[Wheatfield]

Could have but they weren't

No accounting for poor technique I suppose. It's good the AF was fast enough to save the day for you. I've found a lot of situations where Pentax AF isn't fast enough to save the day for me.

No accounting for poor technique I suppose. It's good the AF was fast enough to save the day for you. I've found a lot of situations where Pentax AF isn't fast enough to save the day for me.

Well I started off with a comparably priced Canon and I don't know if the auto focus was "snappier" or not but it front focused consistently. My cheap K200D blows it out of the water for proper focus and higher quality images. Plus a much higher quality build, SR and the like.
One day a friend of mine and I went to watch the Tour of California. As we sat around at breakfast he pulled out his Canon D20 and showed off his higher FPS. At the end of the day I got much better shots.
Auto focus is only part of the equation and certainly not the most important one. Go to the bird in flight thread and have a look.

[pingflood]

OK, I'll raise the bar with a dragonfly in flight (Not enough DOF on it unfortunately, so this is tongue-in-cheek...)

[res3567]

OK, I'll raise the bar with a dragonfly in flight (Not enough DOF on it unfortunately, so this is tongue-in-cheek...)

Quite an awsome pic indeed!

[Oldphoto678]

Here we go again. A couple of pictures trotted out that don't test the speed of the camera used to make a pseudo point.
Do you really think that if it didn't matter, the pro sports shooters would be spending gobs of money on high end, high performance cameras?

The "pseudo point" I'm making is that long before AF, burst mode, or auto film advance, photographers were taking action shots. And good ones!

If you have the skill the camera doesn't mater. If you have the skill it can be done with a Brownie. You can spend gobs of money on high end, high preformance cameras if you want, but that only makes the job easier. It's not the camera. It's the photographer.

I hope this wasn't so hard for you to understand.

Rodney...

[pingflood]

The "pseudo point" I'm making is that long before AF, burst mode, or auto film advance, photographers were taking action shots. And good ones!

If you have the skill the camera doesn't mater. If you have the skill it can be done with a Brownie. You can spend gobs of money on high end, high preformance cameras if you want, but that only makes the job easier. It's not the camera. It's the photographer.

I hope this wasn't so hard for you to understand.

Rodney...

Then why aren't you shooting with a Brownie?

Go ahead and get a nicely framed shot of an eagle hunting or something along those lines with a Brownie or say a 6x9 rangefinder. Sure, a bad photographer will make bad pictures no matter how good the gear (which is why I get a little peeved over the "wow, you must have a nice camera" line -- yes, the gear is part of it but without the guy using it doing something right it'll still turn out crap), but there are situations where certain gear is pretty much required. People tend to view it in black and white though -- either the camera doesn't matter AT ALL or it's ALL about the camera. Neither is remotely near the truth. You always need skills and sometimes you need the specific gear to get the results you want. Saying that you could always do the job with a Brownie if you have the right skills is just silly though.

[Jewelltrail]

Oldphoto678: The "pseudo point" I'm making is that long before AF, burst mode, or auto film advance, photographers were taking action shots. And good ones!

Rodney, you make an excellent point, one which many people need reminding of. The problem with high tech technology, is it never seems to be high-tech enough.

If camera technology were to reach the level the gear heads long for, all one would do is point the camera and push the button and get a perfect shot--each time. Better yet, gear-head mentality would warrant a camera which telepathically read the shooter's mind and pushed the shutter at the optimum moment. But then there would still be unhappy gear heads.

For them, cameras which functioned completely by reading the minds of the "shooters" would be wanted. And we would still have whining gear-heads.

For them, cameras which telepathically got every shot perfectly, would need to do so in the "shooter's" sleep.

Photography is an art--thank God digital (technology) has not stolen that!

[pingflood]

Rodney, you make an excellent point, one which many people need reminding of. The problem with high tech technology, is it never seems to be high-tech enough.

If camera technology were to reach the level the gear heads long for, all one would do is point the camera and push the button and get a perfect shot--each time. Better yet, gear-head mentality would warrant a camera which telepathically read the shooter's mind and pushed the shutter at the optimum moment. But then there would still be unhappy gear heads.

