|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
03-21-2017, 03:58 PM
|
| |
I did not make such a claim against you. Please reread my post.
Yes, I believe you. I always have through this thread. I've shot similar bursts at airshows with very fast flybys. Yet the results you are showing do not prove the AF tracking functions or does not function. Many different ways of focusing could get the results you are showing. It is not a convincing test for trying to reach your conclusion.
It isn't a case of being hard to accept, but yet, again, the type of photos you are showing do nothing to confirm or deny anything beyond you have some nice photos. It isn't I don't believe you or don't want to believe you. It is simply the results do not confirm or deny any results. They're inconclusive due to the lack of structure in the test.
Such results, while thoroughly enjoyable to watch (again thank you for sharing them all!), in the way they are presented could never confirm the end conclusion. The only way, if you really were interested, to prove the AF-C tracking functions properly would be to do the same photo shoot but this time hold down the shutter release button fully and take a spray burst. Then post all of the images in the burst.
But, even if you did this, it would only be a single case / scenario of how the tracking can operate. It is a complex matter -- There is simple X, Y, Z plane movement then there is dynamic movement using all three axis in a 'random' pattern. In honesty, they'd all need to be tested. I know this is beyond any one person and I don't expect you to go through the trouble.
I'm really surprised no one (company or review blog/magazine) has invented a method of testing AF (including AF-C multi-point tracking) across all brands. Similar to CIPA testing for Shake Reduction. It is my opinion that the modern Pentax bodies wouldn't be as bad as some claim. But I also don't think they're at the same level of the Canikonys.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
03-21-2017, 07:40 AM
|
| |
But that is a three fold issue.
1) It isn't just an issue with AF-C because that has various modes. If you use it in spot mode it just tries to refocus on that certain spot. If you are using multipoint expanded that is a different situation. The argument isn't AF-C per say but the tracking portion.
2) What is the definition of 'usable' ? That is a vague term we are not likely to agree on as a whole community.
3) AF-C on a Pentax istD is a lot different than on a KP; Improvements have been made over the last ~15 years that we shouldn't forget. So claiming it for all 'Pentax' doesn't seem appropriate.
You keep showing single shots, but single shots could be taken without even using AF-C. You can get each of those with proper panning technique and AF-S or prefocusing. So I'm afraid you're still not showing any form of AF-C worked.
As a result, we're left with a thread of a bunch of enjoyable photos of cars instead. That isn't bad at all though.. :):lol:
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
03-20-2017, 03:22 PM
|
| |
I've yet to see a single one. And with the amount of time I waste here, if I'm not seeing them that probably means a lot of others aren't seeing them which is probably why it keeps coming back.
Well I wouldn't focus so much on the article contents outside of the image burst. I'm pretty sure Canon upper end can do this too... as can probably a number of mirrorless.
Quite true. That's an entirely different issue though. Eventually I suspect these will become video cameras where we'll just pluck out the full sized frame we choose... if burst rate and buffer depth keep expanding.
Btw I'm just the messenger... don't shoot me. :eek:
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
03-20-2017, 02:47 PM
|
| |
Because that is the usage that gets the argument. Think of an athlete approaching a goal/scoring line. You would want multiple shots of that scene to get the exact one when they scored, most dramatic shot, shot with their eyes open, shot with their eyes closed... having a series of in focus shots gives the photographer more options on which one to publish.
Yes single lock focusing is fine but, again, that isn't the bigger argument against focusing and Pentax. Of course DPR claimed the K-1 was both sluggish to lock focus initially AND poor to track.
That's an exciting series. Probably more so for the drivers. :eek::lol:
---------- Post added 03-20-17 at 04:50 PM ----------
Nonsense. There has been minimal evidence that proves or denies the AF tracking operates 'well.'
Take a look at this article.. Subject tracking: Why it matters to us and why it should matter to you: Digital Photography Review
Specifically the 12 shot burst of the kayaker in the water. That is the type of proof needed to put the old argument against Pentax to bed.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
03-20-2017, 05:03 AM
|
| |
Your single shots are nice. But it goes no where to prove the tracking is functional. You could have taken those single shots with any camera by prefocusing along that spot of road and shooting a really wide aperture.
If you really want to show the AF Tracking works as it says it does 'on the tin' then please show the 9 shots before each of these single shots. THAT is proof it works.
A single still, at best, proves the AF locked on to that object at that spot for that split second. Not that it carried the object, in focus, for several seconds across a large space.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
03-19-2017, 07:27 PM
|
| |
The issue/complaints I've seen have been with consistent focus throughout a burst. Say a 10 shot burst.
Throwing up single shots where the camera locked focus isn't proof one way or the other about the tracking abilities in Pentax DSLRs.
I've never had a major issue with locking of focus initially... the issue has been with maintaining focus once 'locked' on.. especially with erratic objects.
|
