Sick of AF complaints

yeedub · 04-04-2009, 11:39 AM

I think it would be great to have better AF in future products; I just tried to shoot a sporting event in an indoor gym where the ambient required the settings 1/100, f2.8, ISO 1600. I was using the 50-135mm. The AF was quite slow in focusing on moving people even with AF-C. It was a tad quicker using the center AF point, but I prefer to use one of the selected points to improve my composition and I found that I missed a lot of shots because the AF simply would not lock. My friends Nikon D90 focused a heck of a lot faster (80-200 f2.8 lens).

I know MF is an alternative, but I find it hard to MF in an environment, and I do expect to be able to rely on AF to compensate.

res3567 · 04-07-2009, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by reeftool

I don't have any issue with the Pentax AF speed. Most of my lenses are manual and I only have 2 AF lenses, the 18-55 kit lens and a Sigma 70-300. The kit lens focuses much quicker than the SIgma but both do a fine job for my needs. I will add that I do shoot sports a lot. I have a daughter who is a freestyle skier and another who races crew and I haven't lost shots because of any failure on the part of the camera. I have used other cameras like the Canon XTI one of my daughters has and any difference in AF speed is something I can't measure. I haven't used any of the real expensive top of the line Canon or Nikon's that cost as much as a new car. I would expect them to perform faster and if they didn't I would be pissed. My Pentax focuses faster and better than my eyes do sometimes.

The biggest complaint (myself included) is in lowlight.

Cambo · 04-09-2009, 09:10 AM

There sure is some ignorant ******** around here - just plain stupid and rude. We'd like to discuss performance parameters of our cameras without the high-school bullying by a few loud-mouthed ignorant morons, thank you. Here's some sane responses to some sane questions - this is what we'd like to do around here, not have some drunken, idiotic bloodied bar-fight over 'who badmouthed my camera'....DUHHHH!

Originally posted by soccerjoe5

Well it does get tiring but it's with all these complaints that push manufacturers to improve their products.

That's what I'm trying to do - to WAKE THEM UP!

Originally posted by k100d

my experience is that the MZ AF is better than the K100D
-it is just outright faster
-the viewfinder is big enough that you can tell if it missed focus
-however no cross points which makes it miss vertical/horizontal lines

My PZ-1P from 1992 is faster in focussing than the modern cameras - there has been NO increase in speed at all in the intervening years, just more focussing points, and even development on that seems to have stopped with the *ist D in about 2002 or something - I was expecting HSM in the new DA* lenses on a K20 to just smoke, but they don't; they are quiet, but fast and accurate....nope.

Originally posted by Wheatfield

Heck, I'd take 11 point AF if the speed was as fast as the D300.

I'd take 3 point or even 1 point if it was fast, cause that's what I use anyway. Started that way on the PZ1P, and continued. The camera doesn't know what I want to focus on, even if it had 10,000 focussing points. I think that's one of the reasons they are slow - the processor's trying to do too much, and is bogging down.

Originally posted by ManuH

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.

Which is, unfortunately, MOST OF THE TIME in low light. Terrible performance parameters in low light - it's like they don't even test or think of that. And as I've said before, it's not like you can fall back on manual focus now with the painfully short throws of the modern lenses, and with the current 95% viewfinders. I'm glad to hear it may have improved on the KM, but that has yet to be proved. I HOPE that s the case.

Originally posted by yeedub

I think it would be great to have better AF in future products; I just tried to shoot a sporting event in an indoor gym where the ambient required the settings 1/100, f2.8, ISO 1600. I was using the 50-135mm. The AF was quite slow in focusing on moving people even with AF-C. It was a tad quicker using the center AF point, but I prefer to use one of the selected points to improve my composition and I found that I missed a lot of shots because the AF simply would not lock. My friends Nikon D90 focused a heck of a lot faster (80-200 f2.8 lens).

I know MF is an alternative, but I find it hard to MF in an environment, and I do expect to be able to rely on AF to compensate.

No kidding. The performance parameters have NOT improved since the PZ1 - I do believe they have worsened, in fact. Hopefully, with all our b****ing, Pentax will have noticed and will be taking steps to remedy it. In the meantime, till they do, us long-time Pentaxians WILL CONTINUE TO WHINE ABOUT THE APPALLING LATE-80'S AF PERFORMANCE, SO IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, STAY OUT OF THREADS WHERE WE DISCUSS IT OR BRING IT UP, AND STOP BEING SO ******* RUDE TO PEOPLE WHO DO.

