[Kayaker-J]

@jogiba... Yep. And just to be clear, I, for one, get that completely. Different strokes/priorities for different folks... naturally enough. And let's emphasize: for just one stretch of time. I don't know why so many of these discussions must take a turn to become more like debates. I'm thinking more, though, of a couple other recent threads I came to wish I never offered observation A or B in. It got quite unpleasant. It seems weird to me that I might spend more time in certain threads trying to extricate myself from somebody's fanboy club attribution (for something I don't own or plan to buy!) than I spent just trying to bring out a few points of interest (?) or clarification in the first place. Sigh... an 'avocational' hazard, I suppose. Saying, well, I made this choice, myself (not that!), doesn't seem to do it, for some reason. I guess I should relax some! 😑 Ommm...

---------- Post added 07-27-14 at 05:50 PM ----------

That is not the camera's problem. I have over nine bodies (I was going to say 10 but my Spotmatic isn't working anymore - I checked) and 40 lenses - bird shots can be taken on any of them, even the manual focus ones. Photographers were taking shots of fast moving objects (like wildlife, sports etc.) long before AF was even invented.

Here's a bird shot I took on World Pentax Day, on my K-01 (which most will agree does not have the fastest AF in the world):

I think back to all those issues of 'Sports Illustrated' magazine I pored through in the 1960's and '70's... How could those poor photo guys back then call themselves pros without auto-focus and super fast lenses?!

---

Last edited by Kayaker-J; 07-27-2014 at 02:54 PM.

[neostyles]

That is not the camera's problem. I have over nine bodies (I was going to say 10 but my Spotmatic isn't working anymore - I checked) and 40 lenses - bird shots can be taken on any of them, even the manual focus ones. Photographers were taking shots of fast moving objects (like wildlife, sports etc.) long before AF was even invented.

Here's a bird shot I took on World Pentax Day, on my K-01 (which most will agree does not have the fastest AF in the world):

Right, but that bird is stationary. Try taking a picture of a bird that is i dont know.. taking off the from the water or something. Try doing sports like football or something. Why do you think pro photographers pay for thousands for cameras with the best af systems? You might be able to use something near by as a guide and manual focus on that and you *might* be able to pull pf one shot, but continuously tracking an object in motion and consistently getting good, in focus shots would probably be pretty hard without auto focus unless..

Im trying to find an old school sports or action picture and im not coming up with too many. There may be some floating around, but unless you had super human reflexes, i dont think that it was was easy to get. As photo students, were were always being shown pictures from several decades ago and there few if no shots of moving things. A lot of landscapes. Dont get me wrong. there is something about film that makes landscapes look awesome in their stark beauty.

[jogiba]

@jogiba... Yep. And just to be clear, I, for one, get that completely. Different strokes/priorities for different folks... naturally enough. And let's emphasize: for just one stretch of time. I don't know why so many of these discussions must take a turn to become more like debates. I'm thinking more, though, of a couple other recent threads I came to wish I never offered observation A or B in. It got quite unpleasant. It seems weird to me that I might spend more time in certain threads trying to extricate myself from somebody's fanboy club attribution (for something I don't own or plan to buy!) than I spent just trying to bring out a few points of interest (?) or clarification in the first place. Sigh... an 'avocational' hazard, I suppose. Saying, well, I made this choice, myself (not that!), doesn't seem to do it, for some reason. I guess I should relax some! 😑 Ommm...

---------- Post added 07-27-14 at 05:50 PM ----------



I think back to all those issues of 'Sports Illustrated' magazine I pored through in the 1960's and '70's... How could those poor photo guys back then call themselves pros without auto-focus and super fast lenses?!

I shot drag racing for car magazines back then with my 6x7 Pentax and up to 400mm F4 handheld that makes the D810 look small by comparison and that is why I want a small camera today and let the young guns shoot with the D810, 645D etc. BTW I still have a 6x7 Pentax down from four 6x7 bodies back in the 70's and 80's.
Pentax 6x7 w/400mm F4 :


Pentax 6x7 w/55mm F3.5

[Kayaker-J]

I shot drag racing for car magazines back then with my 6x7 Pentax and up to 400mm F4 handheld that makes the D810 look small by comparison and that is why I want a small camera today and let the young guns shoot with the D810, 645D etc. BTW I still have a 6x7 Pentax down from four 6x7 bodies back in the 70's and 80's.
Pentax 6x7 w/400mm F4 :


Pentax 6x7 w/55mm F3.5

Sm-m-m-okin', jogiba! Boy, do those shots look swell. I'd frankly be somewhat shocked if my practical friend with the D800/D810 ever nailed a photo in JPEG that looked as good overall as that first one (great, natural color!). Thanks for sharing.

