Pentax AF

Stigg · Jun 11, 2019

Pentax AF, after experiencing it with the K-01, is far better than what I thought it was. After trying out Sony, Canon and Nikon cameras and lenses these past months, I must state that they are a great disappointment. No, I did not try the highest-priced models (though some of the lenses were mid to high-priced). The claims that are chronically repeated simply do not represent what the cameras and lenses do under actual working conditions. Here is my ultimate example:

In 2017 I tried the Sigma 50-500 with my K-01. It was suggested by some that this combination would be problematic, yet my first simple tests were indoors and the lens successfully focused in each instance. This is not the case with popular well-regarded lenses and cameras from Sony and the others. I was told that it would be ridiculous to expect telephoto zooms to focus with indoor light. Furthermore, I found that the same difficulty or lack of AF occurred with these same cameras and lenses outdoors on overcast days! The K-01 combined with any AF lens I tried in K mount (Tamron, Sigma, Pentax, etc.) all focused in any lighting situation.

I am certain that if I purchased the most recent $3000 to $5000 cameras the AF may have been better. If I had also purchased the upper tier lenses along with those upper-tier cameras they may have been further aided in focusing indoors, but I still have my doubts.

The K-01 was always regarded as a camera with very limited AF ability, even among Pentax fanatics. I have not tried other Pentax digital cameras, but gauging the situation by K-01 AF, the others should be fantastic.

--

I though I should add that I think it would be a good time for Pentax to introduce or re-introduce an updated K-01 or similar mirrorless camera. As a professional film photographer I have worked daily only with optical finders and for film photography they are sufficient. For faster-paced digital imaging, an electronic finder is much more suitable. The OVF/reflex mirror combination is more suitable for film photography. The K-01 illustrated that a Pentax camera could maintain its character while omitting the OVF/reflex mirror assembly.

Ayoh · Jun 11, 2019

Stigg said:
Pentax AF, after experiencing it with the K-01, is far better than what I thought it was. After trying out Sony, Canon and Nikon cameras and lenses these past months, I must state that they are a great disappointment. No, I did not try the highest-priced models (though some of the lenses were mid to high-priced). The claims that are chronically repeated simply do not represent what the cameras and lenses do under actual working conditions. Here is my ultimate example:

In 2017 I tried the Sigma 50-500 with my K-01. It was suggested by some that this combination would be problematic, yet my first simple tests were indoors and the lens successfully focused in each instance. This is not the case with popular well-regarded lenses and cameras from Sony and the others. I was told that it would be ridiculous to expect telephoto zooms to focus with indoor light. Furthermore, I found that the same difficulty or lack of AF occurred with these same cameras and lenses outdoors on overcast days! The K-01 combined with any AF lens I tried in K mount (Tamron, Sigma, Pentax, etc.) all focused in any lighting situation.

I am certain that if I purchased the most recent $3000 to $5000 cameras the AF may have been better. If I had also purchased the upper tier lenses along with those upper-tier cameras they may have been further aided in focusing indoors, but I still have my doubts.

The K-01 was always regarded as a camera with very limited AF ability, even among Pentax fanatics. I have not tried other Pentax digital cameras, but gauging the situation by K-01 AF, the others should be fantastic.

Try photographing something which is moving and see how many in-focus shots you get. This is where there are large differences between Pentax and the competition

Zvonimir Tosic · Jun 12, 2019

Stigg said:
Pentax AF, after experiencing it with the K-01, is far better than what I thought it was. After trying out Sony, Canon and Nikon cameras and lenses these past months, I must state that they are a great disappointment. No, I did not try the highest-priced models (though some of the lenses were mid to high-priced). The claims that are chronically repeated simply do not represent what the cameras and lenses do under actual working conditions.

Many years ago, Pentax team led by Mr Wakashiro, promised they will make Pentax cameras not only best in image quality, but in AF too.

Stigg · Jun 12, 2019

Ayoh said:
Stigg said:

Pentax AF, after experiencing it with the K-01, is far better than what I thought it was. After trying out Sony, Canon and Nikon cameras and lenses these past months, I must state that they are a great disappointment. No, I did not try the highest-priced models (though some of the lenses were mid to high-priced). The claims that are chronically repeated simply do not represent what the cameras and lenses do under actual working conditions. Here is my ultimate example:

In 2017 I tried the Sigma 50-500 with my K-01. It was suggested by some that this combination would be problematic, yet my first simple tests were indoors and the lens successfully focused in each instance. This is not the case with popular well-regarded lenses and cameras from Sony and the others. I was told that it would be ridiculous to expect telephoto zooms to focus with indoor light. Furthermore, I found that the same difficulty or lack of AF occurred with these same cameras and lenses outdoors on overcast days! The K-01 combined with any AF lens I tried in K mount (Tamron, Sigma, Pentax, etc.) all focused in any lighting situation.

