[ThorSanchez]

This review doesn't speak highly of the autofocus for sporting situations using focus tracking -AF-C. But maybe the k3-ii is in the same boat? It appears the KP would do much better in low light/high ISO situations like in crappy lit basketball gyms. But also wondering about its smallish size with a 70-200 2.8 lens on the end of it. I realize pentax is known for sports photography, but it's what I have and I'm not going to change.

Pentax KP Review: Digital Photography Review

AF-C on the K-3ii is not great. I shoot quite a bit of kids' soccer and just recently I've been attempting to use more AF-C with 9-SEL or 27-SEL and the results range from somewhat worse (9-SEL) to much worse (27-SEL) than just using center/spot. Just yesterday I shot 300 photos at a preseason scrimmagefest.

I'm sure someone will point out that better technique could improve my keeper rate, but I've been shooting soccer for years and tried all kinds of techniques and approaches. I have shutter speed set as high as conditions allow, I use back-button autofocus, I have a 55-300 PLM lens, the fastest focusing lens in the Pentax catalog, and I often set aperture to several stops down to get better depth of field and more room for error. And even with all that I probably have a 30-50% keeper rate while trying to use tracking AF-C with expanded AF area. It's probably more like 75% with AF-S, but puts your subject in the dead center of the frame, so framing is mostly up to luck and cropping in post.

You can certainly shoot basketball and soccer with a K-3ii, but you need to really get your technique and settings locked in. And don't expect the camera to track your favorite player effectively.

[mikesbike]

Well, If I were going to use a lens the size of the DFA 70-200mm f/2.8, I certainly would have the optional battery grip on my KP. I use it also with my FA* 300mm f/4.5 or my DA* 200mm f/2.8 lenses. That said, I find the battery grip is more for balance and for carrying when not shooting, because with those large lenses I hold from the lens not the camera when shooting. As to that DFA zoom lens, I can't comment on its focusing capability since I do not have one. The KP has the most advanced AF system Pentax has so far developed. I think it is the same as the K-3 II system. Someone posted a video comparing a current Nikon with a Pentax K-3, or was it the K-1? in shooting a fast-moving bicycle coming forward and past the cameras, and those doing the test were surprised the Pentax did so well. The K-1 might be slower for fast-action shooting than the K-3 II or the KP.

The DA 18-135mm lens has one of the fastest and most accurate AF capabilities among Pentax DSLR lenses.

These tests are about the AF system tracking action across the frame, as the subject leaves one AF point and enters another. Pentax has historically been well behind Nikon and Canon for this kind of activity. I shoot hockey sometimes and am able to nail shots quite successfully. And I most often just use center-only spot AF and rely on my experience in panning, along with fast reflexes on the shutter button. I very seldom use burst shooting. I am sure Nikon can beat Pentax in a spray and pray shootout.

[schnur07]

Thanks everyone. I ended up purchasing the KP with the 18-135 lens. The guy lived in Oregon so we were able to meet in person last night. I know the basics when it comes to photography but didn't play with much of the settings on my k30 so I'm going to have to become a KP student to figure out how to best use that camera. Should be fun!

[clackers]

AF-C on the K-3ii is not great. I shoot quite a bit of kids' soccer and just recently I've been attempting to use more AF-C with 9-SEL or 27-SEL and the results range from somewhat worse (9-SEL) to much worse (27-SEL) than just using center/spot. Just yesterday I shot 300 photos at a preseason scrimmagefest.

I'm sure someone will point out that better technique could improve my keeper rate, but I've been shooting soccer for years and tried all kinds of techniques and approaches. I have shutter speed set as high as conditions allow, I use back-button autofocus, I have a 55-300 PLM lens, the fastest focusing lens in the Pentax catalog, and I often set aperture to several stops down to get better depth of field and more room for error. And even with all that I probably have a 30-50% keeper rate while trying to use tracking AF-C with expanded AF area. It's probably more like 75% with AF-S, but puts your subject in the dead center of the frame, so framing is mostly up to luck and cropping in post.

