[normhead]

I started shooting with a K-5 and a 400mm manual focus lens. In some conditions I was able to get birds in flight. With the K3 I used autofocus and got many many very nice shots. My impression was that it lacked processing power; there was lots of information from the focus sensors and the metering array but it couldn't process it in a timely way. The K1 is about the same, a bit better. The Mark II is much better. It seems to have the processing power to react quickly enough. I'm taking birds in flight shots with the K1 II and the 150-450 with some assurance that I'll get something decent.

But it comes at a cost. I could get a full frame body with a huge array of focus points and very quick refresh rate for twice the money that I paid for the K1. And I could get an apsc body with the same characteristics for twice the money as I paid for the K3.

I see your shots and looking at mine. The quality is directly proportional to how close we manage to get to the subject. A pair of hip waders or a portable blind are likely to get me more keepers than twice as many photos of the same thing far away that a couple thousand dollars would get me.

Exactly.
A K-1 that nails the shot has higher IQ than any 18-24 MP sports camera no matter what it does.

The reason I got the better images that day with the otter, was I was willing to test the ice to get close.` I probalby would have had better images than they did shooting a K-x.

If you want a sports camera, buy a sports camera. But they don't do what a K-1 does for non-sports situations. This isn't a need for Pentax. There are plenty of sports camera out there. Because of the use of trickle down tech from the high end models of other companies they aren't even that expensive.

If folks really wanted to pay for cameras good at sports, they'd already have done so. There are lot's out there. Pentax doesn't need to compete in that area. Their continued existence proves that.

---

Last edited by normhead; 03-07-2019 at 08:29 AM.

[sutherland]

I once had a go of another guy's Nikon D500 and 600mm f4. That's twelve thousand dollars just for the lens.

I thought 'meh' about the focus, I'm sorry.

What generation/version was the 600mm f/4?

I've found the 300mm f/2.8, 300 f/4, 500 f/4, and 600 f/4 to be extremely fast focusing and tack sharp. I shoot with the 300 f/4 and 500 f/4.

[normhead]

A few other take ways from the study.

Under the performance graph

We see different behavior of devices that can be classified into these categories:

Constant
DevicesandtheirAFsystemthatfallintothiscategoryman- age to keep the AF performance in a relatively small win- dow, steady above 80%. That means that the devices can actually keep the object in focus when it is moving. An example for this is the Panasonic GH4 in all presented con- ditions.

on/off
Weobserveddevicesthatmanagetokeeptheobjectinfocus while moving, but fail after they performed well for some images. So the system lost track of the moving object, some- times getting it back after some images. Example: Sony alpha6000 in both modes at 300lux.

swinging
While the devices manage to keep the focus somehow onto the object, they show increased fluctuation from frame to frame. This means that the focus is basically tracking the general movement of the object, but fails to put the focus exactly onto the object. Example: Nikon D7200 at all con- ditions, most obvious at burst mode with 1m/s movement.

notrack
Somedevicesfailedtotracktheobjectatall.Weseethatthe AF-Performance is good on the first image, but it constantly lowers with every following image. An example is the Leica T in burst mode. Under 300 lux, it managed to re-focus once, but otherwise did not follow the object at all

and further

Conclusion
• Whentestingthelimitingresolutionofacamera/lenscombi- nation, we have to assume that the AF system is not capable to achieve the best possible performance, even when select- ing ”best of 10”. A MF sequence is required. We performed this test for the limiting resolution only, but it extremely likely that this result is also true for all other metrics that are direct or indirect related to the SFR of the system under test.
• EventhoughthemaincomponentsofanAFsystemarepart of the camera, the lens also has a significant influence. So when comparing cameras with each other, it is important to make wise decisions which lens is used for the evaluation. if possible, best solution is to use the same lens for different cameras.
• To track a moving object is still a difficult task for todays cameras and there is still a lot of room for improvement.
• WeseethatD-SLRcamerashaveatendencytohavealower
226
IS&T International Symposium on Electronic Imaging 2017 Image Quality and System Performance XIV
accuracy and repeatability in comparison to system cameras.