Sincerely,
Cameron

*isteve · 04-09-2009, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Cambo

There sure is some ignorant ******** around here - just plain stupid and rude. We'd like to discuss performance parameters of our cameras without the high-school bullying by a few loud-mouthed ignorant morons, thank you. Here's some sane responses to some sane questions - this is what we'd like to do around here, not have some drunken, idiotic bloodied bar-fight over 'who badmouthed my camera'....DUHHHH!

That's what I'm trying to do - to WAKE THEM UP!

If you hate bullying so much WHY ARE YOU DOING IT NOW? This post was not about defending Pentax, it was about trumped up, self appointed mouthpeices who rant on about issues over and over again in the arrogant belief that they speak for us all, and then get annoyed when anyone argues with them.

Quote:

My PZ-1P from 1992 is faster in focussing than the modern cameras - there has been NO increase in speed at all in the intervening years, just more focussing points, and even development on that seems to have stopped with the *ist D in about 2002 or something - I was expecting HSM in the new DA* lenses on a K20 to just smoke, but they don't; they are quiet, but fast and accurate....nope.

Compared to what exactly - have you read any other threads on this subject? A lot of film cameras were "faster" in some conditions because they were somewhat less accurate. Noone noticed because they didnt print that large and they had no pixels to peep. How many times did you use a focus chart in those days?

Quote:

I'd take 3 point or even 1 point if it was fast, cause that's what I use anyway.

Bully for you - if you dont understand why the off-centre focus points are so useful (do you use a tripod?) and why the K20D is about the only camera where they are actually accurate even in dark conditions, then you are DEFINATELY not qualified to express any AF requirements to Pentax on behalf of the rest of us.

Quote:

Started that way on the PZ1P, and continued. The camera doesn't know what I want to focus on, even if it had 10,000 focussing points. I think that's one of the reasons they are slow - the processor's trying to do too much, and is bogging down.

Then a faster processor would seem like a good idea! Nikon have 52 points.

Quote:

Which is, unfortunately, MOST OF THE TIME in low light. Terrible performance parameters in low light - it's like they don't even test or think of that.

Compared to what? Do you trust reviewers at Imaging Resources? They said....

"The Pentax SAFOX VIII is a tenacious, if not especially fast, autofocus system. Generally, the Pentax K20D focused quickly and accurately, focusing in quick increments that seem to find the general area rapidly, and then refine the focus until the camera determines it is properly focused. The camera can hunt for focus: but where other manufacturers' cameras would give up, the K20D will keep on hunting, taking several seconds until it finds focus. There were only a few cases where it didn't find focus, and I had to present it with some pretty challenging low-light and low-contrast situations."

They also were pretty disparaging about continuous AF and there I would agree. Its pretty poor. But what has that to do with your comments so far I dont know. I didnt think the PZ1 had predictive AF either.

Quote:

And as I've said before, it's not like you can fall back on manual focus now with the painfully short throws of the modern lenses, and with the current 95% viewfinders. I'm glad to hear it may have improved on the KM, but that has yet to be proved. I HOPE that s the case.

The short focus throw is the main reason Canon and Nikon kit lenses focus so damn fast. Unfortunately some of their larger, more expensive and heavier glass does not. Please read the post about the Canon 5Dmk2.

Quote:

No kidding. The performance parameters have NOT improved since the PZ1 - I do believe they have worsened, in fact. Hopefully, with all our b****ing, Pentax will have noticed and will be taking steps to remedy it. In the meantime, till they do, us long-time Pentaxians WILL CONTINUE TO WHINE ABOUT THE APPALLING LATE-80'S AF PERFORMANCE, SO IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, STAY OUT OF THREADS WHERE WE DISCUSS IT OR BRING IT UP, AND STOP BEING SO ******* RUDE TO PEOPLE WHO DO.

The rudest person on this thread by a mile is YOU.

This is not your exclusive forum and I do not take kindly being told where I can and cannot post.

"The AF system is cr*p" does not help anyone in Pentax "uncr*p" it so its a useless statement. Yes, it would be nice if it locked faster in low light and yes I would like a better predictive AF system, but I dont want to lose what it already has just because YOU dont think it matters. I want to keep the baby when you throw out the bathwater.

Besides which, what makes you think Pentax dont know where their cameras compare to the competition? How many millions posts have we had? Do we really need more? Its been reported many times that they did not have the resources to do any major AF work on the K20D.

