[normhead]

The main thrust here is to ask an answer the question, "For birds and wildlife can a K-3 or K-1 shooting AF.s out-perform the best out there shooting shooting AF.c and tracking?"

My answer would be definitely.

From this morning's shoot 2017-04-23 10:23am - 10.53 Am. so a half hour in the blind.

Setting used AF.s, Hold AF off, first frame focus, burst mode
228 images taken in 30 minutes. 8 will be on my hard drive for future reference and use.

I always shoot at the lowest ISO possible for the highest level of detail, today that was 200 ISO. With my shutter speed falling way to slow at 1/125s to freeze these birds I'm depending on volume of image in burst to give me what i want.

The basic procedure. Find a subject in a suitable location, lock focus, wait for the subject to move into a suitable pose. When that happens fire a burst. The reaction time of the K-3 or K-1 (and probably the K-P) are so quick that if the first frame is the one you want. any other camera set in tracking mode will not get it's first shot off before you are on your second. You end up with a burst like this.....



Remember, I am shooting for best possible IQ so cranking the ISO up and freezing every frame is not an option, although in this case using the K-3, it's always a decision. If light is poor I may choose to use the K-1 instead, because of it's better high ISO performance, but if I can shoot the K-3 at 400 ISO or under, that would be my choice because of the higher frame rate.

Among those images above, in many the bird is looking away from the camera, but having a high burst rate means I can select based on pose, today for my keeper I chose this one



I could have chosen this one, there were many more like it, or one with the bird facing the camera, there were many with his back to me.

The facts, he's hopping around so quickly all I can do is keep him in the frame. Even on top of the stump in this frame the bird is moving constantly. Shooting this way tracking is completely irrelevant. I'm not taking the bird, I'm shooting him on a stump that has limited his movement possibilities and keeping him within my Depth of Field. The only thing that matters is how quickly the lens acquires focus, and Pentax is very fast at acquiring AF.s focus with a fast lens.


The point here being 8 FPS gives you more selection than you are likely to need. I had at least 40 images of this bird on this stump I could only show 24 in the above image. I tend to shoot 4-15 shot bursts, then refocus, wait for a different post, then another burst.

This isn't a side by side comparison. It's done simply to demonstrate that by making use of Pentax quick AF.s you can have better results than a Canon or Nikon camera shooting AF.c If the Canon and Nikon are shooting AF.s the advantage will be less or equal, but Pentax will still have a clear advantage with anything but a 1dx (or the new Sony A-9) , where the difference will be small enough you probably won't notice it one way or the other.

The rest of the days images











I have heard so often how I'm working at a disadvantage using Pentax gear, I just don't get it. For the way I shoot, I have faster initial focus acquire, 8 FPS burst and the same sensor and and Iso characteristics.

I have difficulty understanding how even the forum reviews continue to claim Pentax has slower AF. You'd think they'd be there first to point out that by taking advantage of the strengths of the camera, it can actually have faster AF. There are also circumstances for AF.c shooters where the AF is slower. But faster in some areas slower in others, should never lead to a blanket statement about one's AF being inferior to the others. Just get out there and shoot, learn to use your camera. You'll have advantages for some types of shooting and disadvantages for others. For the way I shoot, the whole Canon and Nikon have better AF is nonsense, inaccurate, and everyone repeating it needs to actually examine the facts. I've found it to be true in the field and Imaging resource has found it to be true in the lab that I have advantages over Canon and Nikon shooters that affect what images we get. I'm not sure how long it will be before its seen to be true on the forum. Given the forum chant, "Canon and Nikon are better at AF", I'm guessing this will remain knowledge for those of us who go out and shoot everyday beside shooters of all different kinds with all different gear. There are certainly circumstances where Canon and Nikon excel. There are circumstances where Pentax excels. But there's a cacophony of folks chanting 'Canon and Nikon are better at AF' like monks in a monastery even in the forum camera descriptions drowning those of us who form our opinions in the field.

The simple fact is, depending on how you shoot, Pentax can be better, and because it's faster AF.s focus acquisition can get you images you might miss with a Canon or Nikon set to AF.c

From her walk this morning a couple of AF.s images taken by Tess of a turkey vulture in flight with her K-5. Slow AF, slow lens DA*200 2.8 (slow focussing SDM lens) yet some great images. IMHO the need for great AF.c is vastly over-rated.





