Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-26-2019, 11:50 AM - 1 Like   #76
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 220
QuoteOriginally posted by c.a.m Quote
To put it bluntly, if a person reports that they had terrible experience with Camera X's AF, was it because they had terrible technique or was it really the camera's fault?
Either way, would it really matter? A frustrated person not willing to take the time to understand and get acquainted with a system will find it far easier to blame an inanimate object.

If we take a break from the dorkdom minutia that is often found in the nether-regions of many photography forums and vlogs, we'll find many talented photographers that make it work and do so in such amazing ways.

Jay Dickman, a Nat Geo photographer, comes to mind: Jay Dickman (@jaydickmanphoto) ? Instagram photos and videos

Shoots Olympus MFT and it's clear that he doesn't get bogged down in the keyboard warrior canned assumptions regarding Olympus:
- horrible at High ISO
- MFT is dead
- poor color rendition/color science
- spotty autofocus in low light
- 'Full Frame is the best thing ever!!!!'
- 'bigger sensor = better'

03-26-2019, 12:29 PM - 1 Like   #77
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
ffking's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Old South Wales
Posts: 6,029
QuoteOriginally posted by sutherland Quote
Either way, would it really matter? A frustrated person not willing to take the time to understand and get acquainted with a system will find it far easier to blame an inanimate object.

If we take a break from the dorkdom minutia that is often found in the nether-regions of many photography forums and vlogs, we'll find many talented photographers that make it work and do so in such amazing ways.

Jay Dickman, a Nat Geo photographer, comes to mind: Jay Dickman (@jaydickmanphoto) ? Instagram photos and videos

Shoots Olympus MFT and it's clear that he doesn't get bogged down in the keyboard warrior canned assumptions regarding Olympus:
- horrible at High ISO
- MFT is dead
- poor color rendition/color science
- spotty autofocus in low light
- 'Full Frame is the best thing ever!!!!'
- 'bigger sensor = better'
That's all very true - the trouble with Pentax now is that the only thing most people know about the brand nowadays is the weak points - Olympus, with their bigger advertising spend, have managed to hold onto more of the brand's cachet - that's where I think Pentax is really suffering from lack of advertising - it stops giving people a reason to buy it, even if that reason is more romantic than practical - but most of us do love cameras os objects, not just tools - they become tools in use, but at the buying stage, you want to feel part of something bigger than that. For old Pentaxians that's become ingrained, but it needs to survive the aging generations.
03-26-2019, 03:37 PM - 1 Like   #78
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 16,394
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Frater Quote

1- huge AF areas, each covering a big portion of the motiv, sometimes (outside the center spot) in awkward big T or L shaped areas.
Mind that the tiny squares in the view finder are only about 1 to 10% of the true area size of the AF regions.
You don't want tiny areas, Frater, because you need a line somewhere in the area for PDAF to work. Again and again, the focus works even when we've put a point on a flat coloured T-shirt because it finds an edge nearby.

Remember, you never focus on a subject, that's not how it works. You focus on a line on the subject.

QuoteOriginally posted by Frater Quote

However in real life situation, e.g. heads of persons (or animals) being a bit further away, thus appearing small to the camera, huge AF areas tend to fail.
Simply not true, Frater - you need to watch this: How good is Pentax AF tracking? - PentaxForums.com


QuoteOriginally posted by Frater Quote
A Nikon D7200 would fare well, because its AF points are really only just AF points, rather than huge oddly shaped AF regions as in Pentax cameras.
That's an assertion, Frater. I think the point of my post was that we've had enough assertions, and not enough actual evidence, and you're parroting the sort of stuff that's out there on the internet.

Please read here how disappointing the D7200 or similar actually are - the magical 100% performance of other brands is fictional:

One of very, very few repeatable AF.C autofocus tracking tests - PentaxForums.com
03-26-2019, 03:43 PM - 1 Like   #79
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 16,394
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
I took about 65 pictures of my dog chasing balls around the yard over the weekend with a K-3ii and a PLM. I have a fair amount of practice with that combination and kids playing soccer. Back button focus, AF-C, high shutter speed, high continuous shutter, TAv. But my in-focus hit rate on a running dog was about 20%. And it was noticeably worse with him running towards me.
If you look at the data, Thor, you can see the objective performance of the various brands in a standardized test. It's not what you think it is. It is unlikely these brands would improve their keeper rates if the test was done at twice the speed to better match your dog, there's only one way to go and that's down.

I've watched adventure photographer Corey Rich go through a shoot on YouTube of skateboarders, and he had a Nikon D5.

Guess what he was using?

Manual focus, pre-zoned, because he knew as a working pro there's no way its autofocus could acquire the subject in the situation.


Last edited by clackers; 03-26-2019 at 07:38 PM.
03-26-2019, 03:59 PM   #80
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 16,394
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Fenwoodian Quote
.
Why should we even care about this ancient study? It was published in 2017, and the actual testing was likely done in 2016.
Don't worry, Fenwoodian, the claims about Pentax AF-C were scurrilous and lacking comparative evidence back in 2016, too. We've been hearing about it for years, and it baffles me today when I photograph wildlife, sports and action. I'm getting the same pics as the guys standing beside me. And making the same mistakes!