It is such treat to read some science instead of anecdotal mental wanderings.

Two comments of note.

• To track a moving object is still a difficult task for todays cameras and there is still a lot of room for improvement.

You can pay a lot of money for cameras that don't actually solve your problem.

• Even though the main components of an AFsystem are part of the camera, the lens also has a significant influence. So when comparing cameras with each other, it is important to make wise decisions which lens is used for the evaluation. if possible, best solution is to use the same lens for different cameras.

There's the science behind why you should by a DA 55-300 PLM or DA* 70-2000 if you want to make Pentax AF work. Pentax probably has fewer lenses optimized for sports than any other system. And the lens used does make a significant difference, from a scientific perspective, that means, yes you do have to buy a fast focussing lens to test Pentax AF performance. The difference is measurable and repeatable scientifically, regardless of what beliefs various forum posters might hold.

Pentax overall doesn't do as well, but there are some spreadsheet lines where it leads the pack... something not noted by the hundreds of anti-Pentax posters posting the "Pentax AF sucks" theme. Believe it or not, the science doesn't support you in assuming Pentax AF is poor in every situation. Sometimes it's the best.

Not that I expect most of the anti-Pentax posters to be able to read the science and alter their view points. The ability to understand the science is also a talent not everyone has.

The science says exactly what I believed, Pentax is not quite as good as most (but better than Lieca), but not as bad as everyone says, and capable of being the best in some circumstances. Sometimes you get shot with your Pentax everyone else misses. And nobody is perfect all the time.

The best take away from this is AF is not some one element constant than can be described in one fashion. The authors list four different ways to evaluate AF. And no system is "the bet' at all of them. They all have strengths the other don't and they all have weaknesses the others don't.

Which system is right for you? That's anybody's guess. But one dude telling you how bad pentax AF for what he does, means nothing, unless you shoot exactly what he does (a statistical improbability.) The fact that it isn't right for everyone in no way implies it isn't right for you. And regardless of what brand you shoot, if you want something you camera doesn't do well, accept the trade offs, and buy something else. After all, we all want you to be happy.

But please don't come here and imply that the Pentax trade offs in AF design aren't the best for what I do. That's not your call.

[RGlasel]

The quality is directly proportional to how close we manage to get to the subject. A pair of hip waders or a portable blind are likely to get me more keepers than twice as many photos of the same thing far away that a couple thousand dollars would get me.

My wife's second cousin's son is an international award winning wildlife photographer who spends many hours sitting in sloughs and lakes or under camoflage to make use of his expensive Canon gear. Obviously, it is his choice of equipment that makes all the difference.

[steephill]

For motorsports I find other factors more important such as making sure my shutter speed is fast enough. I only use single shot mode which is a throwback to my impecunious days with film.

K-1 and FA*300mm f4.5

[normhead]

My wife's second cousin's son is an international award winning wildlife photographer who spends many hours sitting in sloughs and lakes or under camoflage to make use of his expensive Canon gear. Obviously, it is his choice of equipment that makes all the difference.

It's like anything else. Why am I not an award winning wildlife photographer? I won't put in the time... simple as that. The guys I consider to be better than me shooting Algonquin? The best spends more time in the park than I do. I live 5 minutes away, he lives 200 km away. He camps in the park and gets beautiful sunrise images. I like my own bed. I'm never there for sunrise. When he comes, he's there for the whole day or the weekend. I go, 10 o'clock at the earliest, and I'm home for dinner. The equipment is irrelevant. Many of his best images were taken when I could have been there, he doesn't know anything I don't about where to go an what to shoot, (if anything, I'm much more creative) but he's probably out there shooting 5x as much as I am, and he has 5x as many great images to show for it.

It's not rocket science.
As for him shooting Canon and me shooting Pentax... it's never come up, as in not important, and not mentioned. Side by side our images are quite similar. But he's out more in good light. I wish I could grab one of his images and post it, to show what difference the light makes. He has a mink photo taken in soft morning light with a fish in its mouth, mine is almost the same composition but taken in afternoon sun. The difference is astounding.