I did bring over a Fujifilm 6 x 9 rangefinder from Japan about six months back -- the 'Texas Leica'. I never did get to expensive medium format back in the day... but now the story is quite different, so I'm going to give it a go. This seemed like a versatile, reliable, easy to handle solution. I got a little over-ambitious, I think, in picking up a Graflex 3-1/2" x 2-1/2" on eBay to complement it, now that I have a K3 for going wider than the Fuji's F.O.V. out in the field. I'm looking into good panning heads and compact panoramic support rigs right now.

---

Last edited by Kayaker-J; 07-28-2014 at 12:55 AM.

[neostyles]

There is defenitely something very neat about these old school cameras. I hope to own one some day, like maybe the nikon D1, which was apparantly the one of the first DSLRs. Only 3 megapixels!

[Christine Tham]

Right, but that bird is stationary. Try taking a picture of a bird that is i dont know.. taking off the from the water or something. Try doing sports like football or something. Why do you think pro photographers pay for thousands for cameras with the best af systems? You might be able to use something near by as a guide and manual focus on that and you *might* be able to pull pf one shot, but continuously tracking an object in motion and consistently getting good, in focus shots would probably be pretty hard without auto focus unless..

Im trying to find an old school sports or action picture and im not coming up with too many. There may be some floating around, but unless you had super human reflexes, i dont think that it was was easy to get. As photo students, were were always being shown pictures from several decades ago and there few if no shots of moving things. A lot of landscapes. Dont get me wrong. there is something about film that makes landscapes look awesome in their stark beauty.

That bird was not stationary - unless you think it was holding that position deliberately for me.

Bird in flight is actually relatively easy - most of the time you can get away with setting the focus to Hyperfocal and use a relatively long lens.

Sports also relatively easy - prefocus, or manually track focus. It doesn't require super human reflexes - in fact, I would argue it's EASIER and MORE ACCURATE to track focus using the eye rather than relying on AF. Our mind is far better at predicting motion and adjusting a focusing barrel than a camera (and most of the time, camera AF don't do well with subjects moving TOWARDS you rather than laterally).

For football, I would suggest use the blades of grass underneath the players to get a sense of where the focus is. To take a shot, just make sure the blades of grass underneath the player you are interested in is in focus. Focusing on the ball would be a bit more difficult - you'll need to find the player closest to the ball (who you probably want to capture anyway).

If you are a photography student, go and ask your teacher to explain all this and more to you.

Here's a photo of an Ibis landing taken using MF on my K-5 and A50 lens:


I can post lots of other photos taken on various cameras and MF lenses but hopefully you get the point. I can even post a series of photos from one take if you like to show that it is possible to achieve good focus consistently on a number of shots.

[Kayaker-J]

@Christine Tham... Just a fine, concise micro-tutorial there, Christine. You assume, of course, that someone earnestly wants to learn a good measure of the basic photographic skills... 😉

[neostyles]

But if i understand you, that meas that you have to preplan the shot very well. During something such as a football game, you never know where the players are going to go. What if something happens before your subject reaches that point you used to prefocus? Unpredicitibility is one of the greatest parts of photography for me. Being able to capture moments as they unfold and getting something you ever saw coming. If you want to take a picture of a player at a certain moment, that means that you have to pull focus in a fraction of a second. I've seen video tests of high end nikons such as the D4 and they focus so fast that they needed a slow motion camera to capture the focus at a speed that you can actually see it. I think it focused in like .18 seconds or something. I dont know how you can do that with manual focus... I dont know, this just seems a lot less reliale then a good af system. I mean, some of today's cameras are incredibly robust when it comes to tracking moving subjects. I mean, there is also the human error factor. The af system (assuming it is a good one) is something that you can depend on.