The fault is with the people making the claims about Pentax autofocus, as this guy says in the video:


I'm with Craig, when he says : "I think we're finding that the scarcity of credible testing and reports makes it difficult to draw valid conclusions on the relative AF performance of camera brands and systems. We hear lots of brief anecdotes, but these typically don't remove the user from the equation. In comparing AF performance, it's essential to remove the non-system characteristics. To put it bluntly, if a person reports that they had terrible experience with Camera X's AF, was it because they had terrible technique or was it really the camera's fault?"

This test is objective and not done by a camera company or their advertising representatives (eg Amazon/DPR). If somebody wants to fund them to generate more data for 2019, good on 'em.

Until then, people should stop making assertions.

New mirrorless systems commonly have to rely on two stages of focus, a hybrid of CDAF *and* onboard PDAF, and the PDAF is not up to the standard of the dedicated modules in a mirrored SLR, because it would take up too much area of the sensor.

Perhaps this is why the Nikon Z and Canon EOS R series, despite the hype and the advertising blitzes, anecdotally have worse autofocus than the older DSLRs they're based on. But that's a guess, not a fact - which is what this thread is all about, right?
03-26-2019, 04:20 PM - 1 Like   #81
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 220
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Perhaps this is why the Nikon Z and Canon EOS R series, despite the hype and the advertising blitzes, anecdotally have worse autofocus than the older DSLRs they're based on.
Truth. Nikon Z6/Z7 AF is bad...however, what makes it horrendous is that the EVF has a 25ms lag and is prone to blackouts. What good is that crappy autofocus if you are viewing a scene that has already happened?

I love Nikon, but the first gen Z system is trash.
03-26-2019, 07:40 PM   #82
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 16,394
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by sutherland Quote
Truth. Nikon Z6/Z7 AF is bad...however, what makes it horrendous is that the EVF has a 25ms lag and is prone to blackouts. What good is that crappy autofocus if you are viewing a scene that has already happened?

I love Nikon, but the first gen Z system is trash.
Yeah, Canon and Nikon are big enough to sink millions into the attempt, get hurt a bit, and try to achieve parity with DSLRs in a second generation in a market they tip to shrink to half of what it is now, but a similar failure at Ricoh would just kill the camera division, the board simply wouldn't release funds for another go.

03-27-2019, 01:59 AM - 2 Likes   #83
Veteran Member
Dan Rentea's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 1,716
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Don't worry, Fenwoodian, the claims about Pentax AF-C were scurrilous and lacking comparative evidence back in 2016, too. We've been hearing about it for years, and it baffles me today when I photograph wildlife, sports and action. I'm getting the same pics as the guys standing beside me. And making the same mistakes!

The fault is with the people making the claims about Pentax autofocus, as this guy says in the video:

Pentax K1 Autofocus Samples - Can it focus? - YouTube

I'm with Craig, when he says : "I think we're finding that the scarcity of credible testing and reports makes it difficult to draw valid conclusions on the relative AF performance of camera brands and systems. We hear lots of brief anecdotes, but these typically don't remove the user from the equation. In comparing AF performance, it's essential to remove the non-system characteristics. To put it bluntly, if a person reports that they had terrible experience with Camera X's AF, was it because they had terrible technique or was it really the camera's fault?"

This test is objective and not done by a camera company or their advertising representatives (eg Amazon/DPR). If somebody wants to fund them to generate more data for 2019, good on 'em.

Until then, people should stop making assertions.

New mirrorless systems commonly have to rely on two stages of focus, a hybrid of CDAF *and* onboard PDAF, and the PDAF is not up to the standard of the dedicated modules in a mirrored SLR, because it would take up too much area of the sensor.

Perhaps this is why the Nikon Z and Canon EOS R series, despite the hype and the advertising blitzes, anecdotally have worse autofocus than the older DSLRs they're based on. But that's a guess, not a fact - which is what this thread is all about, right?
I have EOS R in testing and what I can say is:

1. af-s is fast, af-c is ok but with 2fps when tracking is activated...
2. the grip and the general ergonomics are far better than any Sony, Fuji or Olympus cameras I've put my hands on
3. the touch bar is useless and I wish I had a joystick instead
4. image quality is similar to 5D Mark IV

What I like is that is small enough to be discrete. Here is EOS R next to my 5D Mark IV, both with 35mm lenses on.



Now, back to af-c and tracking. The advantages that makes me shoot faster with Canon in difficult situations are:

1. the possibility to change from AF-S to AF-C with a single press of a button, without taking my thumb from the shutter button. In figure 1 from the image posted below is the button that I configured just for that (when I press that button I go from AF-S to AF-C and if I press again I go back from AF-C to AF-S); that button is very important for me when I shoot action

2. the joystick makes changing the af points easier than with wheel buttons (figure 2)

3. AF-C cases - there are 6 cases just for AF-C and each case has 3 different settings that I can tweak in order to get the best performance in different shooting scenarious (figure 3)

4. the af points (figure 4) - let's say that:

- I have selected the top right af point and I want to select very fast the top left af point; I don't have to press the joystick to the left until I reach the top left af point. I can go to right and it will jump to the top left af point
- I can have one af point selected when I'm shooting vertical and in the same time I can have a different af point (or group of af points) selected for shooting horizontal
- I have the option to select in poor lighting situations only the 45 af points that are f2.8 sensitive

5. Af area selection (figure 5) - when I shoot action, I don't have active all 7 af areas (spot, single point, zone, etc.). I activate from the menu only the 2 af areas that I need so that if I want to go from spot to large area af I don't have to press 6 times the joystick. I use single point af and zone af if the subject is small and the background is not busy. So, when I shoot the bird on a branch, I shoot in single af point. If the bird is in flight, with one press of a joystick I go from single point to zone af.