For them, cameras which functioned completely by reading the minds of the "shooters" would be wanted. And we would still have whining gear-heads.

For them, cameras which telepathically got every shot perfectly, would need to do so in the "shooter's" sleep.

Photography is an art--thank God digital (technology) has not stolen that!

Well, there's our holier-than-thou post for the day.

I think what annoys the "gear heads" (and I suppose I must be one since I do care about the performance of my camera equipment) is when the camera is designed to do something but doesn't do it well enough. E.g. exposure metering -- if the camera's going to try and meter why wouldn't you want it to do it properly? Same for autofocus -- if it's going to autofocus why wouldn't you want it to be as quick and functional as possible? There's nothing noble about fighting your gear when trying to get a shot. To me, there are two approaches that both have their place:

Shooting for pure fun and enjoyment where you really get into the "process". I do this, with a Leica IIF, or my view camera, or my RB67 or any of the other older film gear. With the Leica I don't even use a meter -- part of the fun there is exposure guessing.

Shooting for when you want/need a certain result. Sometimes I just have a very specific thing in mind and want to get to that point -- I don't really want to be stuck experimenting or fiddling with the process in this case; I just want the damn thing to work and do what I'm wanting it to do.

I don't see anything wrong with either. Sometimes you want to enjoy the picture taking process, and sometimes you just want the picture. For the latter, I prefer to have the most responsive and well suited gear available to me. Now what is wrong with that?

[creampuff]

OK, I'll raise the bar with a dragonfly in flight (Not enough DOF on it unfortunately, so this is tongue-in-cheek...)

And your point of posting a picture taken with the Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II?
C'mon how can one compare a one-time top of the line Canon FF DSLR with anything Pentax has to offer... simply not a fair comparison.
A great picture nonetheless.

[pingflood]

And your point of posting a picture taken with the Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II?
C'mon how can one compare a one-time top of the line Canon FF DSLR with anything Pentax has to offer... simply not a fair comparison.
A great picture nonetheless.

Well, it was mostly tongue-in-cheek and part to show that there is room for improvement in the Pentax AF system -- something several people are refusing to acknowledge.

I am eagerly awaiting somebody to snap one like it with manual focus which is touted as being sufficient for anyone with skills (I don't have any so have to rely on the crutches of expensive gear).

[kent vinyard]

Although I do not have Pentax gear anymore, I find all of these "its the photographer" and "it can be done with a brownie camera by a good photographer" comments to be very interesting. I guess this means that when the new K7 comes out if it has 6fps shooting and highly improve focus tracking that no one will up date their equipment because these features are just not needed! Not to be sarcastic, but I do notice that those that make those comments are not out there making MONEY with their cameras. I have shot sports with a Pentax LX and many other Pentaxes but I can get more money shots with higher end cameras of today than I used to. Todays top pros would not spend all of the dollars on high end equipment if they could make a living with lessor equipment. I would not have swithched from Pentax if Pentax had better af tracking and faster fps that I needed for sports shooting. I am not bad mouthing Pentax because I really liked their lenses and the picture quality but I needed a little more to keep up with competition so I swithched and couldn't afford to keep both systems.

[Wheatfield]

Well, there's our holier-than-thou post for the day.

I think what annoys the "gear heads" (and I suppose I must be one since I do care about the performance of my camera equipment) is when the camera is designed to do something but doesn't do it well enough. E.g. exposure metering -- if the camera's going to try and meter why wouldn't you want it to do it properly? Same for autofocus -- if it's going to autofocus why wouldn't you want it to be as quick and functional as possible? There's nothing noble about fighting your gear when trying to get a shot. To me, there are two approaches that both have their place:

Shooting for pure fun and enjoyment where you really get into the "process". I do this, with a Leica IIF, or my view camera, or my RB67 or any of the other older film gear. With the Leica I don't even use a meter -- part of the fun there is exposure guessing.

Shooting for when you want/need a certain result. Sometimes I just have a very specific thing in mind and want to get to that point -- I don't really want to be stuck experimenting or fiddling with the process in this case; I just want the damn thing to work and do what I'm wanting it to do.

