Hello Ricoh, why not add some knowledge to the K1 focussing brouhaha?

It seem amazing that while there is all this recent criticism and debate around the K1's C-AF tracking, we have heard nothing from Ricoh.

The K1 showed itself to be rubbish in the DPR C-AF testing regimen. Why didn't Ricoh contact DPR (or vice-versa) to make sure the camera had been giving of its best?

The forums lit up with users who thought they knew better. Then they started to cite other test regimes. But silence prevailed from Ricoh.

Then we started hearing about this somewhat mysterious 'real-time scene analysis' mode. Although that discussion uses Ricoh documentation, the level of engagement from the engineers is very slight.

Maybe the Japanese documentation is less ambiguous, but in much of the world English is the prevailing language and Ricoh just doesn't seem to be making itself understood.

As far as I can see, there are two main possibilities.

1. The C-AF tracking is better than its test results would imply, but the company needs to get out there and explain how to use it properly.

2. It is as bad as the tests suggest, and the company is in hiding (meanwhile, we hope, developing firmware and hardware improvements for the future).

I don't own a K1 but I have had K100, K10, K7, K5 and K3-II and I tend to number 2.

Paul

Paul_R_H said:

It seem amazing that while there is all this recent criticism and debate around the K1's C-AF tracking, we have heard nothing from Ricoh.

The K1 showed itself to be rubbish in the DPR C-AF testing regimen. Why didn't Ricoh contact DPR (or vice-versa) to make sure the camera had been giving of its best?

The forums lit up with users who thought they knew better. Then they started to cite other test regimes. But silence prevailed from Ricoh.

Then we started hearing about this somewhat mysterious 'real-time scene analysis' mode. Although that discussion uses Ricoh documentation, the level of engagement from the engineers is very slight.

Maybe the Japanese documentation is less ambiguous, but in much of the world English is the prevailing language and Ricoh just doesn't seem to be making itself understood.

As far as I can see, there are two main possibilities.

1. The C-AF tracking is better than its test results would imply, but the company needs to get out there and explain how to use it properly.

2. It is as bad as the tests suggest, and the company is in hiding (meanwhile, we hope, developing firmware and hardware improvements for the future).

I don't own a K1 but I have had K100, K10, K7, K5 and K3-II and I tend to number 2.

Paul

Click to expand...

I have had a K100D Super, K-7, K-5 and now a K-3, and I also do, unfortunately. I do see people posting shots of e.g. horse races, apparently captured with the K-1 in AF-C, that are in perfect focus. However, my personal experience is that Pentax lags significantly behind Nikon (although I only tested out Nikons in a store).

Specifically, my impression of Pentax AF-C is that it waits too long before adjusting focus. So, when it does, it need more time to catch up. Also, Pentax AF tends to do some last-second fine-tuning, that again takes up time.

This also explains why the lens itself doesn't matter as much as some people suggest. When I was testing the D7200 in that store, it had the cheap 18-140 lens on it. That lens doesn't focus very quickly. But because the AF-C just does a lot of tiny adjustments, without hesitation or last-second adjustments, the AF stuck with the subject like glue. I felt like I could let the camera worry about all of that, so that I had more time to focus on the shot.

As to how it is possible that people are shooting horse races etc with a K-1, I don't actually know. I have several theories though. Firstly, horse races seem like a perfect scenario for pre-focusing. Secondly, the horses were not shot head-on, but more to the side, making things a bit easier on the AF (though still not very easy given how fast a typical horse runs). Thirdly, the sequence was shot outside in bright daylight, again making it easier for the AF. Fourthly, the DOF seems to be a little bigger than in DPR's tests.

I don't agree that the AF is rubbish in any capacity. I certainly don't feel Ricoh has anything to answer for. Do you own the camera and have you had issues with it?

..trying to keep up with demand with the K-1 to bother.