People often think that only af is important when shooting action. But there is much more and a camera helps if it offers to the photographer options that makes shooting faster. And we have to include the lenses also for best results. K1 or K3 are not cameras dedicated to action. This doesn't mean that you can't take action with them. You just have to learn the camera and adapt your shooting style, that's all.


Last edited by Dan Rentea; 03-27-2019 at 10:50 AM.
03-27-2019, 04:40 AM   #84
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,787
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Tripper says, if you like good dog pictures, change how you try and get them. Certainly don't try and do what Nikon does best with a Pentax. Do what Pentax does best.
'
Oh and incidentally, around 80% keepers on both these shoots, no misses at distance, it only missed as the dog got close to the camera. The camera won't change to suit your style. You have to change your style to suit the camera.
I get that one of the weak points in my attempts at photographing my dog was me. Possibly also my settings, in that I'd changed to nine-point auto instead of the single point I typically use for shooting soccer. I also made the mistake of shooting wider open than typical for this situation, around f/4.5 instead of f/7 or more.

You can see in the 1st attached photo what the typical failure mechanism was - the camera and I focused on a point behind the dog. That's also what normally goes wrong (when it does - I get reasonable keeper rates) with soccer.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-3 II  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-3 II  Photo 
03-27-2019, 08:22 AM   #85
Veteran Member
Dan Rentea's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 1,716
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
. I also made the mistake of shooting wider open than typical for this situation, around f/4.5 instead of f/7 or more.
What do you mean by this? Why is normal to shoot at f7 instead of f4 or f4.5? If you think that an f4 lens is not sharp enough at f4 at the longest focal range, try f5.6 instead of shooting at f7.
03-27-2019, 08:45 AM   #86
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,787
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
What do you mean by this? Why is normal to shoot at f7 instead of f4 or f4.5? If you think that an f4 lens is not sharp enough at f4 at the longest focal range, try f5.6 instead of shooting at f7.
More depth of field gives more leeway for nailing focus.
03-27-2019, 08:57 AM   #87
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 220
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
More depth of field gives more leeway for nailing focus.
But in those shots, did the camera misfocus or is there some degree of motion blur due to shutter speed?
03-27-2019, 09:30 AM   #88
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,787
QuoteOriginally posted by sutherland Quote
But in those shots, did the camera misfocus or is there some degree of motion blur due to shutter speed?
There may be a little from column A, a little from column B. There were definitely shots in the larger sequence that had grass or background in sharp focus, but blurry dog. I would have thought 1/1000th was enough to freeze motion, it typically is in soccer. But maybe I have a fast dog.
03-27-2019, 09:34 AM   #89
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 220
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
There may be a little from column A, a little from column B. There were definitely shots in the larger sequence that had grass or background in sharp focus, but blurry dog. I would have thought 1/1000th was enough to freeze motion, it typically is in soccer. But maybe I have a fast dog.
With a surveying Harrier Hawk, I aim for 2000. I'll take 1250/1600 if lighting is poor. A dog chasing after ball is faster than some of the surveying Harrier Hawks I have captured and there is definitely more movement with the dog vs. a hawk that glides.
03-27-2019, 10:08 AM - 2 Likes   #90
Veteran Member
Dan Rentea's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 1,716
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
More depth of field gives more leeway for nailing focus.
Yes, but what about background or ISO or learning to deal with dificult situations? If I want a background as sharp as the subject, I shoot with my phone. If I want to isolate a subject like the dog from the above image, I rather try and practice as much as I can to nail focus at f4, not at f7 or f9. The idea is to challenge yourself as much as you can in order to gain experience and get the shots in difficult situations. You will not improve your tehnique by shooting at f7-f9.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
af, aperture, article, camera, d7200, dog, dslr, f4, f8, focus, frame, fuji, hit, lens, matter, movements, pentax, pentax af-c, photography, post, rate, shutter, tc, value, yard
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax lenses on other brands bodies Kangaxx Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands 9 02-27-2019 11:37 PM
Do Pentax Camera Bodies Hold Their Value Better Than Other Brands? Fenwoodian Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 09-23-2018 05:42 PM
NiSi V5 Pro compare Breakthrough compare... gatorguy Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 3 01-31-2018 12:19 PM
How does the Q compare to my other cameras hnikesch Pentax Q 4 11-11-2012 03:46 PM
How does the 5D Mk II AF compare to the K-7 heliphoto Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands 9 11-05-2009 05:16 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:53 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top