You can certainly shoot basketball and soccer with a K-3ii, but you need to really get your technique and settings locked in. And don't expect the camera to track your favorite player effectively.

Sports photography's like that, Thor. See from the data below how disappointing tracking is with various brands.

Personally, I use the K-1 with BBF, SEL-M, AF-C. Here's a shot from the other week with the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 - having a lens with quick enough focus is very important, German researchers have found, they reported a six-fold variation between the slowest and fastest.

Attached Images

 

[mikesbike]

Thanks everyone. I ended up purchasing the KP with the 18-135 lens. The guy lived in Oregon so we were able to meet in person last night. I know the basics when it comes to photography but didn't play with much of the settings on my k30 so I'm going to have to become a KP student to figure out how to best use that camera. Should be fun!

It will be, no doubt about it! Please keep us posted.

If you shoot JPEGs right out of the camera, which can be time saving and well as smaller file sizes, just be sure to set up "Fine Sharpening" in the Custom Image menus, especially in the most often-used "bright" category for optimum detail in your images.
Very easy to do, any trouble with that just give a shout. The KP's processor is exceptionally good for getting great results right out of the camera.

[schnur07]

It will be, no doubt about it! Please keep us posted.

If you shoot JPEGs right out of the camera, which can be time saving and well as smaller file sizes, just be sure to set up "Fine Sharpening" in the Custom Image menus, especially in the most often-used "bright" category for optimum detail in your images.
Very easy to do, any trouble with that just give a shout. The KP's processor is exceptionally good for getting great results right out of the camera.

Thanks for the advice on the fine sharpening. I prefer jpegs for my sports photography because it's a lot of photos to go through and process. I've only started dabbling with RAW and post processing recently. My high school buddy started the On1 photo editing software so I've started using that recently. But it takes a lot of time to post process. I'm too busy driving kids around to soccer games and basketball games!

[mikesbike]

I do understand, for sure. I am not in love with computer diddling when I can avoid it. Considering what you have said, you'll love the KP! And you can still do some touch-up editing if necessary, but not to the extent afforded by RAW. But if you don't need that degree or depth of alteration, it is a lot simpler to have a great camera that gives you great results in the first place, with little need for fussing around.

[ThorSanchez]

Sports photography's like that, Thor. See from the data below how disappointing tracking is with various brands.

Personally, I use the K-1 with BBF, SEL-M, AF-C. Here's a shot from the other week with the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 - having a lens with quick enough focus is very important, German researchers have found, they reported a six-fold variation between the slowest and fastest.

I need to rent another brand of camera and lens and compare, although I don't know if my curiosity is worth the $300+ it would take to get a sports-oriented Nikon/Fuji/Sony for a week with a good lens. I can get plenty of tack-sharp shots of kids playing soccer with the K-3ii and the 55-300 PLM. I use BBF, AF-C, and usually spot focus. But I also get a lot of shots where the kids are all blurry while the background is sharp, or the kids are blurry and so is everything else. I have plenty of examples from Sunday where I got a stream of 4, 5, 6 straight shots where nothing was in focus. In my experience suing SEL-anything except spot doesn't seem to help the keeper rate.

I'm sure no camera is going to approach 100%, but I'd like to have some context and reference.

[aslyfox]

LensRental is running a special but it might end before you can use it - March 20

savings available at LensRental - PentaxForums.com


************ other than being a satisfied customer I have no connection with LensRental ****************

I try capturing " action" with my K 3 or K 3 II

but I still run into OE

[ operator error ]

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/26-mini-challenges-games-photo-stories/6...ml#post4939786


having tried the K P yet but I think it will also have that fault

[clackers]

I need to rent another brand of camera and lens and compare, although I don't know if my curiosity is worth the $300+ it would take to get a sports-oriented Nikon/Fuji/Sony for a week with a good lens ... but I also get a lot of shots where the kids are all blurry while the background is sharp, or the kids are blurry and so is everything else.

The problem is, Thor, it would still be you shooting the Nikon/Fuji/Sony, if you get what I mean. Action photography is not easy.

The advantage of the data I've shown you is that it is standardized testing.

