K7 focus

Nice fairly technical writeup. I am glad to see it outperforms the KM in low light, which already outperforms the K20d by 1 or 2 stops. So the difference in low light focus between the K20d and K-7 sound quite substantial. The difference between being unusable in low light indoor scenes to being very usable. That should make a lot of wedding shooters, etc, very happy.

It also sounds like it was as fast as the D300 except it didn't feel as fast because it does the little focus correcting steps.

Of course different lenses, etc would change results. Still nice to know.

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/
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)
See my PPG Shots: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/erictastad (6/5/09)
 
I was quite hopeful that since Pentax has quite obviously put more time and energy into creating a better camera( at least from the price charged, you would think so) that the AF system would be addressed.

Given all the other improvements that are mentioned, it will be quite interesting to see what the reviewers think of the Pentax AF system. I have a strong feeling that if the limitations of the K10 and K20 can be properly addressed that Pentax will once again be in the forefront of the DSLR market. Let us hope so!
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26289929@N05/

Don
 
How good is K-7 in sports shooting ?
Is it better than K20D ?

Autofocus report, by Dave Etchells:

In our testing, the K20D revealed itself to be a very capable camera, delivering good image quality overall, with excellent fine detail, and it performed quite well in the lab. Outside the lab, we found that its autofocus performance was severely lacking in a sports shooting environment. While it's not part of our normal test procedure, I had the occasion to take the K20D and the fairly high-end Pentax 200mm f/2.8 ED IF SDM SMC DA* prime telephoto lens to shoot one of my son's rugby games. It turned out to be an exercise in frustration, despite the fact that Pentax's SDM ultrasonic motor should have made the lens pretty fast to focus. Shot after shot, the camera just would not find the proper focal point, despite my being careful to use the center focus point and keep it on the player I was most interested in. Even when the action didn't seem terribly fast, the camera frequently misfocused, to the point that only about 50% of my shots were usable. In frustration, I switched to my Nikon D80, which had only its 18-135mm kit lens mounted. This didn't give me the reach I really wanted, but the improvement in AF performance was little short of startling: Suddenly, 90-95% of my shots were sharply focused.
 
First Posting inhere, so frist thing: HELLO FROM MUNICH GERMANY
How good is K-7 in sports shooting ?
Is it better than K20D ?
Good, quick and much better and faster especially in long AF-C-motion-series, just look my K-7-testing-examples:

Football: http://www.hh-muc.de/4i/categories.php?cat_id=191 (fw 0.0)
Mountain-Bikerace: http://www.hh-muc.de/4i/categories.php?cat_id=199
Superglide-Hockey: http://www.hh-muc.de/4i/categories.php?cat_id=200

All other picture in my gallery not marked als taken with K-7 are taken with K20D and K10D, lens most times sigma 70-200/2,8 HSM
 
but the pics of the football sequence are filled with scatter targets. Situations like this is not exactly challeging for AF tracking. If the sequence were to follow a single player filling the whole frame and the AF could still track him running in random fashion (not just panning), then that's something to brag about.

Based on a few people tried the K7 in HK, its AF ability is pretty the same as the Km but with more torque. They also agreed it still double/triple check and not quite up to C/N for low light.
--
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
 
How good is K-7 in sports shooting ?
Is it better than K20D ?
the new SAFOX VIII+ is a significant improvement over the previous installment (the K-m). The 40% faster focus motor and 1 stop extra performance in low light.

The K-7 makes about 50% more good images and about 50% less bad images than the K20D in this test. The difference is subtle more than evident. But on the other hand, it is significant enough to score side by side with a D300!
 
but the pics of the football sequence are filled with scatter targets. Situations like this is not exactly challeging for AF tracking. If the sequence were to follow a single player filling the whole frame and the AF could still track him running in random fashion (not just panning), then that's something to brag about.
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
Next time, I will tell the Quarterback run like you wan´t.
 
How good is K-7 in sports shooting ?
Is it better than K20D ?

Autofocus report, by Dave Etchells:
Well I think it was already pointed out that this kind of test is a bit unfair: the DOF of a 200/2.8 vs a 135/5.6 can be quite different. But for sure the K20D AF-C is not its forte.

--
Manu



http://flickr.com/photos/ensh/
Réflex Pentax: http://www.flickr.com/groups/pentaxfr/

My PPG: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=1312871&subSubSection=3929608
 
I think you are missing his point entirely....I bet you'd like the K-7 to compose, expose and press the shutter too...geezzzz, some people......
--

K10D, Pentax AF-540 Flash, Sigma 10-20, Pentax DA 21, Pentax FA 43, Sigma 100-300 F4, Sigma 1.4X TC, Tamron 18-250.

May modify my images for posting as a reply to my posts and crticisms are truly welcome.

'Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming... 'Wow! What a ride!'

 
YA also tell him to do somersaults lol;)
but the pics of the football sequence are filled with scatter targets. Situations like this is not exactly challeging for AF tracking. If the sequence were to follow a single player filling the whole frame and the AF could still track him running in random fashion (not just panning), then that's something to brag about.
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
Next time, I will tell the Quarterback run like you wan´t.
--
300.
 
Autofocus report, by Dave Etchells:
Well I think it was already pointed out that this kind of test is a bit unfair: the DOF of a 200/2.8 vs a 135/5.6 can be quite different.
Certainly uncontrolled (and therefore ultimately meaningless), but not necessarily unfair towards the Pentax. Etchells never actually stated in that report whether he was shooting the DA*200mm f/2.8 lens wide open. If he was, then you are correct, and it definitely was an unfair comparison. But not necessarily, if he was shooting it stopped down.

The best possible scenario, from an AF accuracy standpoint, would be to have a fast lens -- such as the 200/2.8 -- and shoot it stopped down. In other words, an f/2.8 lens, shot at f/5.6, should have more reliable AF than an f/5.6 lens of the same focal length, shot at f/5.6 (wide open). But then again, the 135mm focal length of that Nikon kit lens would be a whole lot more forgiving, DOF-wise, than the 200mm FL of the Pentax lens he was using that day.

Bottom line -- that "test" was an apples-oranges comparison, and trying to draw any firm conclusions (whether pro- or anti-Pentax) from it would be futile.

--
Regards,
Greg
 
Thank you for the response Gary.

Well, in light of all the attention the AF business has attracted I would sure hope that DPR would do a through test, and hopefully against Nikon and Canon's better performers.

It just seems to me, given the preliminary postings I have seen on the K7, that it looks like a home run for Pentax. I Hope!

My K10 is getting lonely and needs a big brother!
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26289929@N05/

Don
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top