I dont know ive seen how fast my d600 focuses and i cant see myself doing that by hand.. But thats just me Out of curiosity which cameras have you used? Ive gotten my hands on quite a few high end cameras and all of them were incredible at tracking moving subjects (including things moving towards me.)

[Christine Tham]

@Christine Tham... Just a fine, concise micro-tutorial there, Christine. You assume, of course, that someone earnestly wants to learn a good measure of the basic photographic skills... 😉

Yes, good point.

I'll leave it up to the original poster to determine whether he/she actually wants to learn, or buy more gear and hope for the best. Someone who claims not to have found many examples of action shots predating AF obviously wasn't trying very hard.

[dylansalt]

Neostyles does have a point though - why do you only see the D4s and the canons used by pro togs - some of them are in the 50"s

@Christine - if you were given an assignment by Sports Illustrated to cover a major sporting event - they are depending only on you to deliver the shots - what camera would you request?

[normhead]

We have example shots from A7r's, 645z's taken in less than ideal situations, and Imaging Resources images show the 810 as being better than the 800e at 6400, but not in the 645z or A7r's league. At least that's my preliminary reading....

[neostyles]

Yes, good point.

I'll leave it up to the original poster to determine whether he/she actually wants to learn, or buy more gear and hope for the best. Someone who claims not to have found many examples of action shots predating AF obviously wasn't trying very hard.

Oh, dont get me wrong. I do use manual focus sometimes. For macro sometimes mostly. But i find the advantages of autofocus to be tremendously useful. Now maybe this is because im a 90s baby and and alot of this stuff is just way before my time. I mean, my first photo class that i took in high school was a film class and i remember having lots of fun messing around with the chemicals but everything after that was pretty much digital. I see autofocus as a mechanical advantage, just like a car jack. Afterall, unless you are a human calcular, computers will always be faster.

We have example shots from A7r's, 645z's taken in less than ideal situations, and Imaging Resources images show the 810 as being better than the 800e at 6400, but not in the 645z or A7r's league. At least that's my preliminary reading....

Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/76-non-pentax-cameras-canon-nikon-etc/268...#ixzz38nUYdi00

I was considering looking into it but i recently came across a hands on review in which there were some other problems, namely video seemed like it was more or less unusable for serious uses and autofocus still wasnt quite up to spec with modern standards. But then again, these seem to be characteristics of medium format cameras in general so i am starting to think medium format may just not be for me.

Dx0 mark actually says that the 810 has slightly better noise performance than the A7r. In fact, i think i remember the A7r being used as a comparison point for the 810 presentation, namely where battery life is concerned and i remember the nikon having a pretty considerable lead.

[Kayaker-J]

Neostyles does have a point though - why do you only see the D4s and the canons used by pro togs - some of them are in the 50"s

@Christine - if you were given an assignment by Sports Illustrated to cover a major sporting event - they are depending only on you to deliver the shots - what camera would you request?

I am truly sorry to say this, but I find whatever point you may have in mind here painfully obvious and your challenge pointlessly argumentative. Maybe Christine has more patience with this. If you really want answers, they already exist in the thread.

[tuco]

It does not look any better than the 36mp sensor in my A7r.

Of course you'd have to jump in and try and defend your precious A7R. And who really cares about the small differences only seen in pixel peeping. But since you do and are numbers oriented, the D810 has 3/4 stop more DR. Hey that number is different and higher so therefore....

[normhead]

Dx0 mark actually says that the 810 has slightly better noise performance than the A7r. In fact, i think i remember the A7r being used as a comparison point for the 810 presentation, namely where battery life is concerned and i remember the nikon having a pretty considerable lead.

And that's relevant only to those shooting with a single incandescent light source in a dark basement. If you shoot in normal conditions, what DxO says is irrelevant, it says so right on their web site. And fer god's sake, learn to change your battery. Battery life is probably one of the least desirable performance stat, with no effect on IQ.

I'm no champion of the A7r but go to IR and see how they both look at 6400, do you see 3/4 stop there? Admittedly they did a crappy job on the 810 images, but you gotta go with what you've got. And as for the crappy job, maybe that was the best they could get.