Its WAY too late to worry about the replacement now, development is mostly finished. If its still bad, all these complaints are worthless. Are you going to keep on for another 2 years boring us all to death or are you going to buy a Nikon? Its as pointless as moaning that your girlfriend is ugly.

snkenai · 04-09-2009, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by poco

If you would care to read my post again I think you'll see I said complaining over and over by saying you love your equipment isn't justified. I could care less if you love or hate your equipment.

If you don't care what we think of our equipment, then why do you care if we complain about some of it's lack? Seems inconsistant to me.

Steve N:

pingflood · 04-09-2009, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by Cambo

point if it was fast, cause that's what I use anyway. Started that way on the PZ1P, and continued. The camera doesn't know what I want to focus on, even if it had 10,000 focussing points. I think that's one of the reasons they are slow - the processor's trying to do too much, and is bogging down.

I really don't think that is the case. Canon have had the 45 point system since, what, 2001, and processing power has not been a concern. Sorry for bringing up Canon again and again, but that is the only other major system I've owned.

nanok · 04-09-2009, 07:23 PM

talk about a can of worms...

my experience seems to be different than most, this intrigued me enough to try it again. off goes the zenitar, on goes the kit lens (poor little thing, it has been neglected for so long, and it doesn't diserve it). it is (way too) late here, my room is only lit by a 40W or so matte bulb, and the results are not surprising (just as i remember): it is _shocking_ what it can focus on in this light, does it take a while? yeah, sure, does it just give up when i point it at a dark wall? yup, it does, but if i am reasonable and actually give it something to focus on, it will do a hell of a lot better than i am able to in this light (i wear glasses, but my eyesight is perfect with them on). i will say it again: it is amazing what this camera can focus on, in low _and_ difused tungsten light. would a canon or nikon in the same price range do better? hell if i know, i'd have to try, but i think it is safe to say you cannot call this terrible low light performance. the meter reads 1s at f/5.6, at iso 200 in most cases (it is probably not enough for some of the subject i focused on, it's just an average).

i said this before, i will say it again: i have used a nikon d50 before switching to a k100d (yeah, the slow one, AA batteryes), concert shooting with the nikon was a pain, getting it to focus required patience, i didn't complain, i learned to understand how it works, and it did the job. having only one useful af sensor (the center) made it quite a challenge. the crappy viewfinder meant MF was virtually out of the question. switching to the k100d, with 9, nine! usefull af sensors, and with a decent viewfinder, was like walking to the pearly gates, and to top things off, it actually didn't really need that much help as the d50 (read: it wants some contrast, same as the d50, but it does not require specular-*****-highlights and nothing else to be able to focus), and also it is easier to control, as the center af sensor doesn't seem to take up half of the frame as the d50.

i shoot sports too. af-c is nothing mindblowing, and, to be honest, i shoot in such a way that i kind of make the shots, instead of just grabbing whatever might happen (this might mean i am not a true sports shooter, i know

), this does not mean this is the only way to shoot sports and everybody else can go to photographer-hell though. funny enough, i somehow ended up using mostly manual focus lenses, even for sports shooting, mostly through choice, it seems to just suith me better somehow.

now, can the af on pentax cameras be improved? i sure as hell hope so, or some very bright engineers at pentax are looking at permanent unemployement (for having done too good a job: a perfect af system), do i want it improved? YES, bring it on! why? because it is possible and because it is the 21st century. however, please stop removing focus points (better keep the number and spread them further in the frame), keep the cross type focus sensors, we need them (no, i shall not use the center and recompose when using an af lens, i have sold the d50 long time ago, and don't know how to do that anymore). probably the most desireable feature i hear being mentioned is predictive tracking. now, i know that's a specialized feature, and is not cheap to do, but it would be nice to see small steps in that direction, though. i would also like to be able to use all the focus points with my manual focus lenses (unless there is a technical reason for which that is too much trouble to implement).

what i am trying to say, i guess, is that : no, the pentax af system is not terrible, maybe not even bellow average. i have shot k100d, k10d, k20d, and i stand by my statement, it is not perfect either. and yes, we would all like to see it improved, faster, smarter, and so on, but what i cannot understand is why there has to be such a definite separation (those who want better af and those who don't), i see blood pooring all over this thread, i am ...speechless. i think it is safe to say none here has ever faught so hard against a "pentax basher" (another mytical creature i have heard about on these forums, said to be almost always using either nikon or canon, and inflict unimaginable psychological pain on pentax users just by smiling, asking what brand of camera is that, raising brows, and so on, all insidious actions) as (some) have amongst themselves in this thread.

amazing.

can't we ...all just.. get along.. come on, dude..