I don't think Ricoh need to intervene. DPR really isn't as important to the level you think it is. Besides, it isn't a debate.. DPR s allowed to share their opinion. As flawed as it may (or may not) be, we have to live with it

As stated in the last line of my original post above, I don't have a K1, but have bought five other Pentax digital SLRs (and two film). My AF experience mirrors the DPR testing,

But my post was really about Ricoh's inscrutability in all this. As a customer, I'd rather the company were more open and more keen to enlighten us owners about how best to use its products in general.

Toccata47 wrote:

Toccata47 said:

I don't agree that the AF is rubbish in any capacity. I certainly don't feel Ricoh has anything to answer for. Do you own the camera and have you had issues with it?

Click to expand...

Paul_R_H said:

It seem amazing that while there is all this recent criticism and debate around the K1's C-AF tracking, we have heard nothing from Ricoh.

The K1 showed itself to be rubbish in the DPR C-AF testing regimen. Why didn't Ricoh contact DPR (or vice-versa) to make sure the camera had been giving of its best?

The forums lit up with users who thought they knew better. Then they started to cite other test regimes. But silence prevailed from Ricoh.

Then we started hearing about this somewhat mysterious 'real-time scene analysis' mode. Although that discussion uses Ricoh documentation, the level of engagement from the engineers is very slight.

Maybe the Japanese documentation is less ambiguous, but in much of the world English is the prevailing language and Ricoh just doesn't seem to be making itself understood.

As far as I can see, there are two main possibilities.

1. The C-AF tracking is better than its test results would imply, but the company needs to get out there and explain how to use it properly.

2. It is as bad as the tests suggest, and the company is in hiding (meanwhile, we hope, developing firmware and hardware improvements for the future).

I don't own a K1 but I have had K100, K10, K7, K5 and K3-II and I tend to number 2.

Paul

Click to expand...

Paul,

Why did you own K100, K10, K7, K5 and K3II, if AF/C is important to you (and you think it is that bad)? What is more amazing about that?

I didn't ever own very many models and I like Pentax cameras. If I need an action cam I'd hire a 7DII, 5DIII or the like - something I have an appropriate lens for.

What were your settings for action in the K3II? Do you notice DPR didn't tell you theirs? What is your technique & philosophy for getting the shots you want? Do you think the 'test' at DPR resembled anything you would do? They didn't even try to follow the subject (I know it was done on purpose for the test).

In my opinion, Ricoh doesn't know what to say to anyone here. Nobody has made a coherent request for anything.

They do seen to be having trouble keeping up with demand for the camera

starbase218 said:

Paul_R_H said:

It seem amazing that

I have had K100, K10, K7, K5 and K3-II and I tend to number 2.

Paul

Click to expand...

I have had a K100D Super, K-7, K-5 and now a K-3, and I also do, unfortunately. I do see people posting shots of e.g. horse races, apparently

Click to expand...

This word 'apparently' means you doubt what you've seen yourself. This is the point I should stop reading.

starbase218 said:

captured with the K-1 in AF-C, that are in perfect focus. However, my personal experience is that Pentax lags significantly behind Nikon (although I only tested out Nikons in a store).

Click to expand...

Thank you for relating your experience extends to picking one up in a store.

starbase218 said:

* snip *

Click to expand...

I considered writing such a thread. Ricoh's silence seems unfathomable. Why wouldn't they want to do anything that would put their products in the best light? Their silence borders on disdain. Once, when I complained to a Ricoh representative about SDM failure, he said that SDM lenses had no more of a failure rate (@ 3%) than any other of their lenses or cameras. He also said that the "SDM problem" was a miss-perception created by a few forum malcontents. I thought afterwards: "Then why don't you say something?"

So, I agree with your assessment. If #1 is true, then Ricoh's non-response is a disservice to its image and to its customers. If it is #2 (which at least seems logical), Ricoh has done a disservice to its reputation by hyping a new AF system that's not really improved. Either one is pi$$ poor marketing.

