Reading mode: Light Dark

Real HDR, but only 11 point AF again...

Go to last post
D

Dave Santora

Veteran Member
Messages
2,537
Reaction score
0
Location
AZ, US
I formerly shot with the K10 and had to leave due mostly to the weak AF. I can't believe that they did not improve on this. I know they added the new PrimeII engine, but you need better coverage than 11 points.

I actually considered the K7 for a nice carry around and the added video feature, guess I will wait to see the performance.

It is nice to see Pentax still competing, the camera really has some nice features (like the 3 shot HDR). I do miss the in body SR nearly every time I shoot :)
--
http://www.arizonadigitalphotography.com - non-wedding site
http://www.davidlakephotos.com - new wedding site
PPA, WPPI, NPS member
 
Dave Santora said:
I formerly shot with the K10 and had to leave due mostly to the weak
AF. I can't believe that they did not improve on this.
Click to expand...
I can't believe there's no universal TV remote control built-in myself.

Define weak... AF works flawlessly on my K20D. Of course, I expect it to work but not to perform outside what it's built to do.
Dave Santora said:
I know they
added the new PrimeII engine, but you need better coverage than 11
points.
Click to expand...
Why?

Some people used to shoot with no AF points at all. Most DSLR users only use center AF. Recomposing should work for those rare situations where 11 AF options are not enough.
Dave Santora said:
I actually considered the K7 for a nice carry around and the added
video feature, guess I will wait to see the performance.
Click to expand...
That's sound reasoning.
Dave Santora said:
It is nice to see Pentax still competing, the camera really has some
nice features (like the 3 shot HDR). I do miss the in body SR nearly
every time I shoot :)
Click to expand...
For me that is enough reason never to choose Canikon. That and the overpriced lenses and bodies.

--
bdery

Québec city, Canada

Someone took the time to post images. Why not take the time to comment?

Pentaxian in the making
http://s108.photobucket.com/albums/n13/bdery/
 
They did address it, yeah it is still an 11 Point AF system with 9 cross type points but the lack of focus points aren't the issue, after all everyone loves the Canon AF yet the 50D only has 9 AF points. The issue was with speed, accuracy issues (somewhat), and low-light AF problems with tungsten light, FF/BF and a lack of AF assist.

Well they added an AF assist light, they have added a sensor to detect the wavelenght of light to compensate for AF in different conditions (ie. tungsten), they have also made improved AF algorithm's coupled with the new sensor hardware and Pentax boasts of much better AF performance than before and we have the 20 lens AF fine tuning that was introduced in the K20D. It is also reported that AF-C is much better than before. Add to this a new mirror/shutter mechanism (much queiter and much more refined) that does 5.2fps, new metering, a new processor (Prime II) that will also help for AF I am sure and it looks to (on paper) be very promising. The proof is in the pudding of course so until we read some reviews and have first hand experience we will have to simply go by the specs and Pentax's claims but so far it looks very promising.

Cheers,
--
Sinan
http://sinantarlan.zenfolio.com/

 
Well stated. It doesn't make much sense that the OP complained about a feature (11-focus points) that is equivilent or better than the competitors cameras in the same class.
--
John C.
 
bdery said:
Define weak... AF works flawlessly on my K20D. Of course, I expect it to work > but not to perform outside what it's built to do.
Click to expand...
Me to,

Since buying my K20D I have had no problems with OOF shots as I did before with the GX10 at times. This past Sunday I was at a large Garden and house and shot with my Sigma 17-70mm, Sigma 10-20mm, Pentax DA55-300mm, and 50mm F1.7. For about 4 hours, and almost 300 pics. I had only one OOF shot and that was with the 50mm manual focus and my fault. And all of those shots where tack sharp! Yes each lens was dialed in for AF fine tuning and I got flawless performance, where is the problem? I can't be more happy with Pentax, Speed? well the K7 will take care of that one.