--
nanok, passing the cigarette, peacefully..

edit: my cat just woke up. scratch everything above, i changed my mind. this camera sucks, i want a canon. it cannot focus on my cat, in the aforementioned lighting conditions. terrible. okay, it's true it is a black cat (pitch black), and that in this light it is.. well.. not visible as such even to my eye (i do not actually see her, i see the absence of any light whatsoever in the space where she is), but still..

ps: if i don't get to bed soon, the sun might rise and i might change my mind again

Last edited by nanok; 04-09-2009 at 07:34 PM.

*isteve · 04-10-2009, 06:01 AM

Originally posted by nanok

talk about a can of worms...

nanok, passing the cigarette, peacefully..

edit: my cat just woke up. scratch everything above, i changed my mind. this camera sucks, i want a canon. it cannot focus on my cat, in the aforementioned lighting conditions. terrible. okay, it's true it is a black cat (pitch black), and that in this light it is.. well.. not visible as such even to my eye (i do not actually see her, i see the absence of any light whatsoever in the space where she is), but still..

ps: if i don't get to bed soon, the sun might rise and i might change my mind again

What was in that cigarette man? Can I have one?

soccerjoe5 · 04-10-2009, 06:10 AM

Wow this thread sure got out of hand.

nanok · 04-10-2009, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by *isteve

What was in that cigarette man? Can I have one?

hell if i know

, but it seems it worked: things seem to have gone quiet.

silvershoes · 04-10-2009, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by *isteve

This post was not about defending Pentax, it was about trumped up, self appointed mouthpeices who rant on about issues over and over again in the arrogant belief that they speak for us all, and then get annoyed when anyone argues with them.

This is probably my biggest gripe with brand-dedicated forums. There's a lot of that going around, not just here. It's something one simply doesn't see on the pro forums, because the pros have learned to work with their chosen equipment whatever the brand - if they can't make it work, they switch.

I shoot hockey among other things. The venues generally have strange lighting. I've had no problems with AF, and most of my shots are keepers. I honestly don't give it much thought as a result. That was true with the *istD, it's now true of the K20D.

Only half of a successful photograph is the equipment; the other half is the photographer. Endless threads demanding changes in the first are never going to address the second. No one can buy themselves into being a better photographer; people with far less capable equipment can however learn to be better photographers.

I'm not opposed to improving equipment, but I get really tired of reading "demands" for this or that by people who obviously have neglected the second. No matter how fancy the camera, no matter what the brand, it's still a box that does exactly what you tell it to do. An awful lot of features people claim to "need" are easily solved by working on technique.

Vylen · 04-10-2009, 06:37 AM

this thread is full of waaaah

Wheatfield · 04-10-2009, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by pingflood

I really don't think that is the case. Canon have had the 45 point system since, what, 2001, and processing power has not been a concern. Sorry for bringing up Canon again and again, but that is the only other major system I've owned.

The real problem isn't with the K20 AF, it's fine for a camera in it's class. Probably not significantly better or worse than everything else in it's class.
The problem is that it's the best Pentax is doing.
Nikon, Canon, probably Sony give their customers the option of going to a better AF system, Pentax doesn't.
This is the real issue that I have.
That and if the 55/1.4 is representative of where Pentax AF is going, it's good that they are leaving good manual focusing rings on their lenses.

dafiryde · 04-10-2009, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by aamir515

I do not post very often but I do visit the forum almost everyday... and boy am i sick of people complaining about AF speed.... we all do research before we buy the cameras and I am sure you all did too and you knew that Pentax is not known for AF speed... so plz, if you bought it knowing that it would not work as good as other dslrs, stop whining and please change your system.... go with the big boys.... leave us alone.... i believe most of us are very happy with the AF speed....
peace...

Well said , i tip my hat to you
my first SLR was a K1000 which was manual focus only, and i am sure the mauractures left it available on my K20D for a good reason

Believe me nikon, canon, sony has the same problems. and it all boils down to WHINNNNNNNNNERS
Dave

Wheatfield · 04-10-2009, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by dafiryde

Well said , i tip my hat to you
my first SLR was a K1000 which was manual focus only, and i am sure the mauractures left it available on my K20D for a good reason

Believe me nikon, canon, sony has the same problems. and it all boils down to WHINNNNNNNNNERS
Dave

Both your post and the one you responded to are an epic fail of intelligent thought.
Sorry for pointing this out to you.