Petroglyph said:

starbase218 said:

Paul_R_H said:

It seem amazing that

I have had K100, K10, K7, K5 and K3-II and I tend to number 2.

Paul

Click to expand...

I have had a K100D Super, K-7, K-5 and now a K-3, and I also do, unfortunately. I do see people posting shots of e.g. horse races, apparently

Click to expand...

This word 'apparently' means you doubt what you've seen yourself. This is the point I should stop reading.

Click to expand...

In that case, maybe I shouldn't post this. But I will, just for now.

It is kind of hard to believe when you tried out up a D7200 with 18-140 in a store, no knowing the camera etc. and just but awesome tracking right out of it. While at the same time, you have a DA* 60-250 that you can't get to track even a slow-moving giraffe coming directly towards you (and having had other bad experiences and having tried several things to improve it).

Not that I'm accusing anyone of lying. But there could be a grey area. This talk about "improve your skills" also never gets concrete. What skills, what do people do differently now from before?

To name an example: there was a thread on Pentaxforums.com with a person posting dozens of photos as evidence that the K-1 can track. But it wasn't evidence, because they were all downscaled. I actually looked at the samples DPR posted in their review, and when I downscaled those to the same resolution, almost all of those seemed to be in perfect focus too.

Petroglyph said:

Petroglyph said:

captured with the K-1 in AF-C, that are in perfect focus. However, my personal experience is that Pentax lags significantly behind Nikon (although I only tested out Nikons in a store).

Click to expand...

Thank you for relating your experience extends to picking one up in a store.

Click to expand...

Yes, I picked one up, and could track pretty well with it in... just about 5 minutes? I was ridiculously easy compared to Pentax. That's how I felt. Not just the tracking reliability itself, but also the feedback that the AF gives you by continuously displaying the active AF point in the viewfinder.

SBS said:

I considered writing such a thread. Ricoh's silence seems unfathomable. Why wouldn't they want to do anything that would put their products in the best light? Their silence borders on disdain. Once, when I complained to a Ricoh representative about SDM failure, he said that SDM lenses had no more of a failure rate (@ 3%) than any other of their lenses or cameras. He also said that the "SDM problem" was a miss-perception created by a few forum malcontents. I thought afterwards: "Then why don't you say something?"

So, I agree with your assessment. If #1 is true, then Ricoh's non-response is a disservice to its image and to its customers. If it is #2 (which at least seems logical), Ricoh has done a disservice to its reputation by hyping a new AF system that's not really improved. Either one is pi$$ poor marketing.

Click to expand...

I, too, have wondered about the Pentax/Ricoh non-response. While my impressions are that the AF is not as bad as DPR has portrayed (I've had no K-1 AF issues but I don't shoot bicycles), the silence is getting louder and louder (as with SDM).

SBS said:

I considered writing such a thread.

Click to expand...

OK

Member said:

Ricoh's silence seems unfathomable.

Click to expand...

It is not.

Companies in general, and Pentax in particular are not all that good at having a relaxed conversation with the world and its users. And even less so when there are problems. Then most companies go hide under some rocks.

Member said:

Why wouldn't they want to do anything that would put their products in the best light?

Click to expand...

Why do you think giving advice on how to manage short comings would put Pentax in a better light?

Member said:

Their silence borders on disdain. Once, when I complained to a Ricoh representative about SDM failure, he said that SDM lenses had no more of a failure rate (@ 3%) than any other of their lenses or cameras. He also said that the "SDM problem" was a miss-perception created by a few forum malcontents. I thought afterwards: "Then why don't you say something?"

Click to expand...

I can tell you. Whether the information is right or not - it would not have been believed. It would more aggravate some then it would help. Maybe, in particular if it is true.

Member said:

So, I agree with your assessment. If #1 is true, then Ricoh's non-response is a disservice to its image and to its customers. If it is #2 (which at least seems logical), Ricoh has done a disservice to its reputation by hyping a new AF system that's not really improved. Either one is pi$$ poor marketing.