I don't see anything wrong with either. Sometimes you want to enjoy the picture taking process, and sometimes you just want the picture. For the latter, I prefer to have the most responsive and well suited gear available to me. Now what is wrong with that?

I would have left the smiley out of your post.

I posted in another thread pictures taken of radio controlled airplanes in flight with a 600mm lens. If someone wants to pound my ass for lack of skill after seeing them, go hard. I won't respect you any more in the morning than I do now, you can be sure.
I buy into technology to do for me what I either can't do or find unhandy to do for myself.
This is why I used to buy film rather than coat my own plates, I can do it myself, I've done it myself, but I'd rather buy precoated film.
Does this make me a less skilled photographer?
It's the same with auto focus. I buy it to do a job for me when what I want to shoot outstrips my skill set, or is close enough to doing so that it's unhandy.

All the self serving piousness and pompous little derogatory posts will never make the tired old saw about the equipment not mattering true. If it didn't matter, we'd all be shooting with the digital equivalent of Kodak Disc cameras.
Someone pointed out to me in another thread (they were being pious as well) that considering how much I harp about wanting better AF, I don't seem to have many AF lenses. There's a reason for this. Why would I buy into Pentax AF lenses when the AF isn't up to the task for what I want it for?

[palmor]

dogs are hard, they are so hard sometimes you cannot track fast enough to keep them in the frame (mainly because they are so unpredictable), let alone track with af. please give us an example of a reasonably priced system which exists right now on the market (in the k20d price range) which does exactly what you want for that particular purpose (dogs). it would be an interesting starting point to figure out what you are missing.

if you can show me a system which allows me to never miss a shot due to "camera lag" (i understand this as anything including af, but i asume you mean mostly af), i will be very interested. and no, d3 or 1ds mark 3 is not a reasonable comparison for k20d (if only because of the price). do you think canon 40d/50d or nikon d80/d90 is so damn brilliant? according to some, it cuts both ways, sometimes those cameras can be quick to shoot, but many times too quick... i had many more shots missed due to my own mistakes than due to my pentax system, and as i said, i would welcome an improvement, but from asking for improvements to claiming the current system is worthless (or nearly so) it's a long way.

My Canon 40d is fast AND accurate. I haven't had any issues with it focusing "too fast" and costs about the same now as a Pentax K20.

This is actually the exact reason I bought a 40d, to shoot dog agility because I didn't feel like my Pentax was up to the AF challenge (and not for lack of trying). Sure you could prefocus on an obstacle but if you wanted to track to the next one or take one shot then take another quick one when the dog came out of an obstacle it was just too slow for me. Not to mention I wasn't happy with the Sigma 70-200EX and there are no other options in Pentax mount with a silent AF motor (which I think is a must to not distract the dogs).

As I always say, in the end it is really up to the end user to decide if the gear they are using meets their needs. Mine didn't for me so now I run a 2nd system for the need that I see.

John

[nanok]

Then why aren't you shooting with a Brownie?

Go ahead and get a nicely framed shot of an eagle hunting or something along those lines with a Brownie or say a 6x9 rangefinder. Sure, a bad photographer will make bad pictures no matter how good the gear (which is why I get a little peeved over the "wow, you must have a nice camera" line -- yes, the gear is part of it but without the guy using it doing something right it'll still turn out crap), but there are situations where certain gear is pretty much required. People tend to view it in black and white though -- either the camera doesn't matter AT ALL or it's ALL about the camera. Neither is remotely near the truth. You always need skills and sometimes you need the specific gear to get the results you want. Saying that you could always do the job with a Brownie if you have the right skills is just silly though.

exactly.

however it is very interesting that i made this point a few pages ago, but nobody really took notice. it took a post at the other extreme to get you to acknowledge "the middle" way. as i explained in detail previously, as long as you keep at (your/)the extreme, all you will get will be extreme answers from the other side (save the odd, and easy to ignore, nutcase like me who childishly attempts to call for reason). oh well.

