W
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
K7 AF Myth
- Thread starter Marques Lamont
- Start date
When I first went from the *istD and DS to a D200 I was stunned at the focusing speed (However, with a 2.8 AF-S lens, I might add).
I recently shot posed images at a party and even with a consumer zoom the D200 focused quickly and perfectly in a room so dark I couldn't see more than the outline of the people, with no type of focus assist. The D300/300s focusing system is even better.
--
JohnE
I have enjoyed taking these images: http://www.pbase.com/jpower
Below, Phoenix City Hall with Nikkor 10.5mm on D200
raven900sx
Forum Enthusiast
new less than week old k7, press shutter button and...wait a bit...there she goes. its got a delay between button press and focus start, like its thinking about something. it doesn't really seem much faster than *ist d in the day, but a bit better in the dark. this is with the 18-55wr kit lens and the cheapo da50-200 lens
Prognathous
Veteran Member
Did you also compare the peripheral AF points, using difficult to focus subjects (e.g. low contrast, horizontal lines)? This is where multiple cross-type AF points help.
Prog.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/oren_b
topgun2007
Leading Member
I've thought about picking up a 40D for the same reasons. I have always wanted to get the EF 400mm, f/5.6 for BIF pictures as I've seen some excellent results when paired up with the 40D. However, if I started trading out additional lenses, I might have to consider a 7D for sometime in the future if Pentax never improves their AF system.I am stilling using Pentax, just added 40D to my collection because of the specific zooms they offer and vastly better AF tracking. Z-1p does 4fps actually.
--
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
Regards, Jim
--
Equipment list in profile.
W
wlachan
Guest
Honestly, you would be wasting your time if you ever dreamed of Pentax would match Canon or Nikon on AF performance in the near future. I was dreaming for 2 decades. My friend has the EF 400/5.6 which is indeed a fine lens, and still handholdable (quite surprised to me). I wish it had IS though.
--
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
I've done a lot of sports photography over the last 6 years. And I've read this thread and similar threads with interest. At this moment I shoot Canon (1dmkIII). But I like to keep an open mind. Without hesitation in the last year or so I have sent people over to Nikon who were looking at semi-prro to pro type cameras. Why? Not because of what people said about Nikon or Canon or Pentax or any other brand - but because of the IMAGES I was seeing from the D300, D700, D3 and D3s. Talk is basically cheap when it comes to sports photography. And, unlike widlife photography, it's pretty easy to field test sports shooting gear. It's easy to rack up a few thousand shots in a couple weeks or even a day.
But this is what makes it SOOO difficult to form an opinion on the Pentax cameras. I read threads about the good/bad of how the cameras perform but I don't see the IMAGES. I think that part of the problem Pentax faces is actually having an army of proficient action shooters to field test the gear. For example, in Canon land I'm ignoring the inevitable photos of books or cats or other boring subjects - I'm looking at NFL games shot with the 7d or 1dmkIV. It's TOUGH to determine how good the entry level Canon cameras are because you don't find images from people with good action shooting experience.
So, one of two things is happening here IMO. Either the people that shoot action have migrated to Canon, Nikon or if they have the same hatred of those two that some seem to have (referring to them as "c" or "n" or Canikon or other terms) than Sony A700. Or, the people that do indeed know what they're doing when shooting action simply don't post action images.
The result is - it's VERY difficult to judge credibility of statements either pro or con of equipment. Especially with regards to AF performance and moving subjects. It should be no surprise to anyone here that the reviews by popular photography or other magazines, or even dp review and other on line review sites are useless when judging AF performance ON MOVING SUBJECTS. This is true of any camera or any brand. So, the only way to judge performance is based on hands-on use by people in the field. So, what the Pentax users need to do is find those people in the Pentax system that know how to shoot sports and action wildlife and look for those people's reviews of the gear.
But remember, words are cheap - it's images that matter. And sports shooters have thousands of images.
