[normhead]

I swear, you can find something wrong with just about everything if you try hard enough.

---------- Post added 07-23-20 at 08:49 AM ----------

Screw drive is dead. If Ricoh is going to improve the speed and accuracy of their system they have to upgrade the lenses. Screw drive is not fast enough or accurate enough to get accurate C-AF on a long fast lens like an 85mm F/1.4 or 135mm F/1.8. The Canon R-5 advertises 20fps, but we need to see what lenses will work with that. I'm pretty sure none of the adapted EF lenses can product sharp images on a moving subject at 20fps. The A9 checks and adjusts focus something like 90 times per-second and not all of Sony lenses are capable of keeping up with that. The R-5 has to be doing something similar to track at 20fps. Using AF motors like screw drive is one reason Pentax has fallen behind in terms of AF performance. With older DSLRs 20fps wasn't possible or practical. Getting to the point where a mirror could go up and down at 20fps and stay together or move around was one issue and simply dealing with mirror blackout at 20fps makes it hard to track a fast subject. Hopefully the new lens motors that Ricoh is using are able to keep up with future advancements and improvements in AF speed and accuracy.

When was the last time Pentax designed a screw drive lens? Seriously. You seem to be upset because they are there for people who want them. As for 20 fps... I hope you can set it to 10 or 12 fps, or that's negative. Those poor dudes who go home with their 1Dx images, 4 or 5k images shot over a couple of afternoons, who are going to go home and spend hours looking at their images, when I take 400-800 at 8 fps and will be posting on-line before they even get home. Too fast has become a thing with smaller MP cameras. Just because our can get more images, doesn't mean you should.

---

Last edited by normhead; 07-23-2020 at 05:53 AM.

[Serkevan]

Screw drive is dead. If Ricoh is going to improve the speed and accuracy of their system they have to upgrade the lenses. Screw drive is not fast enough or accurate enough to get accurate C-AF on a long fast lens like an 85mm F/1.4 or 135mm F/1.8. The Canon R-5 advertises 20fps, but we need to see what lenses will work with that. I'm pretty sure none of the adapted EF lenses can track a moving subject at 20fps. The A9 checks and adjusts focus something like 90 times per-second and not all of Sony lenses are capable of keeping up with that. The R-5 has to be doing something similar to track at 20fps. Using AF motors like screw drive is one reason Pentax has fallen behind in terms of AF performance. With older DSLRs 20fps wasn't possible or practical. Getting to the point where a mirror could go up and down at 20fps and stay together or move around was one issue and simply dealing with mirror blackout at 20fps makes it hard to track a fast subject. Hopefully the new lens motors that Ricoh is using are able to keep up with future advancements and improvements in AF speed and accuracy.

Of course it's dead. That's why there aren't any new lenses coming with screwdrive motors

[Winder]

I swear, you can find something wrong with just about everything if you try hard enough.

---------- Post added 07-23-20 at 08:49 AM ----------



When was the last time Pentax designed a screw drive lens? Seriously. You seem to be upset because they are there for people who want them. As for 20 fps... I hope you can set it to 10 or 12 fps, or that's negative. Those poor dudes who go home with their 1Dx images, 4 or 5k images shot over a couple of afternoons, who are going to go home and spend hours looking at their images, when I take 400-800 at 8 fps and will be posting on-line before they even get home. Too fast has become a thing with smaller MP cameras. Just because our can get more images, doesn't mean you should.

LOL. Norm. I couldn't care less. I'm definitely not upset. As usual you are missing the point. Whether you shoot at 20fps or 10fps isn't the point. We are talking about having an AF that is capable of keeping up. Even if you only shoot 5fps. Having an AF system and lens that is capable of checking and accurately adjusting AF 60-90 times every second is going to greatly improve the number of in-focus images you get in AF-C. AF-S becomes irrelevant. Your comments about shooting 5k images have nothing to do with this point.