--
jamesm007,
http://s195.photobucket.com/albums/z77/jamesm700/
WSSA member 266PX
 
JohnCPentax said:
Well stated. It doesn't make much sense that the OP complained about
a feature (11-focus points) that is equivilent or better than the
competitors cameras in the same class.
Click to expand...
On paper. But specifications great AF performance do not make. There was talk of how significantly the AF performance of the K20D improved upon the K10D at the K20D's lauch, but in reality they shared a great deal. Hopefully the K7's improvment is more substantial, but I can't say I'm encouraged by the mere mention of SAFOX-anything on the spec sheet. It seems to that SAFOX must russian for '80's technology', and it remains to be seen just how much tweaking details can erase that perception--be it true or not.
--

Pentax K20D w/Sigma 10-20, Tamron SP17-50, DA18-250, FA50-1.4, Sigma 70 Macro, and Tamron 70-300
http://s90223656.onlinehome.us/
 
I shoot weddings (mostly - check site below - some of those pics were shot with the K10). While I was interning (2 years) I used the the K10 for the fist 18 months, and getting reception shots (first dance is critical) the K10 would struggle (that's being generous) and during the ceremony (in dark churches from far away) it would struggle also. I switched over to some Nikon D3s and D300s and have never been so amazed at AF performance. The emotion of the wedding needs to be caught at exact moments throughout the day and the K10 rarely was ready. Even though the K20 was about to be released, I did not see anything in the specs that led me to think if was any significant improvement. Again the K7 looks (on paper) to be another marginal step.

I guess it would be more appropriate to then say if the 11 points of the K7 can lock on and focus quickly and accurately in low light then that is fine enough. Also the continuous AF of the K10 was horrid - did it even have predictive focus, or was it just focusing tracking? Even with dancing or brides down the aisle is would hop all over or just give up, and this is with the DA*16-50 and DA*50-135 letting in plenty of light at f2.8.

If can get the K7 for around $1000 I might bite. Show me any former Pentax user, and I will show you someone that misses those great pancakes! :)
--
http://www.arizonadigitalphotography.com - non-wedding site
http://www.davidlakephotos.com - new wedding site
PPA, WPPI, NPS member
 
What do you think of that 10-20? I'm debating between it and the Pentax 12-24 (and 14mm prime)....I really WANT the length of the 10-20 but the reviews pointed out some odd distortion and multi-color zoned CA what, after my Tamron 70-300 would become a big problem fast enough I would think. The 10-20 is priced far more favorably than the 12-24 for a lens I'd use probably about 20% of the time (the bulk of the shots being on the DA21, FA43, and DFA100.)

I, too, never had a focus "issue" with 11 points. Recompositing slightly is never really a problem, and is preferable to toggling a million AF points with the arrow keys :)
 
I have always wondered why the makers of cameras always up the number of focus points. I don't believe that they add anything to the focus speed or accuracy of the camera. If anything its one more place to go wrong with the camera picking the wrong point.

I too have shot weddings. My first wedding camera was a Mamiya 2.25 square twin lens reflex camera. No auto focus and I got all the pictures. In the move to 35MM and digital I have seen a lot of photographers increase the picture count but not the quality. Quantity is no substitue for quality.

I set the focus at the center focus sensor and if necessary I will move the focus point and half depress then recompose. It takes longer to say than do and it works everytime because I know which sensor the camera is using.

What is necessary is not more points but a better focus algoriithm, better sensor and faster focus motors. I had very fast auto focus in my PZ1-P that I have never duplicated in a digital Pentax camera. The dad blasted digital sensor is such a PITA that most of the tricks that were used on film cameras for focus and metering had to be discarded for digital if they were to keep any where near a reasonable price.

If I were to go back into the business I would have to go Nikon or Canon just for the focus speed. However, it has NOTHING to do with the number of sensors.

Regards

Mike

GMT -5
 
headmj said:
If I were to go back into the business I would have to go Nikon or
Canon just for the focus speed.>
Mike
Click to expand...
The K7 might even be faster than C&N, nobody knows yet.

I like the wavelength measuring trick, sounds good. I wonder if any other mid-price DSLRs use it?
 
headmj said:
If I were to go back into the business I would have to go Nikon or
Canon just for the focus speed. However, it has NOTHING to do with
the number of sensors.
Click to expand...
The reason the Nikon D300 has 51 focus points is so it can track an object (in 3d) in space with greater accuracy. Not necessary at all unless you want good predictive focus, the focus point arrangement on the Pentax is not the best at this. The focus points on the Pentax are great for general use, nice fairly wide layout.

I imagine if Pentax releases a pro-model they will add more focus points and better tracking algorithms, but it sounds like the K-7 will be a nice improvement over the K10/K20d. The new K-7 should also focus much better in low light, which was a weak point of its predecessors.