Again - I haven't been able to form much of an opinion of the K-7 or Kx as sports cameras because I just can't find the images from experienced, proficient sports shooters (just like I can't find a proficent sports shooter using say the Nikon D5000 or Sony A550, 3xx series. So, they're kind of unproven commodities to me. Not necessarily failures just unproven.
If you're looking for sports shooting gear, my advice is - start with IMAGES and ignore rhetoric
But this is what makes it SOOO difficult to form an opinion on the Pentax cameras. I read threads about the good/bad of how the cameras perform but I don't see the IMAGES. I think that part of the problem Pentax faces is actually having an army of proficient action shooters to field test the gear. For example, in Canon land I'm ignoring the inevitable photos of books or cats or other boring subjects - I'm looking at NFL games shot with the 7d or 1dmkIV. It's TOUGH to determine how good the entry level Canon cameras are because you don't find images from people with good action shooting experience.
So, one of two things is happening here IMO. Either the people that shoot action have migrated to Canon, Nikon or if they have the same hatred of those two that some seem to have (referring to them as "c" or "n" or Canikon or other terms) than Sony A700. Or, the people that do indeed know what they're doing when shooting action simply don't post action images.
The result is - it's VERY difficult to judge credibility of statements either pro or con of equipment. Especially with regards to AF performance and moving subjects. It should be no surprise to anyone here that the reviews by popular photography or other magazines, or even dp review and other on line review sites are useless when judging AF performance ON MOVING SUBJECTS. This is true of any camera or any brand. So, the only way to judge performance is based on hands-on use by people in the field. So, what the Pentax users need to do is find those people in the Pentax system that know how to shoot sports and action wildlife and look for those people's reviews of the gear.
But remember, words are cheap - it's images that matter. And sports shooters have thousands of images.
Again - I haven't been able to form much of an opinion of the K-7 or Kx as sports cameras because I just can't find the images from experienced, proficient sports shooters (just like I can't find a proficent sports shooter using say the Nikon D5000 or Sony A550, 3xx series. So, they're kind of unproven commodities to me. Not necessarily failures just unproven.
If you're looking for sports shooting gear, my advice is - start with IMAGES and ignore rhetoric
Yeah but John, do you really need to see the images from Pentax cameras on moving subjects, when the focus speed is half as fast as Canon and Nikon on STATIC objects?
If you are not from the Pentax world, you don't even want to go there. Even among hard-core Pentaxians, no one claims good AF TRacking (Or AF-C as it is called on Pentax DSLR's)
If you are not from the Pentax world, you don't even want to go there. Even among hard-core Pentaxians, no one claims good AF TRacking (Or AF-C as it is called on Pentax DSLR's)
I'm using a pro level sports camera. So no, I'm not going to be switching to Sony, Pentax or Oly. But lots of people are entering the DSLR world - some of them shoot sports. Lots of people currently shooting Pentax - some of them shoot sports. It's rare that you find a shooter that does only one thing. There are quite a number of things the Pentax system is good at. So it becomes a question of - can it do a credible job for those that want to shoot sports as well as other things or is there still a distinct advantage to Canon and Nikon.
Look at it this way - The Nikon D3s will outperform anything from 1dmkIII on down in the canon lineup as a sports camera. Does that mean people should not buy into Canon and should only buy a Nikon D3s (too early to tell how 1dmkIV will do). In many cases it's about "does it do well enough".
Or, put another way, if you like canon or nikon, the 300mm 2.8 and 400mm 2.8 lenses are top notch. Does that mean you can't shoot field sports with any lens other than those? Of course not.
But there are a number of people in the Pentax community that honestly would like to know if the K-7 or Kx are "good enough" for sports so they don't have to sell off because they like the system in other regards. What images allow a person to decide is: does the equipment provide ability to get shots that are "good enough". You can't judge if it's "good enough" based on a person's words alone - not without a published record of quality action shots.
Look at it this way - The Nikon D3s will outperform anything from 1dmkIII on down in the canon lineup as a sports camera. Does that mean people should not buy into Canon and should only buy a Nikon D3s (too early to tell how 1dmkIV will do). In many cases it's about "does it do well enough".