[Rondec]

Screw drive is dead. If Ricoh is going to improve the speed and accuracy of their system they have to upgrade the lenses. Screw drive is not fast enough or accurate enough to get accurate C-AF on a long fast lens like an 85mm F/1.4 or 135mm F/1.8. The Canon R-5 advertises 20fps, but we need to see what lenses will work with that. I'm pretty sure none of the adapted EF lenses can track a moving subject at 20fps. The A9 checks and adjusts focus something like 90 times per-second and not all of Sony lenses are capable of keeping up with that. The R-5 has to be doing something similar to track at 20fps. Using AF motors like screw drive is one reason Pentax has fallen behind in terms of AF performance. With older DSLRs 20fps wasn't possible or practical. Getting to the point where a mirror could go up and down at 20fps and stay together or move around was one issue and simply dealing with mirror blackout at 20fps makes it hard to track a fast subject. Hopefully the new lens motors that Ricoh is using are able to keep up with future advancements and improvements in AF speed and accuracy.

Pentax isn't making any new lenses without in lens motors. This includes the coming DFA 21 limited.

That said, it isn't as though SDM motors were anything to write home about. I'd like to see you track something at 10 fps with a DA *55 or DA *50-135.

[stevebrot]

We are talking about having an AF that is capable of keeping up.

...which has little to do with whether the focus motor is in the body or the lens and a lot to do with the AF detector and whether or not the body has a dedicated AF processor.


Steve

[normhead]

Pentax isn't making any new lenses without in lens motors. This includes the coming DFA 21 limited.

That said, it isn't as though SDM motors were anything to write home about. I'd like to see you track something at 10 fps with a DA *55 or DA *50-135.

Anything released after the DA 18-135, should be good. But the fastest Pentax camera for tracking is 4 fps on the K-3, so I'd like to see you track at 10 fps on any Pentax camera.
We won't know how correct that statement is until Pentax actually makes a camera that can track at 10 FPS.
Until then your assumption is safe, from contradiction, but possibly not correct.

---------- Post added 07-23-20 at 12:36 PM ----------

LOL. Norm. I couldn't care less. I'm definitely not upset. As usual you are missing the point. Whether you shoot at 20fps or 10fps isn't the point. We are talking about having an AF that is capable of keeping up. Even if you only shoot 5fps. Having an AF system and lens that is capable of checking and accurately adjusting AF 60-90 times every second is going to greatly improve the number of in-focus images you get in AF-C. AF-S becomes irrelevant. Your comments about shooting 5k images have nothing to do with this point.

That's a point that would need to be demonstrated. I'm of the opinion that those kind of numbers are overkill. The only evidence I've seen, the video shoot at the Camera store where a Pentax K-1 (or possibly K-3) was compared to systems that cost a lot more and were theoretically better at tracking, ( a cyclist mountain biking) the Pentax did very well, or as the shooter said, better than expected and comparable in output to the others.. There's a difference between capability and useful capability. Let's not get to enthusiastic about exactly who's missing the point, it might be you. My concern with Pentax for what you do is the lack of decent eye AF. but that's a feature that's irrelevant to me. I just don't shoot a lot of eyes. I don't care if it checks focus 60-90 times a second. If 10 times a second is enough..(the Pentax number in AF.s) then I'm not paying for more.

The 60-90 checks per second is better suggestion sounds like the kind of "common knowledge" that cons people out of their money.

[Wheatfield]

End of an era. 5D series were a staple in the commercial photography world. Esp in smaller portraiture businesses, among many others.

It makes sense though. If you keep giving customers a reason not to 'upgrade' their EF system into RF, you'll just slow the progression (profit) of the RF platform.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
By ending development of their EF line, they are guaranteeing that in a couple of camera generations (4-5 years at most), they will be able to look at the sales volume and say that dropping the EF line entirely is a viable option. By forcing their customers into the RF line via technology abandonment, they accomplish exactly what they want to do, while at the same time being able to point to the sales numbers and say that the customers aren't interested in EF cameras.
Canon won't have abandoned the EF line, the customers will have.
It becomes a self fulfilling prophesy.
They did it once before and came out on top, there is no reason to think they won't try the same thing again.

[Serkevan]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
By ending development of their EF line, they are guaranteeing that in a couple of camera generations (4-5 years at most), they will be able to look at the sales volume and say that dropping the EF line entirely is a viable option. By forcing their customers into the RF line via technology abandonment, they accomplish exactly what they want to do, while at the same time being able to point to the sales numbers and say that the customers aren't interested in EF cameras.
Canon won't have abandoned the EF line, the customers will have.
It becomes a self fulfilling prophesy.
They did it once before and came out on top, there is no reason to think they won't try the same thing again.