thank you john, that sounds reasonable, for a change. so what was the main issue (i think dog agility is mostly about tracking a subject moving sideways from you rather than at you?), was it sheer speed of locking focus (perhaps that (in)famous double-check), was it tracking, could you please give more detail towards what the difference is for you (i understand: one system gets the shots for me the other doesn't, and that's enough for you, but for constructively criticising the system more detail would help). also, do you think the 50-135 sdm would be a good match for your needs? (or not long enough?), or maybe the 60-250/4? (they should both be silent enough, and, as far as i understand, the optical quality is excellent, well, not sure about the 60-250 yet)

[nanok]

Rodney, you make an excellent point, one which many people need reminding of. The problem with high tech technology, is it never seems to be high-tech enough.

If camera technology were to reach the level the gear heads long for, all one would do is point the camera and push the button and get a perfect shot--each time. Better yet, gear-head mentality would warrant a camera which telepathically read the shooter's mind and pushed the shutter at the optimum moment. But then there would still be unhappy gear heads.

For them, cameras which functioned completely by reading the minds of the "shooters" would be wanted. And we would still have whining gear-heads.

For them, cameras which telepathically got every shot perfectly, would need to do so in the "shooter's" sleep.

Photography is an art--thank God digital (technology) has not stolen that!

i beg to differ. it feels to me you are confusing "craft" with "art" (and, btw, many people do, sometimes very respected commercial photographers and so on, so maybe it's just me.). the art is
not in handling your gear, the art is in your vision and ability to materialize it effectively, if you do that with a brownie, a pencil or a top end dslr is quite irrelevant. imho, people crediting "artists" (let's just say image creators, maybe, i am more confortable with that term ) for their craft as well as for their gear are missing the point, and wasting their time: they don't get it, that's not what it's about, it's irrelevant how the creator created his work, and changes _nothing_ of his works value. i am equally pissed, btw, at people touting their process, gear, paper they print on and how hard it is to do (and how easy digital image creators/printers have it by comparison) when selling pictures, i find it sad and ridiculous, if that's what you must do to set yourself apart..

i have no problem with not tripping the shutter, but instead thinking of tripping the shutter. if you think there's a difference, imho, you are missing the point: the shot will still be great or crap, depending on your vision and ability to make it real, your camera will never have vision, it can be smart, but that's about it. nothing changes what a photographer has to do to get what he wants, ultimately, technology can make it easier, but the photographers role will remain the same, if you make the photographer redundant, as you seem to secretly fear, you make the camera redundant too, and photography itself. so don't be afraid of technology, it's only here to help you (us), and no, using a brownie to shoot sports will not make you a great photographer, maybe a very stubborn one , but as great or bad as you were before. people who are nostalgic at "the good old days", and angry that now "any idiot can het a 10k dolars canon system and get great (sports) shots" (which, btw, is simply wrong) are craftsman, they are those people who never did, and never were interested in creating images, they were just mastering a technical craft, and were happy with it. the digital era hit them, and hit them hard: now any kid with some brains and a bit of vision can do what they used to do, with a rebel, and without 5 years of learning "the craft". it still takes a kid with a lot of brains and vision to make great work though, as it did before, only now there are less hurdles to get there (though, if you get serious, with all this postprocessing and such, it is nearly the same amount of trouble as before with digital). this is the time, here and now, and we have to live with this reality: the standard is higher, the amount of shitty pictures publicly available is hugely higher than before, the amount of decent ones is definetly higher, and the amount of great ones just slightly higher. if this is good or bad, i don't know, but my humble opinion is that the craft is just an unavidable way to materialize your ideas, and it has always been such, except for the people who enjoy practicing the craft itself (i do, sometimes), but for those people, there is no threat: any serious camera still has manual focus, manual exposure, and you can still buy film and load your brownie, or whatnot, so there's no problem.

the whinning gear heads would be, by any chance, those who in the days of film would say "i'd like something small, high quality, rugged, i would like automatic perfect exposure and autofocus, i would also like to see a preview of the image imediately after i shoot, something like polaroid, but still have a high quality negative, oh, and i don't want to have to load film, i'd like something reusable; did i mention make it small?". the gearheads are your friends.