Or, put another way, if you like canon or nikon, the 300mm 2.8 and 400mm 2.8 lenses are top notch. Does that mean you can't shoot field sports with any lens other than those? Of course not.
But there are a number of people in the Pentax community that honestly would like to know if the K-7 or Kx are "good enough" for sports so they don't have to sell off because they like the system in other regards. What images allow a person to decide is: does the equipment provide ability to get shots that are "good enough". You can't judge if it's "good enough" based on a person's words alone - not without a published record of quality action shots.
Hi John,
Thanks for sharing. Here are two links to some series of sports/action photos I've come across from the K-7.
The first photographer admits he is a journalist not a pro sports shooter, but nonethelss they are impressive:
http://www.crunchgear.com/...009/09/01/the-real-hands-on-with-the-pentax-k-7/
The second is from Mark Dimalanta:
http://surfdoc.blogspot.com/
Be interested in your opinion.
Cheers!
Greg
--
Best regards
Greg
He who cannot laugh at himself need not worry - others will do it for him
Thanks for sharing. Here are two links to some series of sports/action photos I've come across from the K-7.
The first photographer admits he is a journalist not a pro sports shooter, but nonethelss they are impressive:
http://www.crunchgear.com/...009/09/01/the-real-hands-on-with-the-pentax-k-7/
The second is from Mark Dimalanta:
http://surfdoc.blogspot.com/
Be interested in your opinion.
Cheers!
Greg
--
Best regards
Greg
He who cannot laugh at himself need not worry - others will do it for him
... a little bit!
Compared to my K10D, my K-7 is faster in AF-S, especially in good light. The hunting is still present, but usually lasts longer with my K10D.
And even in low light, my K-7 still achieves focus, although it only does slowly. But at least it does focus in conditions where my K10D would just keep hunting forever.
In AF-C, there's some improvement too, but the K-7 is still leagues behind the Canon EOS 50D/7D and Nikon D300/D300s. Burst speed drops from a good 5 fps to a mere 1-2 fps because the AF-C struggles to keep up with the subject movement, and the accuracy is far from excellent (accuracy is usually very good in good light, though).
But I do understand your point: the K-7's AF is no speed daemon, especially in low light and in AF-C, and even in AF-S and in good light, it's no match for its direct competitiors, the 50D/7D and D300/D300s. There's lots of room for improvement from Pentax in the AF departement, that's for sure.
One more reason I'll be going to the 1DMkIV soon. The faster AF sure won't hurt, being an event and editorial-reportage photographer. But the main reason I'm going Canon is its full HD video with full manual controls: it's just leagues ahead of competition.
Being a cinematographer sure weights a lot in the balance regarding this decision...
I'll miss the Pentax ergonomics, in-body SR, small size & weight, nice optics, etc. I just wish Pentax had a DSLR with full HD video (and full manual control, i.e. ISO, aperture AND shutter speed): I'd keep my great and sharp lenses instead of going for expensive and sometimes average glass (with some expensive exceptions).
I'll probably keep my K-7 for travel and casual photography, though. The K-7 is like a little pet: it's just too cute to sell!
--
http://www.jfbphoto.com (coming soon)
http://tigrebleuproductions.wordpress.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tigrebleu/
Compared to my K10D, my K-7 is faster in AF-S, especially in good light. The hunting is still present, but usually lasts longer with my K10D.
And even in low light, my K-7 still achieves focus, although it only does slowly. But at least it does focus in conditions where my K10D would just keep hunting forever.
In AF-C, there's some improvement too, but the K-7 is still leagues behind the Canon EOS 50D/7D and Nikon D300/D300s. Burst speed drops from a good 5 fps to a mere 1-2 fps because the AF-C struggles to keep up with the subject movement, and the accuracy is far from excellent (accuracy is usually very good in good light, though).
But I do understand your point: the K-7's AF is no speed daemon, especially in low light and in AF-C, and even in AF-S and in good light, it's no match for its direct competitiors, the 50D/7D and D300/D300s. There's lots of room for improvement from Pentax in the AF departement, that's for sure.