All those mistakes you mentioned happened to the shooters around me too, of all brands. I have seen American photographer Cory Rich preset manual focus for skateboarders with his Nikon D5, because he knew the system was not capable.

If the kids are blurry but the background is sharp as you mentioned, you've let the focus point fall on the background. This occurs frequently when you're panning and the subject slows down or changes direction. Unless you crank up your Hold setting in the menu to compensate for the error, what else is the camera supposed to do when it finds a nice tree or fence underneath its focus point? G.I.G.O! By the time you've laid it back on the target edge or line, it now has to rack in from maybe hundreds of metres away, it may never catch up before the action's passed.

The other is where you make the mistake of focusing on a kid.

That's right, focusing on a kid.

The camera can't do that.

A PDAF focus system - including Sony, Canon and Nikon - attempts to focus on a line under a focus point.

If underneath the focus point there is just a blob of colour, like a sports uniform, it can't act.

So in the top photograph of yours, I like the writing on the shirt of the player with the ball - that's ideal PDAF material.

In the second photograph, it would be a mistake to train the point on the red shirt, I'd be aiming for the edge between the bottom of the shirt and the black shorts, and panning with that. You're going to have to shoot a little wider, because you'll need to crop the result to be properly composed, but it's more important to get the focus right or the result will be a throwaway.

Here's a pic I took the other weekend, that horse is coming at me at probably 60kmh in the z-direction, the hardest for any autofocus system to deal with, and I'm shooting at the narrowest depth of field:

[ThorSanchez]

The problem is, Thor, it would still be you shooting the Nikon/Fuji/Sony, if you get what I mean. Action photography is not easy.

The advantage of the data I've shown you is that it is standardized testing.

All those mistakes you mentioned happened to the shooters around me too, of all brands. I have seen American photographer Cory Rich preset manual focus for skateboarders with his Nikon D5, because he knew the system was not capable.

If the kids are blurry but the background is sharp as you mentioned, you've let the focus point fall on the background. This occurs frequently when you're panning and the subject slows down or changes direction. Unless you crank up your Hold setting in the menu to compensate for the error, what else is the camera supposed to do when it finds a nice tree or fence underneath its focus point? G.I.G.O! By the time you've laid it back on the target edge or line, it now has to rack in from maybe hundreds of metres away, it may never catch up before the action's passed.

The other is where you make the mistake of focusing on a kid.

That's right, focusing on a kid.

The camera can't do that.

A PDAF focus system - including Sony, Canon and Nikon - attempts to focus on a line under a focus point.

If underneath the focus point there is just a blob of colour, like a sports uniform, it can't act.

So in the top photograph of yours, I like the writing on the shirt of the player with the ball - that's ideal PDAF material.

In the second photograph, it would be a mistake to train the point on the red shirt, I'd be aiming for the edge between the bottom of the shirt and the black shorts, and panning with that. You're going to have to shoot a little wider, because you'll need to crop the result to be properly composed, but it's more important to get the focus right or the result will be a throwaway.

Here's a pic I took the other weekend, that horse is coming at me at probably 60kmh in the z-direction, the hardest for any autofocus system to deal with, and I'm shooting at the narrowest depth of field:

So what you’re telling me is that I don’t need to scratch that itch. I won’t get any better results with any other camera or lens, and I should be at peace with the keeper rate with my current gear.

Would be nice if that were true.

[clackers]

So what you’re telling me is that I don’t need to scratch that itch. I won’t get any better results with any other camera or lens, and I should be at peace with the keeper rate with my current gear.

Would be nice if that were true.

We always get better at our photography if we don't take the same shot over and over again, Thor. People who take the same picture for years but with a different flower or dog or coffee or whatever as its subject are in a rut.

I did a rodeo in 2016, now two more in two weeks, I'm improving. So I should, I've shot lots of other sports and action in those four years.

Good technique doesn't cost anything. As for your gear, your K-3 II has pretty much the same autofocus system as my K-1, and the 55-300 PLM is plenty quick, and in fact you've got more buffer than me. I have to be more selective with my bursts, you can do more 'spraying and praying'.

