Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-07-2009, 12:38 PM   #31
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 418
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Anyhow, I don't no one is saying focus recompose is objectively "better" - just that it is far more viable than its critics believe. And *subjectively*, for me and the way many of us think and work , yes, it is actually better.
Obviously it can work, and work well, I believe I said as much. And since in my initial comment in this thread I said "Not a deal breaker, but sometimes a pain. If none of the above [a specific list of conditions] apply, then it's a non-issue." I'm not sure how I became the designated K-x hater. It's like people go out of their way looking for disputes.

I did not mean to offend anyone.
I did not mean to offend anyone.
I did not mean to offend anyone.

Do whatever you like or gets you the results you want.

Can you center focus recompose people untwist your panties now?

12-07-2009, 01:16 PM   #32
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 7,411
QuoteOriginally posted by junyo Quote
Obviously it can work, and work well, I believe I said as much. And since in my initial comment in this thread I said "Not a deal breaker, but sometimes a pain. If none of the above [a specific list of conditions] apply, then it's a non-issue." I'm not sure how I became the designated K-x hater. It's like people go out of their way looking for disputes.

I did not mean to offend anyone.
I did not mean to offend anyone.
I did not mean to offend anyone.

Do whatever you like or gets you the results you want.

Can you center focus recompose people untwist your panties now?
Dunno, man. Doesn't sound like it's us whose panties need untwisting.
12-07-2009, 01:40 PM   #33
Veteran Member
Eruditass's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,206
QuoteOriginally posted by junyo Quote
Obviously it can work, and work well, I believe I said as much. And since in my initial comment in this thread I said "Not a deal breaker, but sometimes a pain. If none of the above [a specific list of conditions] apply, then it's a non-issue." I'm not sure how I became the designated K-x hater. It's like people go out of their way looking for disputes.

I did not mean to offend anyone.
I did not mean to offend anyone.
I did not mean to offend anyone.

Do whatever you like or gets you the results you want.

Can you center focus recompose people untwist your panties now?
Yeah but your list of conditions was incorrect
12-07-2009, 01:46 PM   #34
Igilligan
Guest




I sadly just dont read anymore

I just cant seem to buckle down and read these 3 and 4 pages of comment threads anymore. Maybe my forum days are numbered as the arguments used to be so much fun.

So I am sure this has probably been said in the responses.... but, for the folks who shoot a lot of wide open-ish, portrait orientated shots like I do. The idea of center focus on the eyes / recompose to put the head at the top of the frame is laughable to me! The Dof is so shallow that you will seldom get eyes in perfect focus.

The Kx looks to be a great sensor in a crippled body to me.
For Bill and Betty Newbie who may never buy a 1.4 / 1.8 portrait lens... it is probably truly a non- issue. But for folks who want to use the F1.4 and High ISO in indoor portraits, selectable Auto focus points would be a great thing to have IMHO.

12-07-2009, 01:48 PM   #35
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Pilsen, Czech Republic
Posts: 224
QuoteOriginally posted by Igilligan Quote
The Kx looks to be a great sensor in a crippled body to me.
For Bill and Betty Newbie who may never buy a 1.4 / 1.8 portrait lens... it is probably truly a non- issue. But for folks who want to use the F1.4 and High ISO in indoor portraits, selectable Auto focus points would be a great thing to have IMHO.
K-x HAS selectable points!
12-07-2009, 02:25 PM   #36
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 7,411
QuoteOriginally posted by Igilligan Quote
For Bill and Betty Newbie who may never buy a 1.4 / 1.8 portrait lens... it is probably truly a non- issue. But for folks who want to use the F1.4 and High ISO in indoor portraits, selectable Auto focus points would be a great thing to have IMHO.
The AF points are still selectable, just not with your eye to the viewfinder (unless you've got a better sense of control-by-feel than I do).
12-07-2009, 03:31 PM   #37
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,934
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
For the record I was talking specifically about using the center point only.
Sorry, I didn't catch that.

QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
If you happen to be one of the small minority of people who require this method of focusing
How do you know it is a small minority?
And if it is, why does almost every DSLR has multiple focus points?

If it is true that one doesn't need more than one centre AF point, isn't it stupid that Pentax builds in all the other AF points into the K-m and K-x? Couldn't they save some more money and simplify the user interface?

Just saving the indicators just doesn't make sense to me. Either go all the way or not. But perhaps there is some business logic behind, e.g., if you build in a centre focus point then getting more comes basically for free whereas the indicators mean more hardware.

QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
The reality is quite the opposite - only macro lenses and/or the most expensive primes tend to have very flat focus fields. Most tend to curve, and curve in the same way that you'd expect: more or less spherically, ...
I believe "more or less spherically" is a gross exaggeration. I've read somewhere that only really cheap lenses deviate considerably from a flat focus field. The FA 50/1.4 is less flat than the FA 50/1.7 but I believe still far from "more or less spherical".

QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
You kind of have to go out of your way to see the effect.
Gus, you need to go less out of your way.
12-07-2009, 03:33 PM   #38
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 418
QuoteOriginally posted by Eruditass Quote
Yeah but your list of conditions was incorrect
Which of the conditions?

12-07-2009, 03:34 PM   #39
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,934
QuoteOriginally posted by Igilligan Quote
I just cant seem to buckle down and read these 3 and 4 pages of comment threads anymore.
Set your forum preference to have double the number of posts per page. This way you would have gotten through this within 2 pages!