I am certain that if I purchased the most recent $3000 to $5000 cameras the AF may have been better. If I had also purchased the upper tier lenses along with those upper-tier cameras they may have been further aided in focusing indoors, but I still have my doubts.

The K-01 was always regarded as a camera with very limited AF ability, even among Pentax fanatics. I have not tried other Pentax digital cameras, but gauging the situation by K-01 AF, the others should be fantastic.

Click to expand...

Try photographing something which is moving and see how many in-focus shots you get. This is where there are large differences between Pentax and the competition

Auto tracking was far less effective with Sony and other cameras than is claimed. I did not use the most recent models which of course are better at that.

However, my K-01 was able to focus on and get the shots I wanted in any outdoor daylight conditions while the others struggled to focus at all. A lot depends on the lenses used, which is something that is always conveniently omitted.

I track subjects using a center focus point and did well with the Sigma 50-500.

robbo d · Jun 13, 2019

Stigg said:
Pentax AF, after experiencing it with the K-01, is far better than what I thought it was. After trying out Sony, Canon and Nikon cameras and lenses these past months, I must state that they are a great disappointment. No, I did not try the highest-priced models (though some of the lenses were mid to high-priced). The claims that are chronically repeated simply do not represent what the cameras and lenses do under actual working conditions. Here is my ultimate example:

In 2017 I tried the Sigma 50-500 with my K-01. It was suggested by some that this combination would be problematic, yet my first simple tests were indoors and the lens successfully focused in each instance. This is not the case with popular well-regarded lenses and cameras from Sony and the others. I was told that it would be ridiculous to expect telephoto zooms to focus with indoor light. Furthermore, I found that the same difficulty or lack of AF occurred with these same cameras and lenses outdoors on overcast days! The K-01 combined with any AF lens I tried in K mount (Tamron, Sigma, Pentax, etc.) all focused in any lighting situation.

I'm not sure who or how many told you the k-01 would be problematic with a telezoom. Fact: the k-01 is one of the slowest focusing recent Pentax cams being an early milc based on existing live view at the time. However it will actually AF and even indoors or in dim light.

You may be mixing it with kx/kr which allegedly had focus issues indoors(which I never experienced)

I wouldn't recommend the k-01 with 50-500 as a performance combo, but if it works and it floats your boat, then go for it.

Stigg said:
I am certain that if I purchased the most recent $3000 to $5000 cameras the AF may have been better. If I had also purchased the upper tier lenses along with those upper-tier cameras they may have been further aided in focusing indoors, but I still have my doubts.

I can tell you that recent Pentax are very good in low light AF, but my recently purchased Nikon D800 blows all my Pentax away for all-round general AF especially 3D tracking.(including my old K1)

If your talking about upper tier Pentax, then yes, the later are far more responsive than the K-01.

You aren't very specific about which brands, lenses and who's upper tier your suggesting.

Stigg said:
The K-01 was always regarded as a camera with very limited AF ability, even among Pentax fanatics. I have not tried other Pentax digital cameras, but gauging the situation by K-01 AF, the others should be fantastic.

They are far better. Fantastic is a relative statement. Responsiveness yes, accuracy yes but still not to the level of nikon, Sony or now even Fuji or Olympus.

Stigg said:
I though I should add that I think it would be a good time for Pentax to introduce or re-introduce an updated K-01 or similar mirrorless camera. As a professional film photographer I have worked daily only with optical finders and for film photography they are sufficient. For faster-paced digital imaging, an electronic finder is much more suitable. The OVF/reflex mirror combination is more suitable for film photography. The K-01 illustrated that a Pentax camera could maintain its character while omitting the OVF/reflex mirror assembly.

Pentax dipped their toes into mirrorless and missed the opportunity to create something great by leaving soon after. Any sort of viewfinder, more traditional styling and generally upgraded performance would have created another niche within the Pentax niche and the ability to use a plethora of manual focus or other old k mount lenses to their maximum.

