[Homo_erectus]

I see that the dogs butt is where the focus is in that last frame. Sadly the rear end is cropped out of the 100% crop image so it's hard to verify that for sure. I don't see anything in acceptable focus in the first frame. The rest are too small to inspect. I'm sure there at least a few good ones in there.

This is the same sort of behavior I see on my k5iis, D3100 and D750 when shooting dogs running toward me. It's incredibly difficult (bordering on pure chance?) to get the dogs face in focus while it's running directly toward you. Most often the focus line is somewhere between the dogs shoulder and butt. Shooting at F8 or smaller helps by widening out the band of focus but often the face is still in the outside edge of that band and is disappointingly unfocused.

More fps does seem to increase the odds of getting a good shot in these circumstances but, in my opinion, a difference of a few fps isn't really enough of a difference to matter. In my experience shooting while playing fetch with my dogs, the difference between 3 fps (d3100) and 7 fps (k5iis) or 6.5 fps (D750) is around double the number of files I have to dig through and about 10% more keepers. If I made my living on those 10% I guess I'd be happy with higher frame rate alone, but I don't so it pretty much doesn't matter to me. Now, maybe my tune would change if I could shoot 10fps but then I'd have even more files to dig through.

There's also some differing values for acceptable focus being used by different folks which muddies the waters in the discussion. I personally do not consider either the first or last shot to be acceptably in focus. They look fine for the web but I would not print either of those shots.

Ultimately the camera that meets your needs depends on what your needs are. This is obvious but seems to be ignored in all of these conversations comparing different systems.

[Rondec]

I see that the dogs butt is where the focus is in that last frame. Sadly the rear end is cropped out of the 100% crop image so it's hard to verify that for sure. I don't see anything in acceptable focus in the first frame. The rest are too small to inspect. I'm sure there at least a few good ones in there.

This is the same sort of behavior I see on my k5iis, D3100 and D750 when shooting dogs running toward me. It's incredibly difficult (bordering on pure chance?) to get the dogs face in focus while it's running directly toward you. Most often the focus line is somewhere between the dogs shoulder and butt. Shooting at F8 or smaller helps by widening out the band of focus but often the face is still in the outside edge of that band and is disappointingly unfocused.

More fps does seem to increase the odds of getting a good shot in these circumstances but, in my opinion, a difference of a few fps isn't really enough of a difference to matter. In my experience shooting while playing fetch with my dogs, the difference between 3 fps (d3100) and 7 fps (k5iis) or 6.5 fps (D750) is around double the number of files I have to dig through and about 10% more keepers. If I made my living on those 10% I guess I'd be happy with higher frame rate alone, but I don't so it pretty much doesn't matter to me. Now, maybe my tune would change if I could shoot 10fps but then I'd have even more files to dig through.

There's also some differing values for acceptable focus being used by different folks which muddies the waters in the discussion. I personally do not consider either the first or last shot to be acceptably in focus. They look fine for the web but I would not print either of those shots.

Ultimately the camera that meets your needs depends on what your needs are. This is obvious but seems to be ignored in all of these conversations comparing different systems.

If my initial shot is in focus, I find that the focus system is much more likely to continue tracking. If the initial shot is off either direction, then subsequent shots are also going to be off.

[Homo_erectus]

That's my experience as well Rondec.

[normhead]

Ultimately the camera that meets your needs depends on what your needs are. This is obvious but seems to be ignored in all of these conversations comparing different systems.

Everyone seems to talk like they need the greatest camera of all time.... to fulfill their hobby ambitions.

I see that the dogs butt is where the focus is in that last frame. Sadly the rear end is cropped out of the 100% crop image so it's hard to verify that for sure. I don't see anything in acceptable focus in the first frame. The rest are too small to inspect. I'm sure there at least a few good ones in there.

As the dog gets closer, the barrel has to move faster and faster to keep it in focus. At some point the camera can no longer keep up.

Ultimately the camera that meets your needs depends on what your needs are. This is obvious but seems to be ignored in all of these conversations comparing different systems.

Now you're getting all touchy feely... we don't care about your needs..

[rawr]

Ultimately the camera that meets your needs depends on what your needs are.

It's often also 'the cameras' that meet your needs. Often times, one camera can't do everything. I love my RX100, for example, and use it a lot, but don't feel like I need to throw away my K-3 just because I have the capable little Sony ...

[normhead]

It's often also 'the cameras' that meet your needs. Often times, one camera can't do everything. I love my RX100, for example, and use it a lot, but don't feel like I need to throw away my K-3 just because I have the capable little Sony ...

