'd take your finger off the half-press after you've prefocused and force the camera to spool through it's AF cycle again when it comes time to take your shot. I've never done it that way as it risks the chance the camera might get confused and decide to spin off the wrong way just when I needed it (and as an aside to the topic, the shake reduction would have to spool up again if you shoot this way, assuming you're using SR).

Why do you shoot this way, I see no advantage? Why not keep the half press or switch to manual focus? What do other people do when prefocusing?

---

Last edited by BrianR; 04-09-2017 at 03:56 PM.

[tromboads]

Has any one told everyone to just go take pictures already?

Oh alright, I'll do it..

Just.. make.. pictures.

[normhead]

Why do you shoot this way, I see no advantage? Why not keep the half press or switch to manual focus? What do other people do when prefocusing?

When you are sitting there waiting for an otter to pop up through an ice hole, you get tired. He may be down for a while. You usually have to just take your hands and rest them on something and move your face away from the viewfinder to find a comfortable sitting position. I'm not sure I even understand your scenario.

I'm not sure why you'd take your finger off the half-press after you've prefocused and force the camera to spool through it's AF cycle again when it comes time to take your shot.

It's empirical, that's what works best for me. I'd have to think about why, but I'm sure it has to do with always checking focus before starting burst a burst. And I also often lift my finger and force the camera to refocus part way through a burst. You can never be to sure, and you definitely don't want to get skunked.

A burst of 9 Tia shots from today.....
Nine images starting at 49 seconds and ending at 51. So 9 frames in 2 seconds, all in focus, checking the lettering on the tennis ball.

First frame




To the parents out there, she's running faster than your kid can. Camera set to my BiF mode, AF.c 25 focus points etc. Pentax isn't the best at this, but it's not like it's totally inadequate. But it probably is the best at AF.s with a fast lens. You have to give something to get something. Giving up great tracking for better AF.s is an easy choice for many of us.

Just.. make.. pictures.

I did.

[BrianR]

I'm not sure I even understand your scenario.

In the motocross example above, I used AF.C, but I also shot a few nearly identical shots where I'd lock focus on the corner where I planned to take the photo, then panned with the rider and snapped the shot when the bike is in focus (this works as well as your timing, alternate is to start a burst as the subject is moving into focus). I use back button autofocus so to lock the focus I just lifted my thumb, but before I switched, I'd hold the half-press w/AF.S to keep the focus locked for the same effect. Same method for prefocusing on an animal while I sit and wait (i.e. a popular branch birds are landing on). If my hand is on the camera and my eye is on the viewfinder, my finger is on the trigger. Either way, I'm not risking letting the camera readjust focus after I've set it where I wanted, and I'm using a method that avoids reactivating the AF.

If I'm at the point where I sit back and rest my hand, I guarantee my reaction time to get ready again far outstrips any of the times on the test chart.

The thought does occur - I wonder how various cameras compare with regards to catch-in-focus? If Pentax is somehow faster at confirming focus, that would be an advantage. I also wonder why I don't think to use it more.

Just.. make.. pictures.

I did, but they were slow moving flowers. I used AF on them, and it worked great.

[Dan Rentea]

Those images are awesome. However, what someone could have done with a K-3 is not adressed. SO you've shown you can take it with well whatever he was shooting, what you haven't established is you couldn't have taken he same image with a K-3. But I note, you didn't take them. I'm posting images taken in my area and I shoot beside guys with ! See, the difference between me an you Dan, is I have experience shooting beside really good photographers using the same gear as that guy, an I know that at lot of the time, my burst starts first when something happens. I also know I don't always get the best image, but sometimes I do. So you can mine the internet for great image taken with whatever camera, but you can't prove a guy there with a K-3 wouldn't have as good or better images.

You are imagining stuff, making up these scenarios where you have to have this great camera to take these images.

Normhead "Look how sharp the eye on this flying grey jay is, perfectly locked focus"
Dan.. "You picture sucks."
The picture is posted as proof of concept, Pentax can do BiFs and nail focus perfectly., the response, is a personal insult that nothing to do with the subject being discussed.

Which brings me to the big question.

Given that I shoot beside these guys sometimes as much as 4 or 5 days a week, how is it that my fair share of the time, I end up with the best image. In my experience, what my camera lacks in tracking it makes up for in initial AF lock in AF-s and burst.

Now you can ridicule me and mock me and do the Dan thing, and tell everyone how much you don't respect me and blah blah blah, but that just makes you an ass, incapable of any kind of serious discussion. But the most distressing thing is, you don't seem to understand that to be in this kind of discussion, being a in a situation where different people using all different kinds of gear and paying attention is worth so much more than a bunch of internet wisdom based on test charts and speculation.

You can slag me all you want for my opinions, but at least they are based on real world shooting experience.

Also notice, I shoot what i post. I don't have to go all over the internet looking for images to make my case. They are right there on my hard rive.

It's funny how you believe being disrespectful helps you make a point. I put pictures up here that I'm quite happy with, and you seem to think I put them up for you to insult. You never discuss the point if the image. Because when I post images, it's almost always proof of concept. Rarely am I posting it because I think it's a great image. The evidence is irrefutable. SO instead to keep your fragile ego from getting bruised, you attack my work.You don't even have the balls to post your own work on here, or the a thick enough skin to put up with the abuse folks like yourself hand out on a regular basis. You hand it out but you can't take it. SO, you hide behind yo mama's skirts, yo momma in this case being the work of really good photographers who happen to use one brand or another.

And your arguments come down to "well this guy uses Canon or Nikon because of this or that", well that's nonsense. You don't know these people, you don't know their story, you're just an imposter trying to look smart by stealing and posting their work for your own ends. You weren't there when those images were taken, you know nothing about what it took to get them . You know what camera was used, but you extend those comments to insinuate it was the only camera that could have been used. You have some kind of psychological need to exploit other peoples work, which you know nothing about as if it were your own or somehow proved your point. As if somehow their expertise is transferred to you because you bought a very cheap camera made by the same company that made the very good camera that they use.

I have know idea why your ego is so wrapped up in telling people the camera they use to get the images they do isn't up to the job, but in my mind it's a sickness. And I'm completely mystified by your eagerness to insult everything Pentax, and refuse to admit there are strengths to Pentax that any photographer can exploit even when looking at high end equipment. Even for wildlife and action. Get help.

I'm right up front with this. I started shooting Pentax in '67, and I've never had a reason that made sense to me to change. I've known fast AF freaks since the early 90s when friends had F4s. Guess what, as a professionally trained photographer, I've never felt the need to go that route. I've always been able to get the shots I wanted, shooting Pentax. IF there were images I thought I could get that I wanted shooting something else, I would have switched. But based on what I see and hear and from my discussions with other people, I'm doing just fine. My message is simple, you can get it with your Pentax. Whether or not it wold be better or easier with something else is irrelevant as long as I'm getting what i want.

With Pentax AF... sitting with these guys with their gear some of which is Canon and Nikon gear cheaper than my Pentax gear and sometimes shooting with gear that cost a lot more, I know Pentax AF is competitive with anyone. Sometimes I lock focus and start shooting first. Until you actually get out and see how that works, there's probably nothing I can say to impress you with that. But that's because you have no respect for anyone who isn't a Canon or Nikon troll. In your mind, your insults are something other than a pathetic attempt to keep from seeing reality. The difference between you and me is, I'm out in the real world looking at the results from the people I'm shooting with. You're mining the internet looking for images that you think prove point. Sometimes the guy or girl with the D5200 and Sigma 150-600 gets the best shot. The gear seems to be a very small part of it.

Well Dan, here's the thing you don't have any images taken side by side, one guy shooting Pentax, one guy shooting Nikon or Canon. What you have is a few borrowed images and your imagination. I know you think that's worth something to folks, I just can't imagine what. If your point was that anyone who buys a 1Dx can get pictures like the ones you posted and anyone who buys any other camera can't, then you're just delusional.

What's interesting is the lengths you go through to maintain the delusion.

I have a choice, Dan's view or reality. Personally, I recommend reality.

And in the real world, with random circumstances, sitting with a bunch of people out on an ice flow waiting for an otter to stick his head up, sometime my Pentax locks focus and fires the first frame, before anyone else does, and sometimes it doesn't. You need to change your view to reflect that absolute undeniable fact.

You can't tell me there aren't circumstance where Pentax is fastest, and it's exactly as described in this article, if I prefocus on the spot I think the animal will come up and just need to confirm focus before releasing the shutter, I'm as fast or faster than anyone else. I'm usually faster, and sometimes that gets me the best image. All the tracking ability of the Canons and Nikons doesn't help them. It's just not appropriate to the image being taken. You make the best use of the camera you have,and you accept that sometimes you don't get the best image because of that, no matter what you shoot.

And, I'd be just as good or bad shooting with a Canon or Nikon. It's simply a personal choice, all technical choices are comprises. It's not something to get all up in everyone's face about. With AF, what I shoot most, sitting with an animal waiting for it to do something interesting shooting first frame confirm and lock, Pentax gives me an advantage. And that's exactly what the IR tests confirm. Other cameras may have advantages in tracking etc. but that's not what is important to me as wildlife shooter. Pentax AF is tailor made to what i do, 99% of the time.

And for that the K-1 is better than a 1Dx, whether or not some Canon shooter can ever figures that out is irrelevant.

Deal with it.

Normhead, insulting people as often as you do it's already a known thing on this forum. People learned to deal with you and accepting as you are, a stubborn man with bad manners from time to time. Except the kingsfisher images (I said that are not mine) where I said that can't be taken with Pentax cameras because Pentax's af it's not advanced enough for those demanding shots (or, and I quote myself, neither with my 6D because is slow as hell for this kind of images), the other images posted are mine. My images were not posted for people to judge if my images are better than yours, they were posted to back up my comments and prove that I can take similar images as yours with just about any camera (DSLR or mirroless).

I told you and I repeat myself again, there is no image you posted in this thread that demands a capable af-c. Anyone with minimum knowledge about photography can tell you the same thing. Telling you that your images can be taken with any camera released in the last 3-4 years it's not an insult, it's just a fact. You keep mention af-c being good enough for you and trying to make a point by saying all over the forum that you have better images than the photographers with 1Dx and D5. I also have a few images better than images taken in the same day with 1Dx (see below), but those images have nothing to do with demanding situations where af-c is crucial and from what you posted, neither your images have nothing to do with the speed and accuracy of the af-c.

See those 3 images from below. I went on that day to shoot next to a few experienced photographer with expensive gear and at the end of the day my last 2 images were voted as the best from that day (action and portrait categories). I was just lucky that the bird look directly at me and for the last one I was in the the direction of the bird, and I was lucky to get 3 images in focus from a burst, that's all. But there were a lot of times when af-c did not helped me at all even if I had the bird in the frame and I've missed a lot of shots while the others got impressive results. Why do you think the af-c user manual from 7D Mark II has more pages than the entire user manual from K3? I'll tell you why: because it's a sport orientated camera as opposed to K3 which is more of a landscape camera with a good fps and pretty basic af-c.

As I said before, show me bursts of small birds with chaotic flight when they are in flight, not burst of images with birds flying away from a branch or flying to a branch. For images like those, af-c is not needed. It's enough to manual focus on the branch and wait the bird to approach the branch and start shoting in a burst. Same thing if you see the bird trying to fly away from the branch. Knowing the behavior of the bird, it's easy enough to know when the birds is going to take off. You keep saying you're a professionally trained photographer. Do you want me to show you my licence as a photographer, released by ANC (a state department) that will attest that I'm a professionally trained photographer? Don't start a debate with comments like "I'm a professionally trained photographer" with me because I'm not a beginner either.