Eric
--

I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it beautiful. - John Constable

See my Blog at: http://viking79.blogspot.com/
See my Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/
See my PPG Shots: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/erictastad
 
I was not thinking about predictive focus. In that area it might help. However, if you look at the K-7 published specs and others discussions on the forum you will see that they did just what I said. They changed the algorithim for the continuous focus to improve it instead of increasing sensor points. They also claim better low light focus. I'm not sure how they are doing that but a better sensor would help. For 95% of wedding work a single sensor in single exposure mode will produce excellent results. That includes first dance etc. I have had some really vigorous ethic dances that might have benefited from C mode but overall it really is a sports mode.
--
GMT -5
 
Lets have a look at the cross type sensors.

The Nikon design is clearly more vertical, and highly packed around the middle. Pentax has chosen to spread 11 sensors horizontally, with more distance in between them. That does not mean the area has holes in it: the sensors are simply larger in the Pentax. When using single AF, this causes an important difference between both AF systems. The Nikon system has smaller sensors and therefore one sensor will not simply jump to a subject in the background to lock focus on, as it does with Pentax (and partcularly with Sony, if you use fast lenses).

On the other hand if you use the all sensors (auto modes), more sensors theoretically will cause more errors. That's where the Nikon software comes in. It clearly is very advanced and helps to use all these (mostly non-cross type sensors) in such a way that it will track a subject effectively. Here's where the G/D lenses and the option to distinguish subjects from background comes in.

If you use the center mode with the K7/ dynamic D300, and talking about cross sensors only, than both camera use 9 sensors. The d300 drops the top and bottom three out of 15 if I remember well. In that mode you can select one out of nine from both. But Nikon still uses information from the other 8 to focus, and Pentax does not as far as I know. Furthermore, the sensitivity of the smaller cross type sensors is really helpfull in precise focussing and keeping it that way...

I did not use the 51 sensor mode ever whe I tested the D300 because I could work with single, or dynamic mode easily. Moving subjects were no problem.

Compared with the k10/20d, both probably slower AF algorithms than K7 so it will not discuss speed, the K7 will suffer from as many erroneous locks as K10/dK20d did. I think I encountered one or two with the Nikon during one week of intensified testing back then (about 200 clicks). That really amazed me..

All in all, Nikon does not only have the quantity built in, but also the quaility built in to use the quantity. That's an important difference .

But in the end it very much comes down to technique. If you are the carefull composer, you will probably not get hurt from this difference. But if you are always sharp and ready to take the occasional lovely pose, than you will be glad to have the Nikon AF system. And with sports, of course, be I do not think we need to discuss that.

When I sold the k10d/k20d set, I wanted better low light response and more speed. I found out that more speed was there in the D300, and also the accuracy was better ( I that time I did not realize why). Then I tested the A700 and I found out it was a very good compromize between Pentax and Nikon, both in quality and in price. Very good low light performance, fast AF. Later on I found out AF accuracy is an issue with Sony after I bought the fast first F/2.8 lens. With such lenses Sony used a very wide cross type sensor that easily get's distracted by the background/foreground.

lock
 
Pentax knows that AF is one of the biggest user 'complaints'.

I don't think Pentax engineers would be dopey enough to re-use the SAFOX VIII if they don't believe it can achieve the desired AF performance. Can SAFOX VIII get the job done? Pentax engineers obviously think so.

i'll reserve judgement until actual user reviews come in.

Mark Dimo has reported that the AF-C is much, much better. that's one plus review.
Steve_ said:
JohnCPentax said:
Well stated. It doesn't make much sense that the OP complained about
a feature (11-focus points) that is equivilent or better than the
competitors cameras in the same class.
Click to expand...
On paper. But specifications great AF performance do not make. There
was talk of how significantly the AF performance of the K20D improved
upon the K10D at the K20D's lauch, but in reality they shared a great
deal. Hopefully the K7's improvment is more substantial, but I can't
say I'm encouraged by the mere mention of SAFOX-anything on the spec
sheet. It seems to that SAFOX must russian for '80's technology', and
it remains to be seen just how much tweaking details can erase that
perception--be it true or not.
--
Pentax K20D w/Sigma 10-20, Tamron SP17-50, DA18-250, FA50-1.4, Sigma
70 Macro, and Tamron 70-300
http://s90223656.onlinehome.us/
Click to expand...
--
'when 900 years you reach, look as good you will not'
-- master yoda

http://jordanpaw.zenfolio.com
 
Dave Santora said:
I formerly shot with the K10 and had to leave due mostly to the weak
AF. I can't believe that they did not improve on this. I know they
added the new PrimeII engine, but you need better coverage than 11
points.
Click to expand...
There are no cameras in the price bracket with more than 11 points. And regardless, the coverage area is the same, only the coverage density is different. In reality, many with the 500 point AF systems still manually pick 1 anyway - usually the center.