Click to expand...

How much I DO dislike it, hyped marketing is the norm and not the exception. Every new product has substantial improvements in at least one important area, often in several. Thats the method to make you upgrade and stay within the brand.

NOTE - in principle I do agree with you - but maybe we are living on the wrong planet. Most human beings are not rational thinking entities.

starbase218 said:

Petroglyph said:

starbase218 said:

Paul_R_H said:

It seem amazing that

I have had K100, K10, K7, K5 and K3-II and I tend to number 2.

Paul

Click to expand...

I have had a K100D Super, K-7, K-5 and now a K-3, and I also do, unfortunately. I do see people posting shots of e.g. horse races, apparently

Click to expand...

This word 'apparently' means you doubt what you've seen yourself. This is the point I should stop reading.

Click to expand...

In that case, maybe I shouldn't post this. But I will, just for now.

It is kind of hard to believe when you tried out up a D7200 with 18-140 in a store, no knowing the camera etc. and just but awesome tracking right out of it.

Click to expand...

Awesome tracking of... what? Sales clerks? Train figurines?

Alex

Dear Paul, Ricoh - Pentax would have to say that it will take another year and they make a FF as required at the level of 2016 - 2017.

They did not have to rush.
I hope they can solve my grievances through firmware updates.

It seems that Sigma brand is more receptive and show more respect for its clients.

I liked how they reacted immediately to change the objectives problems mount.

That means respect for customers, not let them wait without an answer for so long.
They must say are working to make things right, but no news from them.

I do not understand anything anymore, strange attitude from Ricoh-Pentax.

Regards, Valeriu

I think calling it "rubbish" is going beyond the pale, really, come on.

DPR themselves say that they didn't give it an EASY test, instead they wanted to come up with a test that would tax all brand camera's up to a failure rate so they could be compared. Not saying I agree with the testing method, but I do try to give them benefit of the doubt here.

The very 1st FF DSLR from Ricoh beats the competition in several categories. AF, at least in the DPR unique test, wasn't one of those categories. Then they gave the K-1 their Silver Award at 84%! Oh the humanity!

It still works well enough for most people who will never shoot a zig zagging subject coming at them while their K-1 is locked onto a tripod. (though I do confess to occasionally using a monopod, only because I get tired of holding heavy F2.8 lenses over long periods, but the K-1 works fine for me this way)

The good news, is that with an IBIS and several F stop advantage over others, you won't need to anchor your K-1 to a tripod while shooting action.

If I was a paid sports/action photographer, whose roof over my head and food on the table relied on me getting a high percentage of fast random moving subjects, I would go buy something that is engineered with that situation in mind.

I mean sheesh, it's not like it's a major defect like the shutter is disintegrating and the sensor is full of oil spots that they won't acknowledge until they are ready to release the next model... (well, I hope not, as I run to check shutter count and take pictures of blank walls with my K-1) Shew... nothing yet. *sigh* ;-)

Lighten up folks, accusing Ricoh of anything other than fulfilling many a Pentaxian's wish list almost perfectly on it's very first try, is bordering on the absurd.

Eric

Paul_R_H said:

It seem amazing that while there is all this recent criticism and debate around the K1's C-AF tracking, we have heard nothing from Ricoh.

The K1 showed itself to be rubbish in the DPR C-AF testing regimen. Why didn't Ricoh contact DPR (or vice-versa) to make sure the camera had been giving of its best?

The forums lit up with users who thought they knew better. Then they started to cite other test regimes. But silence prevailed from Ricoh.

Then we started hearing about this somewhat mysterious 'real-time scene analysis' mode. Although that discussion uses Ricoh documentation, the level of engagement from the engineers is very slight.

Maybe the Japanese documentation is less ambiguous, but in much of the world English is the prevailing language and Ricoh just doesn't seem to be making itself understood.

As far as I can see, there are two main possibilities.