As for this phrase of yours, I quote you "And I'm completely mystified by your eagerness to insult everything Pentax, and refuse to admit there are strengths to Pentax that any photographer can exploit even when looking at high end equipment. Even for wildlife and action. Get help.", it seems you missed all my comments from this thread where I said that:

- if we speak about image quality, I will be the first to say that 7D Mark II is no match to K3
- Pentax is better than competition for a lot of things, landscape for example
- I've tested K1 and I like it a lot; It's a wonderful camera
- I wouldn't have any problem in shooting with K1 at weddings, concerts and occasionally BIF

So, you see Normhead, no one is insulting Pentax. And no one is insulting you by showing to you images (in this case my images) similar to yours, taken with slow focusing cameras. It's just reality.

Later edit. I never said that buying a 1Dx or a D5 will get to anyone better images. I said that for proffesional sport photographers, K3 and K1 are not suited cameras, even if Pentax had some new long and fast primes. For occasional action photography, K3 or K1 can do the job just fine. This is what I said and it's a big difference to what you tried to make people believe.



The image from below it's an image where you can't prefocus because the european bee-eater was chasing a bee (I bolded the word chasing because flying to chase the prey is totally different than cruise flying) and it's flight was pretty chaotic. The others got almost all 10-14 frames in focus, but they were not in the best spot as I was. I have 3 images in focus from that burst, this beeing almost the best of them. I said almost because I had another one where the bird almost got the bee and it would have been an impressive image, but it's out of focus because the af-c didn't keep up.

[clackers]

What assertions have I made? Besides the results thus far in the OP and subsequent personal photos haven't proven what they sought out to prove. So I don't see your point.

Didn't think you would.

Pessimists claim they're realists, but your attitude isn't based on real data or experience.

Instead, you're singing the praises ("it's a clever feature") of something I've shown you not working. If only you defended Pentax as much as you do Nikon! I've just read in the D FA 50mm f1.4 thread you've got peoples' eyes rolling there too with your negativity.

In Post 67, you asked Normhead to give a real example of a fast sequence, and he has with his dog (it's an extremely hard situation because of the Z axis). You've brought nothing to the table, not even a simple 'thank you' to him.

If he can do it, why can't you take those photos?

Confronted by this actual evidence, I assume from now on when someone puts up a post saying their Pentax can't take a picture of their dog, and that they'll be buying a Canon, you're not going to keep quiet or go Uncle Tom and automatically agree with them, you're going to do the fair and balanced thing and actually speak up.

You'll instead tell the truth, "Maybe it's not your camera. Maybe it's you. And here's what you can do about it."

Norm did a similar series last year in a disagreement with Ian Stuart Forsyth. This sequence is stronger, because burnt by the experience, he did this methodically instead of just snapping,

There's no reason you or any other forum member can't do the same. Practise costs time, not dollars.

Again, you're focused (no pun intended) on the price.

Incorrect, Mee. Count the number of words I've written about price.

Then count the number of words I've written about performance.

Yes, in the sample you've picked, the focus point bounces around the subject (dog) and, at one point if you watch carefully, onto the knees of people in the background.

You will do better tracking that dog than that camera will. Turn the feature off is Nikon's advice to you, which is just as well since you won't listen to fellow Pentaxians.

[clackers]

I've posted this one before, k5iis+da*300mm+AF.C+Multi Point, no cropping, f/8, back button focus. I had a clear line of sight on their run to this corner, and I found I could repeat the shot below pretty well. The focus plane is a bit behind, but I think it kept up pretty decently. This was my first stab at motocross (I had a nephew in the races), and I expect I'll be refining my technique a few more times this year. I'll try practicing with releasing the AF button for obstacles, but more intelligently positioning myself around the track will be the first priority for a lazy fellow like myself. Having better earplugs should also help.

I like it a lot, Brian, and I'd like to see action pics from you in future as well. I know you do great deliberate setups with macro, and I'm sure you'd wait for the bikes to enter the nice backgrounds and good light you've set up for, the way Cartier-Bresson did (although a street tog, he wasn't a snapper like me ... he normally preconceived his shots and waited for the right subject and gesture).

[mee]

Didn't think you would.

Pessimists claim they're realists, but your attitude isn't based on real data or experience.

Instead, you're singing the praises ("it's a clever feature") of something I've shown you not working. If only you defended Pentax as much as you do Nikon! I've just read in the D FA 50mm f1.4 thread you've got peoples' eyes rolling there too with your negativity.

Attempting to vilify me isn't going to work, clackers.

Am I supposed to say the Nikon AF tracking is a dismal failure before you'll start acting like a friendly human being again? I'm sorry, but the Nikon 3d AF tracking, as shown, is NOT a dismal failure. On the contrary, it seems to work rather well... considering, as you admit, it wasn't intended to be used in the manner they are testing it.

In Post 67, you asked Normhead to give a real example of a fast sequence, and he has with his dog (it's an extremely hard situation because of the Z axis). You've brought nothing to the table, not even a simple 'thank you' to him.

If he can do it, why can't you take those photos?

Confronted by this actual evidence, I assume from now on when someone puts up a post saying their Pentax can't take a picture of their dog, and that they'll be buying a Canon, you're not going to keep quiet or go Uncle Tom and automatically agree with them, you're going to do the fair and balanced thing and actually speak up.

In post 67, I called out norm to back his own claim with similar photos (to Dan's). He never did. I never asked him to show pictures of his dog... just to simply back his claim of "YOu're fooling yourself here Dan. I can lock focus and shoot an 8 fps and produce very similar images."

I never made the same claim as him, so the burden of proof was on him.

The dog shots that he offered were posted well after my post in a comment, to another person, is a tiny thumbnail series. And the two larger photos in that post are still so grainy that one cannot determine if the images are in focus on the dog or not. This is hardly proof one way OR the other. They're inconclusive.

Besides, they're showing something else entirely (z axis tracking) versus (X, Y, and Z) tracking. The soccer players and the dog in the cherry picked Nikon tests are tracking in a different pattern entirely than the dog coming straight at us plus, they're in 3d tracking mode not the normal tracking mode. So, even if they were larger shots, they are testing a different portion of the tracking system entirely.

Then to say "Uncle Tom", that is way out of line. (For those playing at home, this is a racially derogative term -- Uncle Tom | Definition of Uncle Tom by Merriam-Webster)

You'll instead tell the truth, "Maybe it's not your camera. Maybe it's you. And here's what you can do about it."

Here is where making assumptions, as a result of not asking questions, about a person can lead one to incorrect conclusions. Because, had you taken the time to ask me, I'd have said something similar. Obviously, with my comment that all AF tracking systems are not perfect, I've already said that partly. Yet the whole statement you're claiming I should make is an incorrect one. Because the tracking systems on the Nikon, for example but we could use a few other brands here too, ARE superior. It doesn't mean one cannot get decent results with Pentax. It just makes it easier to get decent results with the other systems.

Norm did a similar series last year in a disagreement with Ian Stuart Forsyth. This sequence is stronger, because burnt by the experience, he did this methodically instead of just snapping,

There's no reason you or any other forum member can't do the same. Practise costs time, not dollars.

Again, I never said the Pentax AF can't work... I never said the Nikon AF system was perfect. please READ WHAT I SAID in this thread. Actually, I'll help you out:

"Of course I know the Nikon AF system isn't perfect."

"There's complaints all around for each system, because (in reality) none of them are infallible."

Incorrect, Mee. Count the number of words I've written about price.

Then count the number of words I've written about performance.

In your earlier response to me you said: "The first sequence presented by DPR shows mistakes made by a camera that costs $8000 here in Australia. "

In your subsequent response to me you then said: "You look at the following footage from the D500, expensive for you in the States as it is here in Oz, and it's only APS-C."

So you are fixed on keeping price a factor into the discussion when never it was about price.

You will do better tracking that dog than that camera will. Turn the feature off is Nikon's advice to you, which is just as well since you won't listen to fellow Pentaxians.

Perhaps with 3d mode you will. But you are aware there is a plain AF-C style mode on the Nikons right? The 3d mode is just one mode of AF-C tracking. There is a traditional AF tracking system on board too.. more similar to the Pentax's.

I'm not listening to the fellow Pentaxians (in reality, it is just one, the OP of this thread since we are discussing the topic started by the OP in this thread) you are referring to because their results did not test what they found to be the conclusion.

It is like testing reaction time of the car to move versus reaction time of the car when you put your foot on the accelerator pedal. These are two different tests.

The subsequent Z only axis test shots norm then provided were too small and grainy to tell if they were either in focus or out of focus. Yet you were quick to back them as valid data. They're not in the size/resolution they were offered. It isn't about me negating the claim that Pentax can't track in Z axis.. or X or Y axis for that matter... because I never stated that. I've already, in this very post, quoted what I said and you couldn't accept that.

Instead, you turned it personal by turning into a straw man argument and attempted to vilify me. How awful of you!

This 'conversation' you are having with me is really not beneficial for me or the community.. even though I've gone ahead and responded, at length and graciously, despite your ugliness.

In the end we can just agree to disagree. But you could have done that awhile ago, before you started leaning into me... either way I'm done with the 'discussion' because it is too much time spent responding and too much stress for nothing.

[BrianR]

I like it a lot, Brian, and I'd like to see action pics from you in future as well. I know you do great deliberate setups with macro, and I'm sure you'd wait for the bikes to enter the nice backgrounds and good light you've set up for, the way Cartier-Bresson did (although a street tog, he wasn't a snapper like me ... he normally preconceived his shots and waited for the right subject and gesture).

Thanks for the kind words! My first go was definitely a learning experience, I'll be much better prepared next time. I'm now more informed on where the interesting corners are and I can better plan to make use of the light as it changes through the day. I'm told I have to go photograph my nephew, so I might as well make it a photographic exercise. I should probably study up on some spur-of the moment type of street photographers, there are also plenty of opportunities for candid photos of people doing stuff around the park.

I'm not sure I even understand your scenario.

I thought I'd give another example, including photos just to prove to viewers that I occasionally take them, even if these are a couple years old.

A standard pollinator approach for me is to park beside a popular flower patch (rear firmly on a stool) and wait. I'll line up a flower head with a nice background, and tie it to a lightstand below the head to minimize swaying in the wind. When a subject enters my patch, I focus on the flower and where I plan for the pollinator to be (either AF or manually), switch to manual focus, hold the half press to keep the camera alive, and wait for the subject to appear where i want it. Sometimes on a tripod, sometimes handheld. If I feel I need to adjust the focus, I'll manually use the ring or move forward/back slightly (if handheld). It may be years of doing this with a k100d+DFA100mm that I don't 100% trust the camera to reset the AF when it's go time- wings flapping can take the focus off the eye, or it can outright slip and go for a hunt. It's also years of the k100d that taught me to rely on timing a single shot vs bursts, it wasn't exactly fast. Both the photos below are with this combo.

Left is a Hummingbird Clearwing, Hemaris thysbe, these guys don't mess around when it comes to staying active. But they are predictable and will circle a flowerhead. I've never managed to successfully lock AF on one in real time, even as it's paused to nectar, but it's easy to focus on where it will be if you are patient. The k-3 has smaller focus points, and more reliable AF than my k5iis, I don't know, maybe it's workable? I'm completely open to new techniques here, even it's on equipment from my future. The worst thing is getting stuck in a rut in how you do things and being oblivious to an adjacent rut that might give better results.

Right is a Monarch, Danaus plexippus, and somewhat slower. I have managed to successfully use AF for shots like this (with a k5iis), provided the butterfly isn't excessively flapping it's wings, but I find I'm still more reliable by sticking with where I prefocused (and adjusting manually if need be). Are the focus points of the k-3/k1 small enough that they could stick on the body, even if the wing is flapping?



---------- Post added 04-10-17 at 11:19 AM ----------

See those 3 images from below.

The in-flight shot is stunning! What a lovely bird, and well captured.