One more reason I'll be going to the 1DMkIV soon. The faster AF sure won't hurt, being an event and editorial-reportage photographer. But the main reason I'm going Canon is its full HD video with full manual controls: it's just leagues ahead of competition.
Being a cinematographer sure weights a lot in the balance regarding this decision...
I'll miss the Pentax ergonomics, in-body SR, small size & weight, nice optics, etc. I just wish Pentax had a DSLR with full HD video (and full manual control, i.e. ISO, aperture AND shutter speed): I'd keep my great and sharp lenses instead of going for expensive and sometimes average glass (with some expensive exceptions).
I'll probably keep my K-7 for travel and casual photography, though. The K-7 is like a little pet: it's just too cute to sell!
--
http://www.jfbphoto.com (coming soon)
http://tigrebleuproductions.wordpress.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tigrebleu/
GarySloman
Well-known member
I haven't read every single post, but I don't think that my observation has been touched upon.
I cannot speak to relative focus speed between the K7 and Canons and Nikons, but I upgraded from a K10D. As far as very low light, without the focus assist, it does hunt quite a bit, but will eventually lock on, unlike the K10D.
Where the K7 really shines is objects moving towards the camera. The K10D was pretty useless when it came to focusing on any thing moving directly towards the camera, even at walking speed in AFS or AFC. In AFS the K7 almost always nails focus, even runners and cyclists. It is a huge improvement over the K10D. I have not tried AFC much in this situation.
I cannot speak to relative focus speed between the K7 and Canons and Nikons, but I upgraded from a K10D. As far as very low light, without the focus assist, it does hunt quite a bit, but will eventually lock on, unlike the K10D.
Where the K7 really shines is objects moving towards the camera. The K10D was pretty useless when it came to focusing on any thing moving directly towards the camera, even at walking speed in AFS or AFC. In AFS the K7 almost always nails focus, even runners and cyclists. It is a huge improvement over the K10D. I have not tried AFC much in this situation.
jamesm007
Veteran Member
You know I just took your word about PopPhoto and its tests but now that I looked I see the old K20D of mine is faster than the Canon 5D mark II by far in good light, and only in low light does it slow down for its famous double check. However... I find because Canon is using DOF for AF up close (12' or less) its a hit or miss affair many times especially in the past, just now they have been improving this bad behavior. It was so bad a few years ago Canon issued a statement saying its better to manual focus when up close. I kinda figured this because its using a one look zip, beep, prey its right AF. Its easy to quickly focus on things that are near infinity focus like at most sporting events and with DOF how can you miss? But get close so accuracy is critical as DOF can't save you and the Canon system, and I can pull up a whole lot of posts over in Canon land, has had problems that the Pentax system just never did. I will tell the honest truth and I know words are cheap, I have no problems with the AF on my K20D, OOF shots are very rare even in dim light when it beeps its in focus. I do have problems with tracking BIF close up, for sure. But lets be honest, as far as just plain old AF the K20D and especially the K-7 is faster than some Canons in good light, in poor light the Canons are faster but can miss here or there, where the Pentax will get a higher keep rate. Tracking, you got it that's where Pentax could/should be better; however as an enthusiast system with plenty of features it can be a top choice for many, but not if all you care or shoot is BIF, sports. In very low light its slower but... its tougher (WR cold), and has many features for a great price . Lets not forget about some superb IQ.
PopPhoto tests results
Canon 5D M II
http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Cameras/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-Camera-Test/Vital-Statistics
Pentax K-7 - nothing to be ashamed of, not near as bad as the fanboys say
http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Cameras/Camera-Test-Pentax-K-7/Vital-Statistics-Pentax-K-7
K20D/K10D is faster than the 5D down to 4.5 according to PP
http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Cameras/Camera-Test-Pentax-K20D/Camera-Test-Pentax-K20D2
So all the PRO reviewers got it right, Pentax AF is fast and accurate even in low light but does slow down in very low light levels (to make sure its in focus) but its still not bad anyway you look at normal not tracking AF unless your a fanboy and want to make an issue where I had none, now I see why; many are like me in thier experience with Pentax.