04-09-2009, 09:10 AM	#93
Cambo Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Vancouver, BC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,016	Can't we have a discussion here without getting NASTY? Some responses to THE QUESTION There sure is some ignorant ******** around here - just plain stupid and rude. We'd like to discuss performance parameters of our cameras without the high-school bullying by a few loud-mouthed ignorant morons, thank you. Here's some sane responses to some sane questions - this is what we'd like to do around here, not have some drunken, idiotic bloodied bar-fight over 'who badmouthed my camera'....DUHHHH! Originally posted by soccerjoe5 Well it does get tiring but it's with all these complaints that push manufacturers to improve their products. That's what I'm trying to do - to WAKE THEM UP! Originally posted by k100d my experience is that the MZ AF is better than the K100D -it is just outright faster -the viewfinder is big enough that you can tell if it missed focus -however no cross points which makes it miss vertical/horizontal lines My PZ-1P from 1992 is faster in focussing than the modern cameras - there has been NO increase in speed at all in the intervening years, just more focussing points, and even development on that seems to have stopped with the ist D in about 2002 or something - I was expecting HSM in the new DA lenses on a K20 to just smoke, but they don't; they are quiet, but fast and accurate....nope. Originally posted by Wheatfield Heck, I'd take 11 point AF if the speed was as fast as the D300. I'd take 3 point or even 1 point if it was fast, cause that's what I use anyway. Started that way on the PZ1P, and continued. The camera doesn't know what I want to focus on, even if it had 10,000 focussing points. I think that's one of the reasons they are slow - the processor's trying to do too much, and is bogging down. Originally posted by ManuH 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. Which is, unfortunately, MOST OF THE TIME in low light. Terrible performance parameters in low light - it's like they don't even test or think of that. And as I've said before, it's not like you can fall back on manual focus now with the painfully short throws of the modern lenses, and with the current 95% viewfinders. I'm glad to hear it may have improved on the KM, but that has yet to be proved. I HOPE that s the case. Originally posted by yeedub I think it would be great to have better AF in future products; I just tried to shoot a sporting event in an indoor gym where the ambient required the settings 1/100, f2.8, ISO 1600. I was using the 50-135mm. The AF was quite slow in focusing on moving people even with AF-C. It was a tad quicker using the center AF point, but I prefer to use one of the selected points to improve my composition and I found that I missed a lot of shots because the AF simply would not lock. My friends Nikon D90 focused a heck of a lot faster (80-200 f2.8 lens). I know MF is an alternative, but I find it hard to MF in an environment, and I do expect to be able to rely on AF to compensate. No kidding. The performance parameters have NOT improved since the PZ1 - I do believe they have worsened, in fact. Hopefully, with all our b**ing, Pentax will have noticed and will be taking steps to remedy it. In the meantime, till they do, us long-time Pentaxians WILL CONTINUE TO WHINE ABOUT THE APPALLING LATE-80'S AF PERFORMANCE, SO IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, STAY OUT OF THREADS WHERE WE DISCUSS IT OR BRING IT UP, AND STOP BEING SO ***** RUDE TO PEOPLE WHO DO. Sincerely, Cameron

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

04-04-2009, 11:39 AM	#91
yeedub Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 78	I think it would be great to have better AF in future products; I just tried to shoot a sporting event in an indoor gym where the ambient required the settings 1/100, f2.8, ISO 1600. I was using the 50-135mm. The AF was quite slow in focusing on moving people even with AF-C. It was a tad quicker using the center AF point, but I prefer to use one of the selected points to improve my composition and I found that I missed a lot of shots because the AF simply would not lock. My friends Nikon D90 focused a heck of a lot faster (80-200 f2.8 lens). I know MF is an alternative, but I find it hard to MF in an environment, and I do expect to be able to rely on AF to compensate.

04-07-2009, 12:43 AM	#92
res3567 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Houston Tx. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,876	Originally posted by reeftool I don't have any issue with the Pentax AF speed. Most of my lenses are manual and I only have 2 AF lenses, the 18-55 kit lens and a Sigma 70-300. The kit lens focuses much quicker than the SIgma but both do a fine job for my needs. I will add that I do shoot sports a lot. I have a daughter who is a freestyle skier and another who races crew and I haven't lost shots because of any failure on the part of the camera. I have used other cameras like the Canon XTI one of my daughters has and any difference in AF speed is something I can't measure. I haven't used any of the real expensive top of the line Canon or Nikon's that cost as much as a new car. I would expect them to perform faster and if they didn't I would be pissed. My Pentax focuses faster and better than my eyes do sometimes. The biggest complaint (myself included) is in lowlight.

