I'm the opposite, at longer distances the camera has to move the focusing elements shorter distances to maintain focus and there is more DoF so focus is less critical. I'd predict that if the camera can handle 3 to 5 meters, longer distances won't be a problem based on that fact.
I've actually done this test and done a 6-7 shot bursts using AF.tracking bursts with a K-3 and even with a K-5. The results were no missed shots until the dog was less about 4 meters than 3 meters away. Pretty much 100% at distance. That's with dog moving at art least 5 meters per second.
Why 6 or 7 shot bursts? Playing ball, my dogs easily cover 50 meters in 5 seconds. I throw as far as I can I don't have time for more than that.
That would be my anecdotal evidence.
And I'm not giving any credibility to competing in anecdotal evidence until I see the test and the numbers.
So my guess is Pentax will still have an 80%-100% capture rate, even with faster moving objects at a distance.
They are moving a lot faster than 1m/s.
By the way, some of these images were all posted years ago for comparison with a Nikon D500, in which these images held up very well against the D500. It didn't change the forum "Pentax AF sucks" narrative. The Pentax AF sucks crowd is just nasty in defending their views against real evidence. People feel they have an obligation to repeat the mantra of their biases.
For me, Pentax AF is and has never been a concern. And my discussion, between those who constantly argue for the superior AF of other brands with absolutely no science has been pretty much my biggest frustration on the forum.
Here's what I do when I don't get the shot I want in a specific situation. I lie in bed at night, considering my options, the things I can change that might make a difference, AF.s, vs AF.c, wide or narrow aperture, various shooting modes. I go through everything and come up with a plan for the next day, and I keep doing that until I have what I want. And I always get what I want given enough time. Then next time I go out, for a similar circumstance, I probably have my whole seuccesful set up programmed into a user mode, for instant access. I definitely don't go complaining on the forum about how bad Pentax AF is.
I find it sad, the lack of scientific evaluation that has gone into the anti-Pentax AF rhetoric. I find it sad, so many poor photographers blaming their lack of success, on their camera. It's a definite impediment to growth in photography. I find it sad that so many assume, because they missed a shot with their Pentax, they would have nailed it with something else. Now there's an attitude that's 90% delusion and the last 10% is because of different algorithms with different strengths, not because one is better than the other.
So here we have some science. What do the the nay sayers do? They think their puny objections posted without facts or trials of any kind actually discredit the posted science. IN the scientific world, those objections may be grounds for further study, but they do not in themselves constitute proof of anything one way or the other. IN the scientific, you alter your theory to reflect the science. In the world of internet opinions, you discredit (almost always anecdotally) the science to maintain your opinions.
All we really know is that compared to the 6 the cameras the Pentax is right up there in the ballpark and at some distances actually leads the pack. Of 14 shots, Pentax lead the pack on 4. 29% of the time Pentax is the best option. That is information I store, because it was science. The rest I toss. I'll believe the results would be worse for Pentax at longer distances when someone proves it, not until, because my own anecdotal evidence suggests Pentax is pretty near perfect at distance.
But, that's me, my subjects and my technique. The results of others may be different.
So to those who keep thinking of reasons why this test doesn't mean anything my suggestion would be, you might want to examine the reasons for your bias. You can start that by admitting that the reason you disagree with the results of this test is because you've swallowed the propaganda of the internet hook line and sinker and can't actually appreciate an actual repeatable test.
It's called rigour.
I can listen to the "Pentax AF sucks crowd" or I can just go out and shoot and get the images I want, and ignore the the hundreds of unsubstantiated opinions.
If you are a scientist, you have notions, you go out and test your theories. You revise your theories to match the scientific evidence. This test is not what any of the nay sayers would have predicted. It's upon them to change their theories to include this data, if they are in fact anything but propagandists. Do they want to go with the science or continue to be shills for every brand but Pentax? The kinds of tests do present an opportunity to learn. But you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
All these images were culled from bursts with an 80%-100% keeper rate. If you aren't getting those kinds or keeper rates with your gear, trust these shots, it's not the camera.
I'm starting to think Pentax users are just more suggestible to unproven peer held beliefs and really lousy photographers. How else do you explain so many who claim they can't do what I do, whenever I have the chance? I track my dogs who are 3x at least as fast as any kid, we have folks on here claiming they can't track their kids. What else is a guy to think?
The fact is with 97% of the market producing anti-Pentax shills, if you can't learn to look at the science, you are always going to have an extreme anti-Pentax bias. I suspect a lot of folks who post disparaging Pentax AF are listening largely to non-Pentax users to form their opinions. Not people who actually use the cameras. Or if they do listen to Pentax users they listen to the incompetent, who are complaining of missing shots any competent photographer would nail, with any camera.
A Pentax user who misses a shot says "Pentax AF sucks."
A Canon user who misses the same shot says "No one would have gotten that shot."
And looking at the numbers, they all miss shots. Missing shots is not something unique to Pentax. But the absolutely hostility and arrogance of the anti-pentax AF crowd is off the charts.
And the biggest take-away form those tests? Every camera's AF shoots a high percentage of keepers in some circumstances and every camera companies shoots a much lower even unacceptable percentage in other parts of the test. Every one has to use their camera to it's strengths to make the best use of their camera. You have to do that if you shoot Sony, Nikon, Canon or Pentax, despite everyone giving Canon, Nikon and Sony a pass on these issues.
Someone give me a kinder explanation. :D
Please. :D
This conclusion is becoming indisputable, at least in my mind. :D
My suggestion, if you need peer support to be confident in your camera, don't choose Pentax. Confidence in your camera and abilities are definite advantages in capturing compelling images. It's all about whether you let the peer pressure of hundreds of Nikon, Canon and Sony shooters affect your enjoyment of your work. If it will, pick something where you will have more peer support. Apparently for many, that's something worth paying for. It may even affect their work, more than the actual physical capabilities of the camera. It's hard to do anything you believe in your heart you can't do. Your bias will affect your performance.
And in an in your face internet shout down with internet posters, the Canon, Nikon and Sony shooters will always shout down the few Pentax users who may be involved. There are a lot more of them. The facts have nothing to do with such conversations. Take this discussion as case in point. Folks like me say "one for Pentax being a functional system comparable in testing to the others, lets move on" The biased say "this doesn't count because of my opinions on the matter". Even here on the Pentax forum, people have been drinking the cool aid.
|