Alternatively, skip the 5D5, and if you still have some recalcitrant elements buying EF lenses and refusing to move over to RF, throw them what would have been the 5D6 (or more likely 5D5.5 or so) a couple years later like Sony did with the A99ii. Might as well sell them a last body and you get positive publicity for "not letting them down".

[Wheatfield]

Pentax isn't making any new lenses without in lens motors. This includes the coming DFA 21 limited.

That said, it isn't as though SDM motors were anything to write home about. I'd like to see you track something at 10 fps with a DA *55 or DA *50-135.

Good Lord, try tracking a snail on a cool morning at 1 fps with the 60-250. The snail will still outpace the lens. This is what happens when you replace a button battery with a motor. The old SDM was bad technology, plain and simple. It was failure prone and it was slow. I could manual focus faster and more accurately with my 60-250, which was a good thing considering how unreliable the motor was about working in the first place.
The new motors seem much stronger, and one hopes that they will prove to be more reliable. I don't compare to other brands, so I don't know how AF speed compares to other brands in the same price range, but I can now track a snail in the garden, so it's definitely improved.

---------- Post added Jul 23rd, 2020 at 12:06 PM ----------

...which has little to do with whether the focus motor is in the body or the lens and a lot to do with the AF detector and whether or not the body has a dedicated AF processor.


Steve

A few years ago, like 15 or more, there was a discussion about this on the PDML. There were a couple of points brought up. One was that one could only accelerate a screw drive so fast before the lens itself was damaged by the gear train stripping it's teeth. The other was the inevitable lash in the mechanics causing a certain level of inaccuracy, lash that only get's worse as the lens is racked back and forth at the high initial torque required to get it moving.
I have often wondered if the DA Limited's weren't so slow to hide this within depth of field.

[Serkevan]

My concern with Pentax for what you do is the lack of decent eye AF. but that's a feature that's irrelevant to me. I just don't shoot a lot of eyes. I don't care if it checks focus 60-90 times a second. If 10 times a second is enough..(the Pentax number in AF.s) then I'm not paying for more.

The 60-90 checks per second is better suggestion sounds like the kind of "common knowledge" that cons people out of their money.

I'm of course no expert, and the 90 checks/second might sound like overkill, but logic says that check rate should be at least 3-4 times the frame rate to make sure you can do focus confirmation several times per shot and maximize keeper rate. Four times 20 fps on e-shutter gets you 80 checks/second.

If Pentax does 10 checks per second and shoots 10 fps, that means that if the AF check says "out of focus" the camera will go "oh well, time's up, I'm shooting, whatevs" .

[stevebrot]

A few years ago, like 15 or more, there was a discussion about this on the PDML. There were a couple of points brought up. One was that one could only accelerate a screw drive so fast before the lens itself was damaged by the gear train stripping it's teeth. The other was the inevitable lash in the mechanics causing a certain level of inaccuracy, lash that only get's worse as the lens is racked back and forth at the high initial torque required to get it moving.
I have often wondered if the DA Limited's weren't so slow to hide this within depth of field.

I remember when I first used my K-3, the amazement at what using a higher torque motor with better controller did for AF speed and sureness over my K10D. I never considered that damage to the lens might result.

Mechanical lash (and related hysteresis) is a concern, even with manual focus, and occurs even with ring motors. Inertia is not our friend and dampening works against AF speed. In-lens motors have the advantage of minimal coupling and somewhat lower coupled mass as a result. That there is no disputing.


Steve

[Rondec]

Anything released after the DA 18-135, should be good. But the fastest Pentax camera for tracking is 4 fps on the K-3, so I'd like to see you track at 10 fps on any Pentax camera.
We won't know how correct that statement is until Pentax actually makes a camera that can track at 10 FPS.
Until then your assumption is safe, from contradiction, but possibly not correct.