04-09-2009, 03:15 PM	#94
*isteve Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London, England Posts: 1,187	Originally posted by Cambo There sure is some ignorant ******** around here - just plain stupid and rude. We'd like to discuss performance parameters of our cameras without the high-school bullying by a few loud-mouthed ignorant morons, thank you. Here's some sane responses to some sane questions - this is what we'd like to do around here, not have some drunken, idiotic bloodied bar-fight over 'who badmouthed my camera'....DUHHHH! That's what I'm trying to do - to WAKE THEM UP! If you hate bullying so much WHY ARE YOU DOING IT NOW? This post was not about defending Pentax, it was about trumped up, self appointed mouthpeices who rant on about issues over and over again in the arrogant belief that they speak for us all, and then get annoyed when anyone argues with them. Quote: My PZ-1P from 1992 is faster in focussing than the modern cameras - there has been NO increase in speed at all in the intervening years, just more focussing points, and even development on that seems to have stopped with the ist D in about 2002 or something - I was expecting HSM in the new DA lenses on a K20 to just smoke, but they don't; they are quiet, but fast and accurate....nope. Compared to what exactly - have you read any other threads on this subject? A lot of film cameras were "faster" in some conditions because they were somewhat less accurate. Noone noticed because they didnt print that large and they had no pixels to peep. How many times did you use a focus chart in those days? Quote: I'd take 3 point or even 1 point if it was fast, cause that's what I use anyway. Bully for you - if you dont understand why the off-centre focus points are so useful (do you use a tripod?) and why the K20D is about the only camera where they are actually accurate even in dark conditions, then you are DEFINATELY not qualified to express any AF requirements to Pentax on behalf of the rest of us. Quote: Started that way on the PZ1P, and continued. The camera doesn't know what I want to focus on, even if it had 10,000 focussing points. I think that's one of the reasons they are slow - the processor's trying to do too much, and is bogging down. Then a faster processor would seem like a good idea! Nikon have 52 points. Quote: Which is, unfortunately, MOST OF THE TIME in low light. Terrible performance parameters in low light - it's like they don't even test or think of that. Compared to what? Do you trust reviewers at Imaging Resources? They said.... "The Pentax SAFOX VIII is a tenacious, if not especially fast, autofocus system. Generally, the Pentax K20D focused quickly and accurately, focusing in quick increments that seem to find the general area rapidly, and then refine the focus until the camera determines it is properly focused. The camera can hunt for focus: but where other manufacturers' cameras would give up, the K20D will keep on hunting, taking several seconds until it finds focus. There were only a few cases where it didn't find focus, and I had to present it with some pretty challenging low-light and low-contrast situations." They also were pretty disparaging about continuous AF and there I would agree. Its pretty poor. But what has that to do with your comments so far I dont know. I didnt think the PZ1 had predictive AF either. Quote: And as I've said before, it's not like you can fall back on manual focus now with the painfully short throws of the modern lenses, and with the current 95% viewfinders. I'm glad to hear it may have improved on the KM, but that has yet to be proved. I HOPE that s the case. The short focus throw is the main reason Canon and Nikon kit lenses focus so damn fast. Unfortunately some of their larger, more expensive and heavier glass does not. Please read the post about the Canon 5Dmk2. Quote: No kidding. The performance parameters have NOT improved since the PZ1 - I do believe they have worsened, in fact. Hopefully, with all our b**ing, Pentax will have noticed and will be taking steps to remedy it. In the meantime, till they do, us long-time Pentaxians WILL CONTINUE TO WHINE ABOUT THE APPALLING LATE-80'S AF PERFORMANCE, SO IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, STAY OUT OF THREADS WHERE WE DISCUSS IT OR BRING IT UP, AND STOP BEING SO ***** RUDE TO PEOPLE WHO DO. The rudest person on this thread by a mile is YOU. This is not your exclusive forum and I do not take kindly being told where I can and cannot post. "The AF system is crp" does not help anyone in Pentax "uncrp" it so its a useless statement. Yes, it would be nice if it locked faster in low light and yes I would like a better predictive AF system, but I dont want to lose what it already has just because YOU dont think it matters. I want to keep the baby when you throw out the bathwater. Besides which, what makes you think Pentax dont know where their cameras compare to the competition? How many millions posts have we had? Do we really need more? Its been reported many times that they did not have the resources to do any major AF work on the K20D. Its WAY too late to worry about the replacement now, development is mostly finished. If its still bad, all these complaints are worthless. Are you going to keep on for another 2 years boring us all to death or are you going to buy a Nikon? Its as pointless as moaning that your girlfriend is ugly.