One morning's shooting and not once did either of us end up saying "These shots would have been better taken with a 1Dx or a D4." Tess won't even upgrade to the 8 FPS and 24 MP of a K-3. She does fine with what she has.

My advice to all the ones who want to compare Canikon to Pentax, learn to shoot with what you have. You'll learn to shoot as good as anyone else, regardless of what they shoot. What's important at the end of the day is image quality, and Pentax (or any other camera system) used to it's advantage will give you that. You don't get more advantages with another system, you get different advantages.

---

Last edited by normhead; 04-23-2017 at 10:34 AM.

[bwgv001]

great pictures

[normhead]

great pictures

Thanks for commenting.

[jlstrawman]

My advice to all the ones who want to compare Canikon to Pentax, learn to shoot with what you have. You'll learn to shoot as good as anyone else, regardless of what they shoot. What's important at the end of the day is image quality, and Pentax (or any other camera system) used to it's advantage will give you that. You don't get more advantages with another system, you get different advantages.

Excellent advice, Norm, advice that is frequently forgotten in the rush to buy the "latest and the greatest." Thanks for sharing these excellent shots.

[MadMathMind]

My advice to all the ones who want to compare Canikon to Pentax, learn to shoot with what you have. You'll learn to shoot as good as anyone else, regardless of what they shoot. What's important at the end of the day is image quality, and Pentax (or any other camera system) used to it's advantage will give you that. You don't get more advantages with another system, you get different advantages.

It's sound advice but.... sometimes it comes down to ease. Example: until the K-3, the auto white balance on Pentax cameras was far below its competitors in accuracy. RAW shooters can fix that in post, for sure. But that takes time and if competitors can just offer something that doesn't take any work or in-depth learning, that IS better. One of my favorite things about the K-1 is how much less time I have to spend screwing around fixing things that should be right from the camera.

So if Nikon, for instance, lets you just point the thing and click while Pentax requires you to do all sorts of little tricks to get the same result, that is worse.

Things have gotten a LOT better since the K-3 and it looks like rapid progress is being made, but "Well, if you do trick X..." is little more than excuse. Let's ask for more. I think we deserve it.

[reh321]

My K-30 sometimes "gets stuck". It focuses as close as it can go, and then seems to want to focus even closer ... and doesn't try farther even though that is where the bird or squirrel actually is.

[Larrymc]

Excellent photos Norm. Your techniques definitely work.


Larrymc

[Rupert]

Very interesting and a thorough explanation. Appreciated. I read one of your similar posts a while back and it has helped me a lot when shooting wildlife, in particular jittery birds. Thanks again!

Squirrels are not a problem, lazy critters that often stay frozen in laziness for an eternity, making shots easy.


AFs and the burst mode can work wonders in getting some decent birdie shots.

BTW- Those are some of the best little sparrow shots I have seen. They don't get enough glory, but you gave them a lot with those shots!

Regards!

[CarlJF]

I never tought to use AF.S in burst mode. But it's certainly something I will try...

[monochrome]

It's sound advice but.... sometimes it comes down to ease. Example: until the K-3, the auto white balance on Pentax cameras was far below its competitors in accuracy. RAW shooters can fix that in post, for sure. But that takes time and if competitors can just offer something that doesn't take any work or in-depth learning, that IS better. One of my favorite things about the K-1 is how much less time I have to spend screwing around fixing things that should be right from the camera.

So if Nikon, for instance, lets you just point the thing and click while Pentax requires you to do all sorts of little tricks to get the same result, that is worse.

Things have gotten a LOT better since the K-3 and it looks like rapid progress is being made, but "Well, if you do trick X..." is little more than excuse. Let's ask for more. I think we deserve it.

Until K-3? I got my K-3 in December, 2013. That's what Norm is talking about. Complaining about Pentax technology that has been superceded for over three years. And why is it 'a little trick' to operate the camera the way it was built because that isn't the same way Nikon does it?

It isn't worse. It's just different. Geez.

[lightbox]

Thanks for the very informative post, Norm. I did take away some new knowledge of how to shoot wildlife and posts like this are invaluable for beginners. Certainly no one can say that Pentax cannot deliver wildlife shots. There are also plenty of impressive sports/action shots on this forum to quell those concerns as well.