[volley]

I've been shooting sports for more than 35 years now (more than 25 years exclusively with manual focus lenses).
While I have to admit that I have no experience with any other AF-system I have no reason to complain about what Pentax is offering.
Works well for me!

K3 and the "slow focussing" DA 4/60-250

[clackers]

What generation/version was the 600mm f/4?

I've found the 300mm f/2.8, 300 f/4, 500 f/4, and 600 f/4 to be extremely fast focusing and tack sharp. I shoot with the 300 f/4 and 500 f/4.

He was really cashed up, Sutherland … under the camo neoprene I bet it was the latest and greatest.

I was prepared to be blown away by the combo's AF performance.

Unrealistic expectations on my part?

Perhaps.

But it was just a camera and lens, despite the pricetags.

[clackers]

OMG! Yes, initial focus it won (although that is completely inconsistent with my experience with the K3 vs a D7200), but in low light once the K-3II loses focus it never seems to catch up.

You're really not looking at the data, Doc, which is exactly what this thread is about. Again and again, we express preconceptions and personal experience instead of objective facts.

Look at the low light, fastest towards the camera figures on page 26 of the report.

The Nikon's final 13th frame is rated 77%, the Pentax K-3 II's is rated 78%.

FWIW, when photographing sports and action with fellow shooters with different brands, we chimp to each other, we get the same shots as each other. Personal experience only, I know, but there you go.

[clackers]

Thank you Clackers,


Whilst I've not owned any other brands, I have been around many friends with Canikon and see how easy it is sometimes, Thanks for the comment on my Aviation images, all the flying shots were shot standing on a Hill in North Wales and not the result of any privileged access of any sort :-)

People should check out your site because you don't just take wonderful photos, Chris, you take interesting ones - love that backlit blue spider!

And can you imagine trying to take photographs of dancers on stage with a 10 year old 50-135 and an oh so yesterday K3II?

[totsmuyco]

He likes Canon, she like Nikon, the other guy likes Sony. Somebody else likes Fuji. Each person has his or her choice. Pentax may not be as fast but, it's not as bad as what others say. Just do a research or ask a question. Someone will teach you what to do and, you won't be disappointed. I've learned the techniques how to use my k-3II for action shots here at pentaxforums.com. ������

[Larrymc]

A few minutes ago I had an utter failure with AF.C on a DA*300mm+k5iis, it couldn't even track a turkey that was literally standing still, it wasn't on a bike or anything. It was a sad showing. Maybe a newer model or different brand would help? Which cameras have warning beeps when the idiot holding the camera attempts to engage autofocus but had accidentally switched the lens to manual focus?

Stupid unreliable Pentax camera, it should have read your mind. Next time that happens hold the grip tightly and bash yourself in the head a couple of times with the offending machine, that should jar the autofocus back on then proceed to get the shot. Works for me every time.

[normhead]

A few minutes ago I had an utter failure with AF.C on a DA*300mm+k5iis, it couldn't even track a turkey that was literally standing still, it wasn't on a bike or anything. It was a sad showing. Maybe a newer model or different brand would help? Which cameras have warning beeps when the idiot holding the camera attempts to engage autofocus but had accidentally switched the lens to manual focus?

I'd be delighted to chime in and say "I've never done that." but unfortunately I can't.

[Lowell Goudge]

A few minutes ago I had an utter failure with AF.C on a DA*300mm+k5iis, it couldn't even track a turkey that was literally standing still, it wasn't on a bike or anything. It was a sad showing. Maybe a newer model or different brand would help? Which cameras have warning beeps when the idiot holding the camera attempts to engage autofocus but had accidentally switched the lens to manual focus?

Stupid unreliable Pentax camera, it should have read your mind. Next time that happens hold the grip tightly and bash yourself in the head a couple of times with the offending machine, that should jar the autofocus back on then proceed to get the shot. Works for me every time.

I'd be delighted to chime in and say "I've never done that." but unfortunately I can't.

it has been often said that the biggest obstacle in the way of taking good photos is between 25 and 150mm (1 and 6 inches for the metric impaired) directly behind the eyepiece