OK lets stop picking on the 5D and look at the very fast 7D, its still not as fast as the K-7 down to 6 or 5 and fairly close even in low light????
http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Cameras/Camera-Test-Canon-EOS-7D/Canon-EOS-7D-Test-Results
Now with this and doing some heavy reading over in Canon land its obvious that Nikon rules AF and even Canon fanboys wished they had Nikon AF systems.
Here is a hard core Canon user
And last but not least if your a pro sporting photographer with over $5000 to spend on equipment what would you get and where would most of those type of fast action photos be??? hmmm lets think ..... how about a studio setup? How about the average enthusiasts? So that argument has no merit in my book as PROS do use Canon/Nikon for sports. And that's manufactors may lack such pics in the under $2000 dSLRs its common sense.
Good night.
--
jamesm007,
http://s195.photobucket.com/albums/z77/jamesm700/
WSSA member 266PX
PopPhoto tests results
Canon 5D M II
http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Cameras/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-Camera-Test/Vital-Statistics
Pentax K-7 - nothing to be ashamed of, not near as bad as the fanboys say
http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Cameras/Camera-Test-Pentax-K-7/Vital-Statistics-Pentax-K-7
K20D/K10D is faster than the 5D down to 4.5 according to PP
http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Cameras/Camera-Test-Pentax-K20D/Camera-Test-Pentax-K20D2
So all the PRO reviewers got it right, Pentax AF is fast and accurate even in low light but does slow down in very low light levels (to make sure its in focus) but its still not bad anyway you look at normal not tracking AF unless your a fanboy and want to make an issue where I had none, now I see why; many are like me in thier experience with Pentax.
OK lets stop picking on the 5D and look at the very fast 7D, its still not as fast as the K-7 down to 6 or 5 and fairly close even in low light????
http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Cameras/Camera-Test-Canon-EOS-7D/Canon-EOS-7D-Test-Results
Now with this and doing some heavy reading over in Canon land its obvious that Nikon rules AF and even Canon fanboys wished they had Nikon AF systems.
Here is a hard core Canon user
Don't get me wrong I have no illusions of how good the 5D really is, I would love to own it, but not the 7D, I would keep my K20D...don't ask. I think pcarfan said it best in his post.
And last but not least if your a pro sporting photographer with over $5000 to spend on equipment what would you get and where would most of those type of fast action photos be??? hmmm lets think
..... how about a studio setup? How about the average enthusiasts? So that argument has no merit in my book as PROS do use Canon/Nikon for sports. And that's manufactors may lack such pics in the under $2000 dSLRs its common sense.Good night.
--
jamesm007,
http://s195.photobucket.com/albums/z77/jamesm700/
WSSA member 266PX
James,
I'm glad you are the first person to acknowledge the Popphoto tests. Since you are now a believer in those tests, compare the k-7 to the k20d. You will see that the k-7 is not faster at AF than the k20d, which was the point that the OP was making! In fact, in low light, the tests show the K-7 to be slower .
So we are in to this thread by 7 pages, and someone finally uses the data to prove the statement that the supposedly faster focusing of the K-7 relative to the k20d is a myth...Quo erat demonstrandum.
I'm glad you are the first person to acknowledge the Popphoto tests. Since you are now a believer in those tests, compare the k-7 to the k20d. You will see that the k-7 is not faster at AF than the k20d, which was the point that the OP was making! In fact, in low light, the tests show the K-7 to be slower .
So we are in to this thread by 7 pages, and someone finally uses the data to prove the statement that the supposedly faster focusing of the K-7 relative to the k20d is a myth...Quo erat demonstrandum.
Not sure if this proves anything, but here is a link to an image from the last USC football game coached by Pete Carroll.