---------- Post added 07-23-20 at 12:36 PM ----------



That's a point that would need to be demonstrated. I'm of the opinion that those kind of numbers are overkill. The only evidence I've seen, the video shoot at the Camera store where a Pentax K-1 (or possibly K-3) was compared to systems that cost a lot more and were theoretically better at tracking, ( a cyclist mountain biking) the Pentax did very well, or as the shooter said, better than expected and comparable in output to the others.. There's a difference between capability and useful capability. Let's not get to enthusiastic about exactly who's missing the point, it might be you. My concern with Pentax for what you do is the lack of decent eye AF. but that's a feature that's irrelevant to me. I just don't shoot a lot of eyes. I don't care if it checks focus 60-90 times a second. If 10 times a second is enough..(the Pentax number in AF.s) then I'm not paying for more.

The 60-90 checks per second is better suggestion sounds like the kind of "common knowledge" that cons people out of their money.

Sure. I just think that somehow a lot of people think that "in lens motor" fixed every issue when the reality is that you need the right motor and a lens designed for fast auto focus operation.

[stevebrot]

I'm of course no expert, and the 90 checks/second might sound like overkill, but logic says that check rate should be at least 3-4 times the frame rate to make sure you can do focus confirmation several times per shot and maximize keeper rate. Four times 20 fps on e-shutter gets you 80 checks/second.

If Pentax does 10 checks per second and shoots 10 fps, that means that if the AF check says "out of focus" the camera will go "oh well, time's up, I'm shooting, whatevs" .

Frame rate is sort of a "red herring" in regards to AF performance for tracking a moving subject. Remember that it cannot sample when the mirror is up and the mirror is up most of the time.* For all practical purposes, the camera must reacquire the subject each time the mirror drops. Sampling rate is important, but probably more effective for single shots than for machine-gunning.

Edit: What I wrote is an oversimplification. The default for AF-C is to prioritize focus at the expense of FPS, despite not requiring locked focus to fire the shutter. The slowdown is obvious when attempting a burst while panning unless the camera is set to prioritize FPS. With that setting, focus becomes a bit of a crapshoot with the PDAF playing catch-up as best it can. Increased performance for that case requires fast motors, fast processing, and, yes, increased sampling frequency.


Steve

* Assuming AF-C, FPS-priority to maximize frame rate.

[Winder]

...which has little to do with whether the focus motor is in the body or the lens and a lot to do with the AF detector and whether or not the body has a dedicated AF processor.


Steve

It has a lot to do with the motor. Even Sigma's new motors in their ART series are relatively slow compared to the motors in the new Canon and Sony glass. I don't know of anyway to put a motor into the body that could drive the focusing element as fast, as quiet, & as efficiently the new in-lens motors.


If a manufacturer could put the motor in the body and get the same performance, they would. Their lenses would all be smaller, lighter, less expensive, and less prone to failure.


It doesn't matter how fast the AF system is in the camera if the drive motor is capable of keeping up. The Sony A9 only gets 20fps in AF-C with certain lenses and I assume the Canon R-5 will have the same issues. Not every lens Sony makes (90mm macro for example) can keep up. When set to focus priority and using a lens like the 90mm macro fps drops. I only have 4-5 lenses that could keep up. I don't need 20fps, so I don't really care, but it doesn't do any good to have a super fast AF if all of your lenses have old slow motors.


List of lenses capable of 20fps on the A9 - FM Forums

This is one reason that Ricoh hasn't invested a lot of resources to developing really fast accurate AF-C. They don't have the lenses that could take advantage of that. I'm hoping that the new D-FA* 50mm, 85mm, & 35mm will change that. I love my D-FA* 70-200mm, but AF seems pretty slow. I'm hoping its just the K-1.

[Serkevan]

Frame rate is sort of a "red herring" in regards to AF performance for tracking a moving subject. Remember that it cannot sample when the mirror is up and the mirror is up most of the time.* For all practical purposes, the camera must reacquire the subject each time the mirror drops. Sampling rate is important, but probably more effective for single shots than for machine-gunning.


Steve

* Assuming AF-C, FPS-priority to maximize frame rate.

I would think that the percentage of time with the mirror up increases at increasing frame rate and this would make it all the more important to have a higher check sampling speed to make tracking reliable (or/and use predictive algorithms to make AF keep going while the mirror is up). Logic says that sampling rate for single shot is less important because you won't mind too much if it takes the camera 0.3 or 0.1 seconds to lock focus - AF.S is certainly fast enough for me and feels limited more by what the motors can get


The correlation ought to be more direct with mirrorless cameras as they only have the shutter time to account for, of course.