04-09-2009, 06:06 PM	#95
snkenai Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Photos: Albums Posts: 113	Originally posted by poco If you would care to read my post again I think you'll see I said complaining over and over by saying you love your equipment isn't justified. I could care less if you love or hate your equipment. If you don't care what we think of our equipment, then why do you care if we complain about some of it's lack? Seems inconsistant to me. Steve N:

04-09-2009, 07:01 PM	#96
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Originally posted by Cambo point if it was fast, cause that's what I use anyway. Started that way on the PZ1P, and continued. The camera doesn't know what I want to focus on, even if it had 10,000 focussing points. I think that's one of the reasons they are slow - the processor's trying to do too much, and is bogging down. I really don't think that is the case. Canon have had the 45 point system since, what, 2001, and processing power has not been a concern. Sorry for bringing up Canon again and again, but that is the only other major system I've owned.

04-09-2009, 07:23 PM	#97
nanok Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 969	talk about a can of worms... my experience seems to be different than most, this intrigued me enough to try it again. off goes the zenitar, on goes the kit lens (poor little thing, it has been neglected for so long, and it doesn't diserve it). it is (way too) late here, my room is only lit by a 40W or so matte bulb, and the results are not surprising (just as i remember): it is _shocking_ what it can focus on in this light, does it take a while? yeah, sure, does it just give up when i point it at a dark wall? yup, it does, but if i am reasonable and actually give it something to focus on, it will do a hell of a lot better than i am able to in this light (i wear glasses, but my eyesight is perfect with them on). i will say it again: it is amazing what this camera can focus on, in low _and_ difused tungsten light. would a canon or nikon in the same price range do better? hell if i know, i'd have to try, but i think it is safe to say you cannot call this terrible low light performance. the meter reads 1s at f/5.6, at iso 200 in most cases (it is probably not enough for some of the subject i focused on, it's just an average). i said this before, i will say it again: i have used a nikon d50 before switching to a k100d (yeah, the slow one, AA batteryes), concert shooting with the nikon was a pain, getting it to focus required patience, i didn't complain, i learned to understand how it works, and it did the job. having only one useful af sensor (the center) made it quite a challenge. the crappy viewfinder meant MF was virtually out of the question. switching to the k100d, with 9, nine! usefull af sensors, and with a decent viewfinder, was like walking to the pearly gates, and to top things off, it actually didn't really need that much help as the d50 (read: it wants some contrast, same as the d50, but it does not require specular-****-highlights and nothing else to be able to focus), and also it is easier to control, as the center af sensor doesn't seem to take up half of the frame as the d50. i shoot sports too. af-c is nothing mindblowing, and, to be honest, i shoot in such a way that i kind of make the shots, instead of just grabbing whatever might happen (this might mean i am not a true sports shooter, i know ), this does not mean this is the only way to shoot sports and everybody else can go to photographer-hell though. funny enough, i somehow ended up using mostly manual focus lenses, even for sports shooting, mostly through choice, it seems to just suith me better somehow. now, can the af on pentax cameras be improved? i sure as hell hope so, or some very bright engineers at pentax are looking at permanent unemployement (for having done too good a job: a perfect af system), do i want it improved? YES, bring it on! why? because it is possible and because it is the 21st century. however, please stop removing focus points (better keep the number and spread them further in the frame), keep the cross type focus sensors, we need them (no, i shall not use the center and recompose when using an af lens, i have sold the d50 long time ago, and don't know how to do that anymore). probably the most desireable feature i hear being mentioned is predictive tracking. now, i know that's a specialized feature, and is not cheap to do, but it would be nice to see small steps in that direction, though. i would also like to be able to use all the focus points with my manual focus lenses (unless there is a technical reason for which that is too much trouble to implement). what i am trying to say, i guess, is that : no, the pentax af system is not terrible, maybe not even bellow average. i have shot k100d, k10d, k20d, and i stand by my statement, it is not perfect either. and yes, we would all like to see it improved, faster, smarter, and so on, but what i cannot understand is why there has to be such a definite separation (those who want better af and those who don't), i see blood pooring all over this thread, i am ...speechless. i think it is safe to say none here has ever faught so hard against a "pentax basher" (another mytical creature i have heard about on these forums, said to be almost always using either nikon or canon, and inflict unimaginable psychological pain on pentax users just by smiling, asking what brand of camera is that, raising brows, and so on, all insidious actions) as (some) have amongst themselves in this thread. amazing. can't we ...all just.. get along.. come on, dude.. -- nanok, passing the cigarette, peacefully.. edit: my cat just woke up. scratch everything above, i changed my mind. this camera sucks, i want a canon. it cannot focus on my cat, in the aforementioned lighting conditions. terrible. okay, it's true it is a black cat (pitch black), and that in this light it is.. well.. not visible as such even to my eye (i do not actually see her, i see the absence of any light whatsoever in the space where she is), but still.. ps: if i don't get to bed soon, the sun might rise and i might change my mind again Last edited by nanok; 04-09-2009 at 07:34 PM.*