QuoteOriginally posted by Igilligan Quote
Maybe my forum days are numbered as the arguments used to be so much fun.
Just avoid the notorious topics. But please don't leave.
12-07-2009, 06:03 PM   #40
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
How do you know it is a small minority?
Sorry, a bit of hyperbole. It might be a sizable minority. But I don't doubt for a moment that it *is* a minority - - many if not most people buying entry level DSLRs have no intention of using anything but the kit zooms. Unless it is to replace them with a superzoom, or perhaps a pair of f/2.8 zooms.

QuoteQuote:
And if it is, why does almost every DSLR has multiple focus points?
Including the K-x, I might add. They have them because some people find them useful. Just as most cameras have spot metering, mirror lockup, DOF preview, and a host of other features that a lot of people never use and some entry-level models have eliminated in the interest of saving money. I'm not claiming no one ever would have reaosn to want such features. But I do think that people that can't imagine doing without any of these features should consider the possibility that they might be in the minority.

QuoteQuote:
perhaps there is some business logic behind, e.g., if you build in a centre focus point then getting more comes basically for free whereas the indicators mean more hardware.
Could be, indeed.

QuoteQuote:
I believe "more or less spherically" is a gross exaggeration. I've read somewhere that only really cheap lenses deviate considerably from a flat focus field.
I've read the latter claim, too, but I think *it* is a gross exaggeration. The truth is undoubtedly somewhere between.
12-07-2009, 06:06 PM   #41
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by junyo Quote
I'm not sure how I became the designated K-x hater.
You didn't; you just happen to be someone who posted something I disagreed with. That's not a crime, nor is my rebuttal. No offense taken or meant.
12-08-2009, 12:12 AM   #42
Veteran Member
Eruditass's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,206
QuoteOriginally posted by junyo Quote
Which of the conditions?
You missed one important condition which makes it the whole thing even less of an issue:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/836237-post27.html
12-08-2009, 10:28 AM   #43
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 418
QuoteOriginally posted by Eruditass Quote
You missed one important condition which makes it the whole thing even less of an issue:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/836237-post27.html
That doesn't seem like a quantum leap in functionality to me, but I'll have to give it a whirl. But the ability to manipulate the points at eye level was never an issue, at least to me, the ability to confirm the point chosen was, and this doesn't really speak to that issue. For that matter pulling the camera an inch away from your face and looking down greatly mitigates the problem, that doesn't mean it's as easy as having the points indicated in the VF.

The original post asked for comments about the lack of focus point indicators. A lot of people seemed hellbent on listing each and every possible way in which you can work around that lack, which is fine, but to reduce that argument to it's logical conclusion, you can work around almost anything. One can happily take absolutely great pictures with a K1000 with a busted meter. That doesn't mean that you can take pictures as easily or conveniently as you can with a functional, full featured modern camera. Outside of a light tight box, a way to let light into that box in a controlled manner, and recording media, almost every other feature of the modern camera is basically there for convenience, accuracy, or automation. Therefore whether you can do something via another method is really irrelevant, the baseline value of a particular feature is whether it does something more or less conveniently/accurately/automatically than a given alternative or the lack of that feature. And while the lack of VF focus point indication certainly doesn't preclude the use of the center point, or the selectable points, it does make the selectable AF point functionality less useful than it would be if the indicators were there. Can some workaround work as well, or even subjectively be a better fit with someone's process? Yep. But we're talking objectively, because arguing subjective worth is a bottomless pit. No matter how convenient the workaround, it's still a workaround and therefore requires additional time, control manipulation and/or effort , which by definition is objectively less desirable than the alternative.
12-08-2009, 10:42 AM   #44
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 7,411
If the green hexagon indicates focus is locked, and the focus point can be selected reliably without seeing it selected (Eruditass' method), why do you need the visual confirmation of the red box? Especially when in most cases you can actually visually confirm whether the target is in focus? All the red box does is confirm whether the AF is working properly--it doesn't affect the AF itself at all.
12-08-2009, 11:00 AM   #45
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2009
Photos: Albums
Posts: 79
QuoteOriginally posted by deadwolfbones Quote
If the green hexagon indicates focus is locked, and the focus point can be selected reliably without seeing it selected (Eruditass' method), why do you need the visual confirmation of the red box? Especially when in most cases you can actually visually confirm whether the target is in focus? All the red box does is confirm whether the AF is working properly--it doesn't affect the AF itself at all.
Although the green hexagon is fine, the red indicator gives you more information. If you shoot autofocus center, then the hexagon is all you really need. If you shoot 11-AF (in which the camera choose which ever point to focus on, the red indicator allows you to know which of the 11 areas the camera is focusing on. This is handy in my opinion.

The lack of the red indicators was one thing that made me question whether to get the K-x or not. In the end, the K-x other features and price won me over.
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!
11-point auto focus, camera, dslr, focus, issue, k-x 11-point auto, lack, overlay, photography, preview, viewfinder
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-x Auto 11 point focus? Any fan ? taiweitai Pentax DSLR Discussion 4 09-29-2010 10:35 AM
Question about K-7 auto-focus issue... Sleepy Pentax DSLR Discussion 2 08-05-2010 08:43 PM
K100D Super - Focus point locked to center in Manual Focus ? JGabr Pentax DSLR Discussion 2 01-25-2010 09:41 PM
K-x auto focus issue sbbtim Pentax DSLR Discussion 15 12-13-2009 11:42 AM
auto-takumar 55mm F2.2 (yes, two point two) Gooshin Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 0 01-20-2009 01:56 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:55 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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