And because, you can never have too many cameras.

[Homo_erectus]

And because, you can never have too many cameras.

Ha!

I have the disease too.

[normhead]

CBA is worse than LBA

I have a pentax 645 in my case that thanks to the demise of film locally I will probably never use again... but when the wife says "we should sell that." I break out in cold sweat. The only acceptable reason for selling a camera body, is to partially fund the purchase of two additional bodies.

[Parallax]

What this series of photographs tell me is that in bright light at F8 with a 200mm lens that the K3 still struggles with AFC tracking and keeping it focus, just as when I tested it with the sigma 300 2.8 and the hsm 70-200 F2.8

I'm not sure what series of photos you're referring to because in the series that Norm posted the subject is:
A. In focus
B: Not in bright light. It's in the shade in the early frames, and backlit in the later frames.

[normhead]

I'm not sure what series of photos you're referring to because in the series that Norm posted the subject is:
A. In focus
B: Not in bright light. It's in the shade in the early frames, and backlit in the later frames.

I'd also mention that this was a walk out the door, and shoot, like someone would do for pictures of their kid, except your kid can't run as fast as my border collie trots...there are a pile of things I didn't do, like use a tripod, turn off shake reduction when I'm panning, have someone else throw the ball. I was literally tossing the ball and then bringing the camera to my face and looking for the dog. I didn't wait for good light, just picked up the camera and went.

SO are these the best dog images I ever took? Not even close. Are these what you would get if you saw your kid doing something out in the yard, and just grabbed you camera and ran? They are certainly good enough for that. You can say the image quality isn't that great all you want... and it always amuses me when people start critiquing example photographs, where the goal is to illustrate a feature.

Taken on a day when I did take the time to set up... with a K-5. You can only do so much to illustrate a point. If people choose to criticize, so be it. But I wouldn't have posted the images if they didn't support my case. And the criticisms levelled don't change that. I am truly sorry I don't have the time to come up with perfect pictures every time I illustrate a point.

[osv]

I'm not sure what series of photos you're referring to because in the series that Norm posted the subject is:
A. In focus

people have different standards of acceptability, but in my mind nothing in that series that he shot was in focus.

compare those to the shot he posted above, of the dog with ball, which is a nice pic.... he knows that

B: Not in bright light. It's in the shade in the early frames, and backlit in the later frames.

that's probably part of it... even the a6000, using a simple prime, struggles at times with af: Sony Alpha A6000 – World’s fastest AF? | Viktor's photo blog

[normhead]

people have different standards of acceptability, but in my mind nothing in that series that he shot was in focus.

compare those to the shot he posted above, of the dog with ball, which is a nice pic.... he knows that



that's probably part of it... even the a6000, using a simple prime, struggles at times with af: Sony Alpha A6000 – World’s fastest AF? | Viktor's photo blog

What I'm saying is that, if I'd shot with the same set up and care with the K-3, they would have been equal to those shot with my K-5 and I would have had more images in the sequence. But given the circumstances in which those images are taken, those images are quite sharp and any of them would be acceptable for a 4x6 print or as a snapshot. Are they fine art? ... they could be. I've seen 11x14 pictures of an owl scooping a mouse out of a snowy meadow, taken by a friend, and I saw a woman pay $250 for it at the park gallery... and it was way softer than these images. So it's all relative.

[osv]

that's true, content is king, even if the p.q. isn't there.. if we look back at the 35mm film slop that was shot by the masters, it's technically never as good as what you can get out of a k3... too much was lost from acquisition to developing to scanning to printing.

[Christine Tham]

Except for the part where you can have technique, timing and frame rate. I'm not sure why you'd frame a discussion as if having one means you don't have the other.

True, but often all you hear about is the frame rate, as if it is the only thing that matters. If one has technique and timing, differences in frame rates are not that significant. If one doesn't, then I would suggest perfecting on a camera with a slower frame rate may be more beneficial and just upgrading to a faster camera.

It is even more depressing shooting a set of blurry misses at 15fps than 5fps.

[FantasticMrFox]

... he's spent some time figuring out the cameras... and you can tell by reading what many reviewers have written, they didn't.

I'd like to point out that a) the people at DPReview are no amateurs, they definitely have some experience shooting sports and b) they stated the following: "We tested continuous focus with a variety of Pentax lenses, having discussed relevant settings with Ricoh." Just claiming that they don't know what they're doing doesn't quite cut it here.