[normhead]

I went to Imaginag Resources who seem to have come up with some standardized way of testing AF, just looking for speed of focus times, and put together the following chart....

I have to say, after all the tests on the lack of AF in Pentax I was a little surprised. I've become so accustomed to the Pentax AF sucks noise I just want to find out how much slower it is.

Surprise it isn't. At least not according to the Performance tests at Imaging Resources. Maybe I'm just missing something here, but have all those folks raving about Nikon and Canon AF been wrong? I mean, we are comparing for the most part to cameras that cost 5 times the price.

Canon 1Dx-----K-3---- Nikon D4s------Nikon D500



We had s thread awhile ago showing how a D7100 is better than a K-3.

Yet, the D7100

On the I.R. tests it's slow, slow , slow.

Yet we have folks on the forum constantly whining about Pentax AF.

Are there some reputable standardized tests somewhere I can use to understand the difference between the reports of the Nikon and Canon favouring people on the forum? The I.R. test show the K-3 as being .01s slower than a Canon 1Dx.

What am I missing here?

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d7100/nikon-d7100A6.HTM
Nikon D4S Review - Performance
Canon 1DX Review: Initial Test - Performance
Canon 1DX Review: Initial Test - Performance
Pentax K-3 Review - Performance

But what about the K-1 you ask...
K-1 AF


Am I missing something, or has there been a bunch of bull poop passed off as fact on this and many other forums?

---

Last edited by normhead; 04-06-2017 at 07:28 AM.

[VoiceOfReason]

Funny thing is SDM is about the slowest AF you can get in Pentaxland. Honestly, I've never had a problem with Pentax AF other than back when I had the original K5 and before that the Kx, and the only AF issue I had was missing focus in a busy area (trying for a bird on a tree branch among other branches) or in a darker area with a uniform background, especially a red background. When people complain about it I just shrug and think of how well it works for me.

[pres589]

55-300 PLM was said to perform worse than a Sigma on a Nikon body in tracking a dog at the park in the Pentax Forums review of the 55-300.

I think it's this sort of scene that is still causing Pentax issues.

[BigMackCam]

Great post, Norm

I think the main issue some people have is the accuracy of Pentax AF.C focus when tracking subjects coming towards the camera, rather than the speed at which it does it. But, as we've already discussed in several threads, whilst I do think certain systems make this easier than others, my own experience with the K-3 and K-3II has been one of steady improvement as I learn to use them more effectively. A Pentax newbie with the camera and lens straight out of the box may be justifiably disappointed that they got better results with their old Canikon, but those who persevere and learn to get the best from their cameras will be rewarded with perfectly decent AF.C-tracking results...

[starbase218]

I don't know if you're missing anything. But I do think people should consider their own experiences before any internet test.

Edit: I see you missed one thing: a P7100 is not a D7100.

[normhead]

55-300 PLM was said to perform worse than a Sigma on a Nikon body in tracking a dog at the park in the Pentax Forums review of the 55-300.

I think it's this sort of scene that is still causing Pentax issues.

It's causing some people some issues.... but not others...









or










I own 4 dogs, and I do this every couple of months. The Pentax may not be the best, but when a review reports this, without reporting that Pentax AFs is faster. Surely a review that reports comparative negatives without reporting comparative positives is by definition biased. I find it absolutely astounding it happens on a Pentax forum. Folks trotting out the same old nonsense you'd hear on any Nikon or Canon forum.

Somehow it has gotten to be acceptable to bash Pentax AF. Which is really funny because I'm sure most of these people, like myself shoot AFc less than1% of the time. 99% of my shooting is AFs, and both of my Pentaxes are faster than the cameras others are talking about as being superior systems. Ya, like superior for 1% of my shooting inferior for the rest, unless you shoot a 1Dx. SO what is more important faster for 99% of my shooting, or faster for 1% of my shooting. And why have I never seen the comparison framed that way before?

[onlineflyer]

Norn, we don't need no darn data to burst our 'Pentax af is slow' bubble. After all, what would we have to complain about if then? I know, I know; we could complain manual focus is faster on Canon and Nikon.

Edit: By the way, love the 3rd photo, Norm.

[pres589]

Norm, it's pretty obvious that your dogs are haunted, and you're some kind of wizard. Only real scientific explanation.

Maybe if we found some sports photog that does a lot of serious work with some other system could pick up a K-1 and the D-FA 70-200 and 24-70 if that makes sense and shoot for a year and see what his keeper rate is like. But you have to find a guy that wants to deal with the risks to his professional work that changing systems would bring. That's probably going to be a better measurement than AF times in some table.

[normhead]

I don't know if you're missing anything. But I do think people should consider their own experiences before any internet test.

Edit: I see you missed one thing: a P7100 is not a D7100.

Darn. I hate it when I mess up. I'll correct it, not that it makes much difference the D7100 is still slow as molasses.

Here are your D7100 numbers, almost as bad.


So, in your movie, did you cherry pick a scene that would show the K-3 in the worst possible light, because, it's pretty clear if you wanted to, you could have shown the K-3 to be a lot better, like the Imaging Resources test did?

[starbase218]

Darn. I hate it when I mess up. I'll correct it, not that it makes much difference the D7100 is still slow as molasses.

Here are your D7100 numbers, almost as bad.

Well, my experiences must be wrong then.

Seriously, like I stated in the other topic: you don't lose any credit in my book by liking the 18-135, despite the fact that Photozone found it to be terrible in an objective test.

[normhead]

Well, my experiences must be wrong then.

Seriously, like I stated in the other topic: you don't lose any credit in my book by liking the 18-135, despite the fact that Photozone found it to be terrible in an objective test.

You didn't read the test did you? ( An accomplished statistician pointed out that in 60% of scientific studies, the conclusions aren't supported by the data. As far as i can tell Klaus over at photozone isn't competent enough to make sense of his own data. You have to ignore his conclusions, just look at his numbers.) In the photozone tests the DA 18-135 rated excellent or within a whisker of excellent for centre sharpness in like 17 different configurations. More than any other zoom in it's focal range. Using the photozone tests, there was just no lens in it's range that offered a fraction of the excellence measure in the 18-135, and again according to the photozone measurements, there wasn't anything comparable from any company, until the DA 16-85 came out.

Looking at the DA 18-135, you could buy this lens just for it's performance at 24mm, put a screw in it so you can't operate the zoom and you'd still get your money's worth. I bought the 18-135 because of the review. I looked at the review and said to myself "self, this is a lens you can make good use of." The fact that Klaus is a moron and can't see what I saw, that's on him, not me.

So, no, that has nothing to do with this. The simple fact is you've been outed as an anti-Pentax propagandist. Like Klaus over at Photozone you've created a biased opinion by focussing on Pentax negatives in one situation and ignoring the bg picture.

The question you should be asking yourself is "How did I mess up so bad.?"

And claiming your work is better than Imaging Resources (in your mind), slow down there buddy. No one is buying that. The reason we go to independent test sites is to avoid getting sucked in by opinions like that.

No one wants to get into the possible causes and manifestations of personal bias, that's just way to complicated.

[monochrome]

Norm, please stop speaking truth to power. If you change the perception of Pentax AF all those Canon whiners will come over here and make us miserable.

[starbase218]

You didn't read the test did you. IN the photozone tests the DA 18-135 rated excellent or within a whisker of excellent for centre sharpness in like 17 different configurations. Using the photozone tests, there was just no lens in it's range that offered a fraction of the excellence measure in the 18-135, and again according to the photozone measurements, there wasn't anything comparable from any company, until the DA 16-85 came out.

Looking at the DA 18-135, you could buy this lens just for it's performance at 24mm, put a screw in it so you can't operate the zoom and you'd still get your money's worth. I bought the 18-135 because of the review. I looked at the review and said to myself "self, this is a lens you can make good use of." The fact that Klaus is a moron and can't see what I saw, that's on him, not me.

You are missing the point. The point is that, even if some review says (in an objective way) that a lens is bad, you don't lose any credit in my book if you still like that particular lens.

So, no, that has nothing to do with this. The simple fact is you've been outed as an anti-Pentax propagandist. Like Klaus over at Photozone you've created a biased opinion by focussing on Pentax negatives in one situation and ignoring the bg picture.

The question you should be asking yourself is "How did I mess up so bad.?"

Nothing I can say here will make it better, that's for sure.

And claiming your work is better than Imaging Resources, slow down there buddy. No one is buying that. The reason we go to independent test sites is to avoid getting sucked in by options like that.

I'm not saying my work is better. I'm just saying it is mine. Not that my work/experience is more important than yours (somehow it seems like that idea has spread around here) but it is what counts for me.

[normhead]

Nothing I can say here will make it better, that's for sure.

I'm asking you to be more rigorous, you can't make your test better, it's done. My suspicion is you set your light levels where a D7100 performs extremely well, and at point in a range of lighting situations where for some reason the K-3 does poorly, and then extrapolated that to comment on the whole Pentax AF environment. No one ever ask "When are Canon and Nikon going to catch up with Pentax in AFs focusing speed in good light. Yet it's quite popular to ask when Pentax is going to catch up in AF-c. I guess you have no problem with being one of the chanting monks in the temple.

[grahame]

I shoot with Pentax and sony E-mount, used to have Nikon and still play with Nikon D800. Here is my feeling:

1. I guess most pentax shooter, like me, use center AF point most of time. My experience is, pentax camera and lens are not that bad at all if we talk about the focus speed only. Given an obvious target, the time pentax spends is not that obviously longer than other cameras. The biggest issue is accuracy and reliability. I have complained a lot about my K-1s and will not repeat that. I believe it is QC issue but it gives real bad experience. Nikon is not issue-free, but is much much better. And I am talking D800, not 810 or later models.

2. In multiple points automatic tracking AF, or whatever it is called, Pentax is way behind. Nikon can catch a flying eagle in the air and keep the focus point on it as long as it is in the frame. Not 100% of course, but good enough that I can have many good ones. Pentax? I learned to get focus right for the first click, but the percentage of in-focus rate is still much lower than Nikon, and I am lucky if any of the following photos in continuous model is sharp. IN fact, I never use AF-C on Pentax cameras. Any of you found AF-C model being useful in tracking objectives moving toward or away from camera?

3. SDM is a joke. That is why I bought F300 even I have DA300 which is sharper.