04-10-2009, 06:01 AM	#98
*isteve Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London, England Posts: 1,187	Originally posted by nanok talk about a can of worms... nanok, passing the cigarette, peacefully.. edit: my cat just woke up. scratch everything above, i changed my mind. this camera sucks, i want a canon. it cannot focus on my cat, in the aforementioned lighting conditions. terrible. okay, it's true it is a black cat (pitch black), and that in this light it is.. well.. not visible as such even to my eye (i do not actually see her, i see the absence of any light whatsoever in the space where she is), but still.. ps: if i don't get to bed soon, the sun might rise and i might change my mind again What was in that cigarette man? Can I have one?

04-10-2009, 06:10 AM	#99
soccerjoe5 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,343	Wow this thread sure got out of hand.

04-10-2009, 06:12 AM	#100
nanok Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 969	Originally posted by *isteve What was in that cigarette man? Can I have one? hell if i know , but it seems it worked: things seem to have gone quiet.

04-10-2009, 06:19 AM	#101
silvershoes Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: TN Photos: Gallery Posts: 58	Originally posted by isteve This post was not about defending Pentax, it was about trumped up, self appointed mouthpeices who rant on about issues over and over again in the arrogant belief that they speak for us all, and then get annoyed when anyone argues with them. This is probably my biggest gripe with brand-dedicated forums. There's a lot of that going around, not just here. It's something one simply doesn't see on the pro forums, because the pros have learned to work with their chosen equipment whatever the brand - if they can't make it work, they switch. I shoot hockey among other things. The venues generally have strange lighting. I've had no problems with AF, and most of my shots are keepers. I honestly don't give it much thought as a result. That was true with the istD, it's now true of the K20D. Only half of a successful photograph is the equipment; the other half is the photographer. Endless threads demanding changes in the first are never going to address the second. No one can buy themselves into being a better photographer; people with far less capable equipment can however learn to be better photographers. I'm not opposed to improving equipment, but I get really tired of reading "demands" for this or that by people who obviously have neglected the second. No matter how fancy the camera, no matter what the brand, it's still a box that does exactly what you tell it to do. An awful lot of features people claim to "need" are easily solved by working on technique.

04-10-2009, 06:37 AM	#102
Vylen Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,262	this thread is full of waaaah

04-10-2009, 07:49 AM	#103
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by pingflood I really don't think that is the case. Canon have had the 45 point system since, what, 2001, and processing power has not been a concern. Sorry for bringing up Canon again and again, but that is the only other major system I've owned. The real problem isn't with the K20 AF, it's fine for a camera in it's class. Probably not significantly better or worse than everything else in it's class. The problem is that it's the best Pentax is doing. Nikon, Canon, probably Sony give their customers the option of going to a better AF system, Pentax doesn't. This is the real issue that I have. That and if the 55/1.4 is representative of where Pentax AF is going, it's good that they are leaving good manual focusing rings on their lenses.

04-10-2009, 08:24 AM	#104
dafiryde Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Trinidad and Tobago Posts: 419	Originally posted by aamir515 I do not post very often but I do visit the forum almost everyday... and boy am i sick of people complaining about AF speed.... we all do research before we buy the cameras and I am sure you all did too and you knew that Pentax is not known for AF speed... so plz, if you bought it knowing that it would not work as good as other dslrs, stop whining and please change your system.... go with the big boys.... leave us alone.... i believe most of us are very happy with the AF speed.... peace... Well said , i tip my hat to you my first SLR was a K1000 which was manual focus only, and i am sure the mauractures left it available on my K20D for a good reason Believe me nikon, canon, sony has the same problems. and it all boils down to WHINNNNNNNNNERS Dave

04-10-2009, 08:40 AM	#105
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by dafiryde Well said , i tip my hat to you my first SLR was a K1000 which was manual focus only, and i am sure the mauractures left it available on my K20D for a good reason Believe me nikon, canon, sony has the same problems. and it all boils down to WHINNNNNNNNNERS Dave Both your post and the one you responded to are an epic fail of intelligent thought. Sorry for pointing this out to you.