My limited experience doesn't allow me to enumerate the situations in which AF.C might be more appropriate, but one thing I notice here in your photos is that the subject (as you stated) is relatively fixed in space being perched atop a tree stump. In Tess' examples of the turkey vulture in flight, the metadata indicates a deep DoF (f/8 at some distance) and a high shutter speed. In both cases I presume there is not much concern for the subject being out of focus because either the movement is constrained, or the DoF is sufficiently large, that a quick burst can be relied on to capture some sharp shots.

My take-away question then is this: Is Pentax competitive with other brands concerning situations where the subject-camera distance is small, or the subject-camera distance changes rapidly? For example, kids or an active dog in the back yard? And what if a shallow DoF is desired at these short distances?

Can the AF.S + burst method be relied on still? If not, then is Pentax AF.C still adequate?

I'll leave video out of it because we all know that video is not an area of strength or focus for Ricoh currently. I'm only interested in technique / theory pertaining to photos here.

Thanks!

[normhead]

Thanks for the very informative post, Norm. I did take away some new knowledge of how to shoot wildlife and posts like this are invaluable for beginners. Certainly no one can say that Pentax cannot deliver wildlife shots. There are also plenty of impressive sports/action shots on this forum to quell those concerns as well.

My limited experience doesn't allow me to enumerate the situations in which AF.C might be more appropriate, but one thing I notice here in your photos is that the subject (as you stated) is relatively fixed in space being perched atop a tree stump. In Tess' examples of the turkey vulture in flight, the metadata indicates a deep DoF (f/8 at some distance) and a high shutter speed. In both cases I presume there is not much concern for the subject being out of focus because either the movement is constrained, or the DoF is sufficiently large, that a quick burst can be relied on to capture some sharp shots.

My take-away question then is this: Is Pentax competitive with other brands concerning situations where the subject-camera distance is small, or the subject-camera distance changes rapidly? For example, kids or an active dog in the back yard? And what if a shallow DoF is desired at these short distances?

Can the AF.S + burst method be relied on still? If not, then is Pentax AF.C still adequate?

I'll leave video out of it because we all know that video is not an area of strength or focus for Ricoh currently. I'm only interested in technique / theory pertaining to photos here.

Thanks!

There are times when Pentax AF.c set up for tracking will work. There are times when it doesn't. It slows your frame rate down to unbearably slow. But for kids using AF.s centre point and turning on "focus priority" is probably your best solution. Unless your kids are bungy jumping, they probably aren't moving all that fast. I have lots of dogs running in fields chasing balls, both AF.c tracking and AF.s, I find often I get better results with AF.s and shutter priority. I'm not sure about Canon but in most Nikon AF hold and tracking don't slow down the frame rate, a great thing if you need it.

My dog coming back with my ball with her ball 7 frames in focus, the last one when she was really close not in focus. 8 frame duration about 2 seconds.

Tripper, running my way


All I know is they both work sometimes, they both can drive you crazy sometimes. Sometimes manual focus is all that works.

[lightbox]

You may have convinced me to switch my camera from AF.C to AF.S. I've had it on AF.C exclusively, using back-button focus and FPS-priority, but you have a good point about the slower burst rate.

So far my shots have mostly been still life or people not moving about, but our first little one is due to arrive end of August so I will be getting plenty of practice over the next couple of years (and next to no sleep).

Thanks for the reply. Good looking dogs, too.

[normhead]

You may have convinced me to switch my camera from AF.C to AF.S. I've had it on AF.C exclusively, using back-button focus and FPS-priority, but you have a good point about the slower burst rate.

So far my shots have mostly been still life or people not moving about, but our first little one is due to arrive end of August so I will be getting plenty of practice over the next couple of years (and next to no sleep).

Thanks for the reply. Good looking dogs, too.

Try everything, see what works best for you.

[jddwoods]

Great shots. They really show what beautiful birds the white throated sparrow and grackle are when you get a good look at them. I have tried AF-c and mostly use it it with my DA* 200 which is a slower focusing lens. With the DA 55-300 PLM I generally use AF-s since that lens focuses and locks almost instantaneous. At some point I may try AF-c with the PLM when I get a chance to get birds in flight. I got this shot of a Brown Booby in flight using the 55-300 PLM on my K-3 using AF-s