Taken with the K-7 and the Sigma 70-200, 2.8
http://www.pbase.com/ejcpa/image/120740434
Taken with the K-7 and the Sigma 70-200, 2.8
http://www.pbase.com/ejcpa/image/120740434
What that proves is Pete Carroll picked a good time to leave.
jamesm007
Veteran Member
I think we can be so obsessed over numbers and are gear that at times we may need a break. Why would I say this, I am glad I subscribe to PopPhoto as I have copies of the K20D and K-7 reviews and scanned them, OK the K-7 chart was very hard to read on the Web...
But...No now we are 7 pages in this and now you can see even PopPhoto rates the K-7 faster all the way across the light levels versus the K20D. This proves the OP has a problem with his K-7 according to you and the numbers PopPhoto posts. So finally we find the truth after 7 pages the K-7 is faster even in low light versus the K20D
. Even though I subscribe PopPhoto went down awhile ago, but I thought it leveled off, and it went down even further, so... that's another story. I do believe in their numbers for the most part, but writing...K20D
K-7
--
jamesm007,
http://s195.photobucket.com/albums/z77/jamesm700/
WSSA member 266PX
It really wasn't necessary to scan all that back in. We had the links. The K-7 is not faster, unless you want to quibble about a couple hundredths of seconds. Here is the OP's original complaint:
You realize that we are arguing who is the smartest Stooge here, Larry or Mo. Or who is the best team that didn't make it to the playoffs...
Again, your charts show that the K-7 is not notably faster than the k20d. The exact point the OP was making.
You realize that we are arguing who is the smartest Stooge here, Larry or Mo. Or who is the best team that didn't make it to the playoffs...
jamesm007
Veteran Member
You did read the charts wrong, and yes even the 5D is only a few tenths of a second faster so your point now is its meaning less? You seem to twist facts in your favor no? You post charts, compare...
Lets take the statement the old 30D is faster than the K-7; I don't have the numbers for the 30D but the faster 40D and... the K-7 is really faster till EV6 than from there to about 0EV its only a few tenths of a second slower that's fairly close and he is not shooting a 40D, so the OP may have a problem with his lens, K-7 something, and it should not be as noticeable as he is making it out to be. As other have stated they are getting much better response down in lower light levels versus the K20D. The K-7 and K20D can't focus lower than about 0EV, so maybe user error as well. If he wants to shoot in the dark with a hit or miss chance of getting a perfect focus according to the Canon forum and Canon than I guess the 30D is better.
--
jamesm007,
http://s195.photobucket.com/albums/z77/jamesm700/
WSSA member 266PX
jamesm007
Veteran Member
Just in case here is what PopPhoto says about the 30D compared to the 40D
"Canon's EOS 30D was the DSLR middleweight contender to beat for most of 2007, thanks to its tough body, great image quality, fast autofocus, and semi-pro controls. So it's no surprise that the new 10.1MP EOS 40D ($1,300, street, body only; $1,500, street, with EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens) holds fast to the 30D's overall body design and exposure controls. In fact, from the front it's hard to tell them apart.
Inside, though, Canon's engineers found ways to raise the 40D's image quality, boost its burst rate, speed up the AF system, and improve the viewfinder. Around back, they even squeezed in a 3-inch LCD with live preview
So given that the 30D AF is slower and how close the K-7 is down to about 0, ??? I believe him however this is his experience but not necessarily others.
--
jamesm007,
http://s195.photobucket.com/albums/z77/jamesm700/
WSSA member 266PX
"Canon's EOS 30D was the DSLR middleweight contender to beat for most of 2007, thanks to its tough body, great image quality, fast autofocus, and semi-pro controls. So it's no surprise that the new 10.1MP EOS 40D ($1,300, street, body only; $1,500, street, with EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens) holds fast to the 30D's overall body design and exposure controls. In fact, from the front it's hard to tell them apart.
Inside, though, Canon's engineers found ways to raise the 40D's image quality, boost its burst rate, speed up the AF system, and improve the viewfinder. Around back, they even squeezed in a 3-inch LCD with live preview
So given that the 30D AF is slower and how close the K-7 is down to about 0, ??? I believe him however this is his experience but not necessarily others.
--
jamesm007,
http://s195.photobucket.com/albums/z77/jamesm700/
WSSA member 266PX
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum