[fiveseven]

I can prove almost anything in a video. Thats still confirmation bias. You ignore the evidence against, you pick the evidence that proves what you think. You don't learn a thing. You're basing your defence on click bait.

It's an a perfect example of same sensor manufacturer and the only main difference is size and pixel density, it's as apples to apples comparison as it gets.
Click bait is misleading info, this was a spot on- on topic, ( terminology and all).

Except when I'm using my 300 2.8 and cropping, when APS_c puts 24 MP into 1 16 MP segment of FF sensor, and APS-c gives you more detail, and if you can shoot at 100 ISO, pretty much the same noise. How is it possible the guys in your posted video neglected to mention that minor detail? They aren't really addressing the whole issue. Just one part it. They were engaged in confirmation bias, not education. If those guys are so smart how did they miss that? Or more to the point, if you're so smart, how did you miss that? Blinkers?

If you want to get real technical and want the best cropping than FF can be had at over 60 megapixel, no cropped sensor gets even near that.
The interesting thing is, that guy (not guys if you actually watched the video) is primarily Sony A6000 series fanatic, he owns all of their line up and his content is 95% of just that.

I never said there are no differences or that one format can't be shown to be different than others. Your video shows the negative (to APS-c) and emphasizes the positives for FF. There are times when every format I use is selected because it gives me the best chance of the picture I'm hoping to take that day. FF is the best at what FF is the best at. (For me landscape.) APS-c is the best at what it's good for, for me, birding.) My 1 inch sensor ZS100 is the best for low light mushroom photography on the fly under the forest canopy. It has great DoF at ƒ2.8.. My k-1 is best if I have the time to set up a tripod and shoot long exposure Pixels shift images for mushrooms (at F22.). All the other formats have their benefits as well. Saying FF is always the best is just an internet marketing scam. It's so sad to see people sucked in like this.

Believe what you like, no sweat off my back.

Own 4/3's, less then 1", Foveon's, various APSC's and obviously FF, I like them all for what they are and enjoy using them but I'd be fooling myself and others by pretending that cropped sensor's are just as good for low light (superior noise reduction) and ultimate or the best IQ. When it comes to low light and portrait work, there's simply no substitute to FF unless it's even bigger. Even for wildlife I'm using A6600 and only because I don't own A9.

---

Last edited by fiveseven; 12-16-2020 at 02:32 PM.

[BigMackCam]

Aren't you just getting to be quite the little investigator?

I have my moments The wet weather and desperate lack of half-decent daylight is always a good motivator to play indoors

Myself, I always find, if you really want to know, investigate yourself. Your cameras, your lenses, your workflow. Knowing what someone else found using their camera and their lenses and a different work flow may or may not be relevant. Not to mention that you learn a lot more than just your published results. The process itself is informative. You can't be credible if you haven't done the work yourself. Thanks for your effort.

Thanks, Norm

In years past, I've been down a lot of rabbit holes due to the advice and teachings of undoubtedly well-meaning folks... the problem being it's not always easy to differentiate between those who know and those who only believe they know, especially when I don't know

I always appreciate help and advice offered from any quarter, especially if it's demonstrated or documented. Wherever possible, though, I like to try things out for myself - whether in experimentation, or just to confirm or challenge what I've read or been told. In any case, I learn better that way, as things sink in more easily for me by "doing".

[ddharriman]

Hi CapitanXeon

You state in your first post that you are looking in a (possible) new / parallel system is, “good autofocus, (…) fast burst rate[,] deep buffer”.

If this is so, and you keep on considering Sony, my advice is to go for the Sony A7III + Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8.
If you get your hands on this, take some photos of all the situations you feel your system lacks, and come back here with your opinion…

You state also later that with full frame, you will have more problems because you need to shoot far away from your subject(s)…
For this, my advice is the same A7III + the Sigma 100-400mm F/5.0-6.3 DG DN OS.

Now, I know this is not cheap, changing systems / getting a new system never is, but this will answer your questions.
If it’s too expensive, you will have to look into other brands / solution.

Notes:
1 - the early Sony models A7 / A7II / A7R / A7RII will not be enough (not enough focus speed) for the needs you state;
2 - Sony A7C / A7RIII / A7RIV / A9 and A9II are even more expensive.

Best regards,

[CapitanXeon]

Just to show that the K-5's AF is reliable with a fast lens, I started from scratch with adjustments for my FA50/1.4...

I set up my SpyderLENSCAL and camera as below:



This is a pretty poor setup, really... Typically, I would mount the camera on a proper, sturdy tripod, but just wanted to do this quick and dirty test for the OP's benefit.

I reset the AF fine adjustment number to zero, set the camera in Live View, and adjusted the position of it until it was pointing at the dead centre of the black and white checkerboard. I then cycled AF, looked at the distance readout of the lens, and kept adjusting the position of the camera and recycling AF until the distance showed 1 metre every time:



Next, I switched off Live View, set the camera to use a single centre AF point, put my hand in front of the lens and cycled AF so it would be out of focus (this lens doesn't have Quick Shift ), took my hand away and cycled AF once more, all without moving the camera. Initially, the distance readout on the lens was slightly to one side of the 1 metre mark, so I made AF fine adjustments and repeated the process until I got a 1 metre readout every time (sorry for the shaky handheld phone shot ):



With that completed, PDAF and Live View (CDAF) should match. [Actually, this is a nice, quick and easy way to carry out AF fine adjustment for any camera with Live View, as it negates the need to actually take photos and therefore doesn't increase shutter count ]

Finally, I went outside to take some test shots. It's very dull out today, and I was shooting handheld, braced against the wall of my home. The first shot was taken in Live View, and this is a 100% crop:



For the second shot, I switched to PDAF, focused on a distant object (to ensure the camera and lens would need to refocus), then cycled AF and took the shot. Again, this is a 100% crop:



These shots are both in acceptable focus, considering the screw-drive AF mechanism. Actually, the PDAF shot is ever-so-slightly more accurately focused here, but a tiny difference like this can be attributed to the screw-drive mechanism or even the smallest back or forth movement of the photographer. This was quite a challenging test, since the padlock was less than a meter from the camera, and the 50mm lens was set to f/1.4, so depth of field was very shallow indeed.

Through numerous iterations of PDAF and Live View shots, focus accuracy was within the variance shown above, with Live View sometimes being that bit more precise and on other occasions, PDAF being the winner (just). This is in line with reasonable expectations; after all, AF is good... but not perfect

My calibrating process is a bit different than this, beginning by the target, where i usually use AF adjusting targets, but i make sure that PDAF and CDAF go to the same place, which they do.

Considering what you asked me, i'm kinda in the process of switching, already sold some lenses and my K-70, but still;

Pentax K-5 and Pentax K-70 couldn't realiable focus a face or even a whole static car while on a tripod with either a Tamron 90mm Macro or a Tamron 17-50mm, both 2.8.
Pentax K-5 and Pentax K-m couldn't reliably focus ANYTHING with either a Pentax 35mm or the Tamron 17-50mm
CDAF works wonders on those cases, but when shooting moving subjects like cars going +200Km/h, CDAF isn't an option in the K-5, specially for lenses with a long throw like the 90mm.

As far as i'm concerned, the K-m doesn't have AF adjustment, so i can't do nothing there
On the K-5, focus adjustments will work in front of the thingy used for calibration, out of there, randomness applies.

For moving subjects i use AF-C, for static subjects i use AF-S. Both modes can and will lock focus onto something that isn't in focus and won't snap into focus if i don't defocus the image first,.
Always use center point. Might be bad, but i got used to shoot like this because 99% of the time my subject is in the center so it wouldn't make much of a difference, except if the center point is somehow damaged (?)

[BigMackCam]

My calibrating process is a bit different than this, beginning by the target, where i usually use AF adjusting targets, but i make sure that PDAF and CDAF go to the same place, which they do.

Considering what you asked me, i'm kinda in the process of switching, already sold some lenses and my K-70, but still;

Pentax K-5 and Pentax K-70 couldn't realiable focus a face or even a whole static car while on a tripod with either a Tamron 90mm Macro or a Tamron 17-50mm, both 2.8.
Pentax K-5 and Pentax K-m couldn't reliably focus ANYTHING with either a Pentax 35mm or the Tamron 17-50mm
CDAF works wonders on those cases, but when shooting moving subjects like cars going +200Km/h, CDAF isn't an option in the K-5, specially for lenses with a long throw like the 90mm.

As far as i'm concerned, the K-m doesn't have AF adjustment, so i can't do nothing there
On the K-5, focus adjustments will work in front of the thingy used for calibration, out of there, randomness applies.

For moving subjects i use AF-C, for static subjects i use AF-S. Both modes can and will lock focus onto something that isn't in focus and won't snap into focus if i don't defocus the image first,.
Always use center point. Might be bad, but i got used to shoot like this because 99% of the time my subject is in the center so it wouldn't make much of a difference, except if the center point is somehow damaged (?)

If you've successfully tuned your AF with a proper AF adjustment target, and if your K-5 and K-70 couldn't reliably focus on a whole static car while on a tripod - using two different lenses - it simply can't be a problem with both cameras and both lenses. It must be your choice of AF target that's the problem - i.e. the specific feature (or lack thereof) you were trying to focus on. For example, if you target a smooth, painted area of bodywork, PDAF will fail as there are no details for it to work with. You need to choose some feature - ideally with contrasting detail in both a horizontal and vertical orientation - such as a door handle, grille, number plate or other clear markings, perhaps the corner of the shut-line between door and bodywork - that kind of thing... something where there's clear detail and plenty of contrast. That's a requirement for PDAF on any camera, not just Pentax. I guarantee I can reliably focus on a static or moving car with any of my Pentax bodies and K-mount AF lenses, even my oldest *ist DL... but that doesn't really help you, other than to confirm something in your approach or technique must be the issue

I assume you're fully conversant on how PDAF works and its limitations, but just in case, here's one of many articles and videos on the subject:

Video: How phase detection autofocus works: Digital Photography Review

Regardless, if you're already in the process of switching, I wish you well with it

[UncleVanya]

While I use center point AF for static shots, I don’t for moving objects if I have the luxury of changing modes. AF.C needs the flexibility to use other points. In whatever you are switching to (I’ve forgotten) you might want to try more than just center point AF. I think it will improve the results you get - even if you see some improvements without this change, changing this should add to your success.

Sincerely I wish you good luck. My own experience has included missed focus issues in the past, but I’ve not experienced the level you have, I hope the new system resolves your issues or at least improves your results. If it were me, I’d toss everything I thought I knew about focus and find the brand experts and see how they configure the cameras and follow their lead, the new system gives you a chance to learn new techniques - which could result in additional improvements.

[CapitanXeon]

If it were me, I’d toss everything I thought I knew about focus and find the brand experts and see how they configure the cameras and follow their lead, the new system gives you a chance to learn new techniques - which could result in additional improvements.

I'm getting a 7D Mark II to test how i go with it, and seems that the AF menu is as convoluted as it gets, so i'll need to refresh everything i know about it anyway!