THe NIkon D300 is the cheapest Camera with lots of points and it is nearly 50% more than the K7 and Canon makes you go to the 1Dmk3 which is $3700. I think you are being a bit critical.
 
tkbslc said:
There are no cameras in the price bracket with more than 11 points.
And regardless, the coverage area is the same, only the coverage
density is different. In reality, many with the 500 point AF systems
still manually pick 1 anyway - usually the center.
Click to expand...
It's actually 51 pts, not 500. If we are going to speak about technical abilities lets just use the real numbers. And I find that I use them all on every wedding shoot. Almost never have to focus recompose, just pick the right spot - the extra points really help me.
tkbslc said:
THe NIkon D300 is the cheapest Camera with lots of points and it is
nearly 50% more than the K7 and Canon makes you go to the 1Dmk3 which
is $3700. I think you are being a bit critical.
Click to expand...
The Nikon is exactly 30% more than the K7 from B&H website, and can be found even cheaper elsewhere (D300 - $1799, K7 - $1299).

I am not trying to be critical. I expect my brides will be though, so I want the best darn shots my equipment can give me. Of course most of that is up to me, but I feel that the AF system of the Pentax was always holding me back with the K10.

I appreciate the open and decent discussion about a topic that can get quite heated. Here's hoping the K7 is all that the specs tout it to be. I would love to slap a pancake on one for street shooting, and the SR is sorely missed for sure.

--
http://www.arizonadigitalphotography.com - non-wedding site
http://www.davidlakephotos.com - new wedding site
PPA, WPPI, NPS member
 
Dave Santora said:
Dave Santora said:
There are no cameras in the price bracket with more than 11 points.
And regardless, the coverage area is the same, only the coverage
density is different. In reality, many with the 500 point AF systems
still manually pick 1 anyway - usually the center.
Click to expand...
It's actually 51 pts, not 500. If we are going to speak about
technical abilities lets just use the real numbers.
Click to expand...
Well Canon's is "only" 45. I was more speaking of ANY high AF# systems and wanted to make sure we cover them all. Of course it was obvious I was exaggerating.
Dave Santora said:
Dave Santora said:
THe NIkon D300 is the cheapest Camera with lots of points and it is
nearly 50% more than the K7 and Canon makes you go to the 1Dmk3 which
is $3700. I think you are being a bit critical.
Click to expand...
The Nikon is exactly 30% more than the K7 from B&H website, and can
be found even cheaper elsewhere (D300 - $1799, K7 - $1299).
Click to expand...
I was more thinking 1200 vs 1800 off the top of my head, but if you want to be specific it depends which way you go. The D300 costs 38.4% more than the K7 at MSRP, but the K7 is 27.7% cheaper than the D300. Depends whether you figure the $500 difference based on the $1800 or $1300 price. Either way it is not EXACTLY 30%, either. Since you wanted to be specific, lets just use the real numbers.
Dave Santora said:
I am not trying to be critical. I expect my brides will be though,
so I want the best darn shots my equipment can give me. Of course
most of that is up to me, but I feel that the AF system of the Pentax
was always holding me back with the K10.
Click to expand...
That's cool, use whatever works for you and your business. No one is telling you to sell your D300. Many people do shoot weddings with the Canon 9 point AF system on 20D-50D and the FF Canon 5D cameras and produce stunning results, so many do not require so many AF points. I don't know where I would find the time to cycle though so many while trying to shoot on the fly, personally.
Dave Santora said:
I appreciate the open and decent discussion about a topic that can
get quite heated. Here's hoping the K7 is all that the specs tout it
to be. I would love to slap a pancake on one for street shooting,
and the SR is sorely missed for sure.
Click to expand...
It's all about tradeoffs, isn't it ? :) The K7 seems like it covers very many people's wishlists, but no it does not lead the class on every single spec.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top