See below for the rates of tracking past an obstacle for particular Canon, Nikon and Sony combinations. It's sad. But with back button focus, you can of course take matters into your own hands, releasing your thumb when you see an obstacle approaching your focus point.

[ThorSanchez]

We always get better at our photography if we don't take the same shot over and over again, Thor. People who take the same picture for years but with a different flower or dog or coffee or whatever as its subject are in a rut.

I did a rodeo in 2016, now two more in two weeks, I'm improving. So I should, I've shot lots of other sports and action in those four years.

Good technique doesn't cost anything. As for your gear, your K-3 II has pretty much the same autofocus system as my K-1, and the 55-300 PLM is plenty quick, and in fact you've got more buffer than me. I have to be more selective with my bursts, you can do more 'spraying and praying'.

See below for the rates of tracking past an obstacle for particular Canon, Nikon and Sony combinations. It's sad. But with back button focus, you can of course take matters into your own hands, releasing your thumb when you see an obstacle approaching your focus point.

I continue to work on my technique and try different things to potentially improve. I have two boys in soccer, and I have lots of opportunities to experiment and get better. Over the course of the last eight months I've taken thousands of shots in varying lighting conditions and positions around the field. I've compared spot focus results to expanded area. I've shot wide open and stopped down a bit. I've let ISO float up to 12800 at times to get faster shutter speeds. I'll continue to work on it.

But I am curious. I have no first-hand knowledge of other systems. Your data is all from cameras released in the 2012-2015 timeframe. None of them appear on lists like this of the best sports-oriented cameras of 2020. Every manufacturer has spent the last five years improving their autofocus algorithms and putting more computing power in their camera bodies. Perhaps what was poor is now better, and what was acceptable is now pretty good. I could be wrong, but I doubt that 2012 autofocus gets you largely the same results as the state-of-the-art today.

[Dan Rentea]

Sports photography's like that, Thor. See from the data below how disappointing tracking is with various brands.

Personally, I use the K-1 with BBF, SEL-M, AF-C. Here's a shot from the other week with the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 - having a lens with quick enough focus is very important, German researchers have found, they reported a six-fold variation between the slowest and fastest.

The Af case it's wrong for all the Canon shots. Next, the Af mode is also pretty much wrong, depending on the size of the bird in the frame. Next, based on the conditions and based on the bird size/colors, they also didn't said which of the 3 settings was customized for Af Case 1 in order to make it work: tracking sensitivity, Accel./Deccel. tracking, Af pt. auto switching. It's pretty easy to make any camera fail as long as you use wrong settings. That's why I tend to laugh at lab tests or at tests done by people who don't know how to configure a camera for best results.

Here is a series ot 6 images of a horse running like crazy. The images are straight out of camera and none of them is out of focus. How can I agree with the results from the test you posted since the very next series is a 9 set of images with the same horse and just one is acceptable with the other 8 in focus?!?













Some people post one random image of action and they say on forums that af works great (I'm talking in general, not in this particular case).

I have tons of random images like the below ones which I take when I test a camera to see how fast it grabs focus on a moving subject with different backgrounds. Give me any camera, from Pentax K-7 to Sony A7 II or Olympus Pen F and I can fill 50 pages with random action images. I or anyone who has time and some experience can make af tests like the one you posted and based on results you want, I can make it happen. That's why I rather look at people images than read internet tests which are not accurate at all most of the time and your example is no exception.

[clackers]

But I am curious. I have no first-hand knowledge of other systems. Your data is all from cameras released in the 2012-2015 timeframe. None of them appear on lists like this of the best sports-oriented cameras of 2020. Every manufacturer has spent the last five years improving their autofocus algorithms and putting more computing power in their camera bodies. Perhaps what was poor is now better, and what was acceptable is now pretty good. I could be wrong, but I doubt that 2012 autofocus gets you largely the same results as the state-of-the-art today.

Well, Thor, show us newer objective tests.

They always beat supposition, anecdote and subjective tests, which the internet seems to thrive on.