Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-03-2009, 10:39 AM   #76
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,157
QuoteOriginally posted by Damn Brit Quote
I don't have the photographic experience of a lot of you guys but I'm experienced enough in life to know that nothing is perfect.
I was and am happy with my K10 and I'm even happier with my K20. I accept that Pentax AF is slower than other systems and I understand how some of you guys can be disappointed by that but Pentax does quite a few other things better than the other systems.

There are over ten thousand members on this forum, how about one of you people who is unhappy with Pentax AF start an online petition? No arguing amongst ourselves, just a simple "The members of Pentax Forums would like Pentax to address the AF speed of their cameras".
We know how to contact Ned Bunnell, maybe if enough of us were to sign it, at the least we'd get some kind of definitive response.
If we have to petition Pentax to improve the operational performance of their cameras, that would prove they are a hopeless writeoff of a company.
I mean really, if they are so insulated from the world that they don't think they have to look at what their competitors are doing and address the comparative shortcomings in their equipment, then what good would a petition from the users do?

BTW,I just did a Q&D timing test comparing the AF of my FA50/1.4 to the AF of my DA*55/1.4.
The FA is at least twice as fast to lock focus.
We've come a long way in the past almost 20 years since the FA was introduced, unfortunately, it appears that it might be the wrong way.

04-03-2009, 10:43 AM   #77
Senior Member
alderfall's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Southern Oregon Coast
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 127
Just so that I can throw my hat into the ring on what will likely go down as one of the wildest post rides had in quite some time...

I shoot football (the World type) at a local college. I have done this for a few years, one year with Canon equipment. I see no disadvantage to using Pentax regarding auto focus for this type of shooting.

Now, I don't mean to cause any trouble with this next comment, please understand that I am not trying to flame here:

I tend to predict my shots. I don't wait for shots to come to me, I go to them. Sometimes this means I get 12 decent action shots during a match and sometimes it means I end up with 125 of them. I know the game, I set myself up where I feel the best opportunities will be and I go after those opportunities. I do not run about, trying to catch every possible frame. So, this may indicate why I don't see any significant issues. At times I wish I had a crystal clear 1200mm lens that opens to 1.8 without any CA so I could get something on the opposite side of the field, but C'est la vie, eh?

By the way, 65% of my shooting is handheld landscape, 20% is candid, 10% is portrait and the rest is a hodge podge really; so I am not an expert on the subject of continuous AF or sports shooting.
04-03-2009, 10:44 AM   #78
Veteran Member
palmor's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: North of Boston, MA
Posts: 798
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
BTW,I just did a Q&D timing test comparing the AF of my FA50/1.4 to the AF of my DA*55/1.4.
The FA is at least twice as fast to lock focus.
We've come a long way in the past almost 20 years since the FA was introduced, unfortunately, it appears that it might be the wrong way.
I don't think that is a real fair statement based on a single lens. So Pentax made a slow focusing lens, that doesn't mean that they have somehow reverted their technology 20 years. I admittedly don't know much about the DA*55 but if they decided to make the focus throws longer to improve manual focus for portrait photographers that use MF most of the time then that would make the AF slower.

Now if they came out with a slow AF lens that was meant as a sports lens then I'd say there would be more of a beef with that decision.


John
04-03-2009, 10:46 AM   #79
Senior Member
alderfall's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Southern Oregon Coast
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 127
Interesting test... I wonder if any of us here have the scientific/engineering acumen to be able to describe/explain exactly what Pentax is doing that allows this to be the case. There has to be a physical reason, something in the optics I would imagine, though that would be inductive reasoning to an extent.

Anybody who isn't just biased pro or against that understands the exact unequivocal reason for test results like this?

Jason

QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
If we have to petition Pentax to improve the operational performance of their cameras, that would prove they are a hopeless writeoff of a company.
I mean really, if they are so insulated from the world that they don't think they have to look at what their competitors are doing and address the comparative shortcomings in their equipment, then what good would a petition from the users do?

BTW,I just did a Q&D timing test comparing the AF of my FA50/1.4 to the AF of my DA*55/1.4.
The FA is at least twice as fast to lock focus.
We've come a long way in the past almost 20 years since the FA was introduced, unfortunately, it appears that it might be the wrong way.


04-03-2009, 10:47 AM   #80
Senior Member
alderfall's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Southern Oregon Coast
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 127
Sorry John, you posted this as I posted my comment. Thanks for some insight on this.

Jason

QuoteOriginally posted by palmor Quote
I don't think that is a real fair statement based on a single lens. So Pentax made a slow focusing lens, that doesn't mean that they have somehow reverted their technology 20 years. I admittedly don't know much about the DA*55 but if they decided to make the focus throws longer to improve manual focus for portrait photographers that use MF most of the time then that would make the AF slower.

Now if they came out with a slow AF lens that was meant as a sports lens then I'd say there would be more of a beef with that decision.


John
04-03-2009, 11:10 AM   #81
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Växjö, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 51
Well, I don't think its very strange that film slr focus slower than digital slrs.
If u look at one of the MZ slr and compare it to a digital slr, and look at the number of components that need power from the batteries.

A digital has to power the sensor, do image processing, power a bigger top display and much more compared to a film camera.

I think AF is very good on my K200 compared to my old DL
04-03-2009, 11:30 AM   #82
Damn Brit
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
If we have to petition Pentax to improve the operational performance of their cameras, that would prove they are a hopeless writeoff of a company.
I mean really, if they are so insulated from the world that they don't think they have to look at what their competitors are doing and address the comparative shortcomings in their equipment, then what good would a petition from the users do?

I'm sure Pentax monitors forums that are related to their cameras. All they see is petty bickering. They see people complaining about AF and others respond with "So get over it".
A petition with a large number of signatories would show a concerted desire by the customers to have faster AF. Maybe a petition would make them consider switching a few priorities to focus (NPI) on AF speed.
04-03-2009, 11:42 AM   #83
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 153
QuoteOriginally posted by Damn Brit Quote
A petition with a large number of signatories would show a concerted desire by the customers to have faster AF. Maybe a petition would make them consider switching a few priorities to focus (NPI) on AF speed.
When Pentax announced the K20D, they said that resolution and sensor where chosen over AF or FPS enhancements and that money constrains wouldn't allow for more development. Since that time Pentax has said that the sensor resolution is fine and they won't be pursuing more pixels. This kind of implies the AF system or FPS will be addressed on the next camera, maybe both.

04-03-2009, 12:10 PM   #84
Damn Brit
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by poco Quote
When Pentax announced the K20D, they said that resolution and sensor where chosen over AF or FPS enhancements and that money constrains wouldn't allow for more development. Since that time Pentax has said that the sensor resolution is fine and they won't be pursuing more pixels. This kind of implies the AF system or FPS will be addressed on the next camera, maybe both.
Well let's hope that for the sake of those who want/require faster AF that Pentax do address it.
On the other hand I have heard mention that while slower than the others, Pentax AF has been reported to be more accurate than some.
04-03-2009, 12:46 PM   #85
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,157
QuoteOriginally posted by calle73 Quote
Well, I don't think its very strange that film slr focus slower than digital slrs.
If u look at one of the MZ slr and compare it to a digital slr, and look at the number of components that need power from the batteries.

A digital has to power the sensor, do image processing, power a bigger top display and much more compared to a film camera.

I think AF is very good on my K200 compared to my old DL
Perhaps you should check out what the competition has been doing for the past few years with their DSLR AF compared to their older film SLR AF.
04-03-2009, 12:47 PM   #86
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,157
QuoteOriginally posted by poco Quote
When Pentax announced the K20D, they said that resolution and sensor where chosen over AF or FPS enhancements and that money constrains wouldn't allow for more development. Since that time Pentax has said that the sensor resolution is fine and they won't be pursuing more pixels. This kind of implies the AF system or FPS will be addressed on the next camera, maybe both.
This doesn't explain the extremely lazy AF on the 55/1.4.
04-03-2009, 04:31 PM   #87
Moderator
Tom S.'s Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: S.E. Michigan
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,239
Dakota tribal wisdom says that when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount. However, in business we often try other strategies with dead horses, including the following:

1. Buying a stronger whip.
2. Changing riders.
3. Say things like, "This is the way we have always ridden this horse."
4. Appointing a committee to study the horse.
5. Arranging to visit other sites to see how they ride dead horses.
6. Increasing the standards to ride dead horses.
7. Appointing a tiger team to revive the dead horse.
8. Creating a training session to increase our riding ability.
9. Comparing the state of dead horses in todays environment.
10. Change the requirements declaring that "This horse is not dead."
11. Hire contractors to ride the dead horse.
12. Harnessing several dead horses together for increased speed.
13. Declaring that "No horse is too dead to beat."
14. Providing additional funding to increase the horse's performance.
15. Do a Cost Analysis study to see if contractors can ride it cheaper.
16. Purchase a product to make dead horses run faster.
17. Declare the horse is "better, faster and cheaper" dead.
18. Form a quality circle to find uses for dead horses.
19. Revisit the performance requirements for horses.
20. Say this horse was procured with cost as an independent variable.
21. Promote the dead horse to a supervisory position.



And the point of this post? THE FREAKING HORSE IS DEAD FOLKS
04-03-2009, 05:40 PM   #88
Veteran Member
ManuH's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,209
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
This doesn't explain the extremely lazy AF on the 55/1.4.
OK it's slow but that's not the main issue with the Pentax AF IMHO. It's the way it's hesitating before locking. This is already much improved on the K-m: it finds the correct focus point in fewer steps, sometimes in just one step. Lenses like the DA* 55 may be slow to move (The DA* 50-135 is also like this) but it's only when they have to travel the whole focus range that this becomes a problem.
04-03-2009, 05:58 PM   #89
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, PRofMA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,053
QuoteOriginally posted by Tom S. Quote
.
21. Promote the dead horse to a supervisory position.
LOL. That explains AIG and most of the politicians in charge of the country
04-03-2009, 06:10 PM   #90
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,165
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
This doesn't explain the extremely lazy AF on the 55/1.4.
It's just more accurate.
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, camera, dslr, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
KX complaints-soft pics-SR issues-etc harleynitelite Pentax DSLR Discussion 4 01-20-2010 10:33 PM
Ebay complaints Jim Ryan General Talk 11 10-09-2009 11:01 AM
K10D complaints/K20D fixes codiac2600 Pentax DSLR Discussion 46 02-12-2008 02:47 AM
sick wildherre Post Your Photos! 6 02-23-2007 04:06 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:24 PM. | 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