1. The C-AF tracking is better than its test results would imply, but the company needs to get out there and explain how to use it properly.

2. It is as bad as the tests suggest, and the company is in hiding (meanwhile, we hope, developing firmware and hardware improvements for the future).

I don't own a K1 but I have had K100, K10, K7, K5 and K3-II and I tend to number 2.

Paul

Click to expand...

--
EricV

SBS said:

So, I agree with your assessment. If #1 is true, then Ricoh's non-response is a disservice to its image and to its customers. If it is #2 (which at least seems logical), Ricoh has done a disservice to its reputation by hyping a new AF system that's not really improved. Either one is pi$$ poor marketing.

Click to expand...

Ricoh did tell me personally that the AF/C advanced tracking is 'very sophisticated' on the K1. But who would be viewed as a bigger 'fanboy' than a representative of Ricoh themselves? If they respond, detractors would not believe them and supporters would say that is what we've been telling you all along.

You yourself don't believe SDM failure rate is in line with the industry as your rep. said. And I don't believe any representative of Ricoh ever said anything about it. Ricoh can't say anything really, one have to find out for themselves if they don't trust reviewers.

There is a rule in politics - never defend any accusation in the press - you can't win.

Roland Karlsson said:

SBS said:

I considered writing such a thread.

Click to expand...

OK

Roland Karlsson said:

Ricoh's silence seems unfathomable.

Click to expand...

It is not.

Companies in general, and Pentax in particular are not all that good at having a relaxed conversation with the world and its users. And even less so when there are problems. Then most companies go hide under some rocks.

Roland Karlsson said:

Why wouldn't they want to do anything that would put their products in the best light?

Click to expand...

Why do you think giving advice on how to manage short comings would put Pentax in a better light?

Click to expand...

Good question. That would IMHO be seen as a "confirmation" that things are really, really bad - after all, other brands (supposedly) don't need such things.

By the way, I remember Pentax officials being driven off from here, in quite a rude way. Forums can be a nasty place for companies.

Roland Karlsson said:

Roland Karlsson said:

Their silence borders on disdain. Once, when I complained to a Ricoh representative about SDM failure, he said that SDM lenses had no more of a failure rate (@ 3%) than any other of their lenses or cameras. He also said that the "SDM problem" was a miss-perception created by a few forum malcontents. I thought afterwards: "Then why don't you say something?"

Click to expand...

I can tell you. Whether the information is right or not - it would not have been believed. It would more aggravate some then it would help. Maybe, in particular if it is true.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Pentax cannot be seen as "fighting" their user base.

Roland Karlsson said:

Roland Karlsson said:

So, I agree with your assessment. If #1 is true, then Ricoh's non-response is a disservice to its image and to its customers. If it is #2 (which at least seems logical), Ricoh has done a disservice to its reputation by hyping a new AF system that's not really improved. Either one is pi$$ poor marketing.

Click to expand...

How much I DO dislike it, hyped marketing is the norm and not the exception. Every new product has substantial improvements in at least one important area, often in several. Thats the method to make you upgrade and stay within the brand.

Click to expand...

The K-1's AF is not hyped that much... they mention the improved AF (compared to what?) on the press release, but on the product's web page AF is on Features page 5 from 6. Other features have a more prominent display.

Roland Karlsson said:

NOTE - in principle I do agree with you - but maybe we are living on the wrong planet. Most human beings are not rational thinking entities.

Click to expand...

Petroglyph said:

Paul,

Why did you own K100, K10, K7, K5 and K3II, if AF/C is important to you (and you think it is that bad)? What is more amazing about that?

Click to expand...

A very good question. I stuck with Pentax because I had a few lenses from film days. Gradually as I bought new cameras I got more lenses so I was stuck in the system. I seldom shot action so it didn't matter. Since the K10 I do and it does but I kept upgrading to the next model Pentax in the hope the AF would be significantly better. It never was. You're right, if I'd cur my losses earlier and switched system it would have been better from the AF standpoint. But I also love the Pentaxes for other reasons – compact size, small primes, weatherproofing.

Petroglyph said:

I didn't ever own very many models and I like Pentax cameras. If I need an action cam I'd hire a 7DII, 5DIII or the like - something I have an appropriate lens for.

Click to expand...

I'm usually travelling when I shoot action so carrying an extra system, hired or otherwise, isn't an option.

Petroglyph said:

What were your settings for action in the K3II? Do you notice DPR didn't tell you theirs? What is your technique & philosophy for getting the shots you want? Do you think the 'test' at DPR resembled anything you would do? They didn't even try to follow the subject (I know it was done on purpose for the test).

Click to expand...

I just outlined my settings in the reply to Roland's post, so I'd ask you to read that. Sorry to inconvenience you but the forum rules discourage re-posting things.

Petroglyph said:

In my opinion, Ricoh doesn't know what to say to anyone here. Nobody has made a coherent request for anything.

Click to expand...

Well I think they could have answered DPR's original implied question. Why can't any Pentax DSLR do well on the swerving bicycle test when rival cameras can?

Petroglyph said:

They do seen to be having trouble keeping up with demand for the camera

Click to expand...

I have no knowledge on this, so am happy to accept what you say. But for how long will this initial demand be sustained?

Best

Paul

Alex Sarbu said:

Alex Sarbu said:

How much I DO dislike it, hyped marketing is the norm and not the exception. Every new product has substantial improvements in at least one important area, often in several. Thats the method to make you upgrade and stay within the brand.

Click to expand...

The K-1's AF is not hyped that much... they mention the improved AF (compared to what?) on the press release, but on the product's web page AF is on Features page 5 from 6. Other features have a more prominent display.

Click to expand...

Hmmmm ... you have a point there. When presenting the new K-1 it has mostly been addressed as aiming for faithful Pentax users AND also the faithful Pentax workers that both have been longing for an FF for many years. And now we have got it and it is beautiful!

Of course, there is this page 5 in the PR blurb. And it says things that looks like they have made some serious advances. So ...

Sorry Petroglyph, I should have been clearer at the beginning. I don't think it would have helped if Pentax has come onto the forums and engaged in what was at some points a very highly charged argument. But they could have, through their PRs and engineers, engaged with the reviewers.

This isn't politics. reviewers are trying to find the best product, not defend an ideology. Politics is far more important than reviewing but that's another story.

I review and road-test cars for a living. If the car does something anomalous I always try to speak to one of the engineers responsible before I post or print the review. Not to allow them to corrupt my honest findings, but just to check the car wasn't malfunctioning or to make sure I was using it correctly. There seems to have been little evidence of dialogue between DPR and Ricoh.

Paul

Petroglyph said:

There is a rule in politics - never defend any accusation in the press - you can't win.

Click to expand...

Paul_R_H said:

Petroglyph said:

In my opinion, Ricoh doesn't know what to say to anyone here. Nobody has made a coherent request for anything.

Click to expand...

Well I think they could have answered DPR's original implied question. Why can't any Pentax DSLR do well on the swerving bicycle test when rival cameras can?

Click to expand...

I'm not aware of DPReview tested other cameras in similar conditions. Including, let's say, the D500. But, I'm a software engineer - by "similar conditions" I don't mean "there's a bicycle somewhere in the frame, and it's swerving". I mean similar conditions.

Then, there's the question of a test being relevant or not. Should an entry-level priced FF DSLR cope with that particular scenario? Is that particular scenario relevant to IRL shooting? Did the manufacturer made any promise that the camera would cope with that?

Last but not least, what exactly do you expect Ricoh to say about DPReview's tests? That they're no good? Or fully accept the results and say the competition is so much better than themselves? Neither variant works.

The only kind of communication is to independently demonstrate what they think is a good representation of RTAS w/ subject tracking working. They did that:


Alex