I loved what that camera did for any lens I put on the front of it..... the magic of mirrorless.... not to mention those fabulous jpegs it produced.

Massao · Jun 13, 2019

Stigg said:
Pentax AF, after experiencing it with the K-01, is far better than what I thought it was. After trying out Sony, Canon and Nikon cameras and lenses these past months, I must state that they are a great disappointment. No, I did not try the highest-priced models (though some of the lenses were mid to high-priced). The claims that are chronically repeated simply do not represent what the cameras and lenses do under actual working conditions. Here is my ultimate example:

In 2017 I tried the Sigma 50-500 with my K-01. It was suggested by some that this combination would be problematic, yet my first simple tests were indoors and the lens successfully focused in each instance. This is not the case with popular well-regarded lenses and cameras from Sony and the others. I was told that it would be ridiculous to expect telephoto zooms to focus with indoor light. Furthermore, I found that the same difficulty or lack of AF occurred with these same cameras and lenses outdoors on overcast days! The K-01 combined with any AF lens I tried in K mount (Tamron, Sigma, Pentax, etc.) all focused in any lighting situation.

I am certain that if I purchased the most recent $3000 to $5000 cameras the AF may have been better. If I had also purchased the upper tier lenses along with those upper-tier cameras they may have been further aided in focusing indoors, but I still have my doubts.

The K-01 was always regarded as a camera with very limited AF ability, even among Pentax fanatics. I have not tried other Pentax digital cameras, but gauging the situation by K-01 AF, the others should be fantastic.

I can understand where you are coming from; often there is way too much criticism on Pentax’s AF system. Eventually, it boils down to individual’s use. For most users, Pentax’s AF is fine. For specific uses (BIF, sports, fast moving kids or pets, etc) there are better options out there. Since I don’t take photos in such settings, I am satisfied with Pentax’s AF.

Kind regards,

Massao

GossCTP · Jun 13, 2019

Massao said:
For specific uses (BIF, sports, fast moving kids or pets, etc) there are better options out there. Since I don’t take photos in such settings, I am satisfied with Pentax’s AF.

Massao said:
Kind regards,

Massao

Massao · Jun 13, 2019

GossCTP said:
Massao said:

For specific uses (BIF, sports, fast moving kids or pets, etc) there are better options out there. Since I don’t take photos in such settings, I am satisfied with Pentax’s AF.

Kind regards,

Massao

Click to expand...

I agree, but a lot of people have kids and that's why af is a big deal in the general marketplace. My brother in law has a lot more tied up in Pentax than I do, but the last time we talked he said the clock was ticking regarding af tracking after the birth of their first child. Now im in the same situation. I doubt Ill sell off much, but realistically if Pentax doesn't produce something in the next 1 -1.5 years i will need another system to fill the gap.

Well, you do have a point, but there are a few more things to consider.

Indeed, if you want above 80% hit rate (subject in focus), then newer cameras by Sony, Nikon, Fujifilm etc offer that with their focus tracking and eye-focus features. However, we must remember that before these new tools became available (at a premium right now though), photographers were able to take photos with subject in focus. Yes, the hit rate was probably never this high, but you can increase the hit rate by increasing the aperture number a bit. I do take pictures of my and relatives’ children (not in play ground though

, and usually it is the shutter speed I’m more worried about than the “focus”. In few more years, we won’t have to pay “extra” for these features, and then it would be silly to buy a new Pentax DSLR with out-dated AF technology, but for now, there is no rush

—unless you want the latest and greatest.

Kind regards,

Massao

--
--
First camera: Canon FTB; First autofocus SLR camera: Pentax; First Nikon: F601 (N6006); First digital camera: Sony DSC-W5; First DSLR: Nikon D70; First mirrorless ICL camera: Samsung nx11

Stigg · Jun 13, 2019

robbo d said:
Stigg said:

Pentax AF, after experiencing it with the K-01, is far better than what I thought it was. After trying out Sony, Canon and Nikon cameras and lenses these past months, I must state that they are a great disappointment. No, I did not try the highest-priced models (though some of the lenses were mid to high-priced). The claims that are chronically repeated simply do not represent what the cameras and lenses do under actual working conditions. Here is my ultimate example:

In 2017 I tried the Sigma 50-500 with my K-01. It was suggested by some that this combination would be problematic, yet my first simple tests were indoors and the lens successfully focused in each instance. This is not the case with popular well-regarded lenses and cameras from Sony and the others. I was told that it would be ridiculous to expect telephoto zooms to focus with indoor light. Furthermore, I found that the same difficulty or lack of AF occurred with these same cameras and lenses outdoors on overcast days! The K-01 combined with any AF lens I tried in K mount (Tamron, Sigma, Pentax, etc.) all focused in any lighting situation.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure who or how many told you the k-01 would be problematic with a telezoom. Fact: the k-01 is one of the slowest focusing recent Pentax cams being an early milc based on existing live view at the time. However it will actually AF and even indoors or in dim light.

Of course you aren't sure; I didn't tell you, though I received that information mostly through this forum and other Pentax users who scoffed at the K-01 when the company brought it to the light of day.

Thank you for reinforcing my point: "However it will actually AF and even indoors or in dim light." The others simply could not do the same even with high-end telephoto zooms. That is very significant to me.

robbo d said:
You may be mixing it with kx/kr which allegedly had focus issues indoors(which I never experienced)

I wouldn't recommend the k-01 with 50-500 as a performance combo, but if it works and it floats your boat, then go for it.

Aside from numerous manual slr cameras I have only used the Pentax K-01 and still have a Pentax Q in a box somewhere.

Your second statement echoes the erroneous information I was given that the K-01 is not to be recommended for use with the 50-500. While that floats or sinks no watercraft, its functionality backs up my original statement. There were a few others here who used that combination successfully.

robbo d said:
robbo d said:

I am certain that if I purchased the most recent $3000 to $5000 cameras the AF may have been better. If I had also purchased the upper tier lenses along with those upper-tier cameras they may have been further aided in focusing indoors, but I still have my doubts.

Click to expand...

I can tell you that recent Pentax are very good in low light AF, but my recently purchased Nikon D800 blows all my Pentax away for all-round general AF especially 3D tracking.(including my old K1)

If your talking about upper tier Pentax, then yes, the later are far more responsive than the K-01.

You aren't very specific about which brands, lenses and who's upper tier your suggesting.

My point remains: the K-01 did what recent cameras could not: focus in dim indoor light. To me that "blows away" all of the claims that are repeated endlessly. With the K-01/50-500 (and K-01/70-300) I made images of many fast, erratic flying moths and butterflies as well as birds stationary and in flight. I have serious doubts now that there are other camera combinations that could do much better....in real, working situations. Its logical to assume then that through evolution Pentax AF should only have improved in what it did in 2012 with the K-01.

robbo d said:
robbo d said:

The K-01 was always regarded as a camera with very limited AF ability, even among Pentax fanatics. I have not tried other Pentax digital cameras, but gauging the situation by K-01 AF, the others should be fantastic.

Click to expand...

They are far better. Fantastic is a relative statement. Responsiveness yes, accuracy yes but still not to the level of nikon, Sony or now even Fuji or Olympus.

See previous paragraph.

robbo d said:
robbo d said:

I though I should add that I think it would be a good time for Pentax to introduce or re-introduce an updated K-01 or similar mirrorless camera. As a professional film photographer I have worked daily only with optical finders and for film photography they are sufficient. For faster-paced digital imaging, an electronic finder is much more suitable. The OVF/reflex mirror combination is more suitable for film photography. The K-01 illustrated that a Pentax camera could maintain its character while omitting the OVF/reflex mirror assembly.

Click to expand...

Pentax dipped their toes into mirrorless and missed the opportunity to create something great by leaving soon after. Any sort of viewfinder, more traditional styling and generally upgraded performance would have created another niche within the Pentax niche and the ability to use a plethora of manual focus or other old k mount lenses to their maximum.

I loved what that camera did for any lens I put on the front of it..... the magic of mirrorless.... not to mention those fabulous jpegs it produced.

The conclusion is that a new version or variation of the K-01 would be most welcome. Pentax has an opportunity here which has not yet passed. The overall lesson for me has been that Pentax AF is for active shooters who are actually working with the camera to obtain the results they want, while the heavily computer-dependent AF in other brands is for the lazier, uninvolved photographer who expects the machine to do all of his work for him. Apparently Pentax and its owners have continued this line of thought to the present day and I applaud that, especially as a 40+ year (and continuing) professional shooter of manual film slr cameras.

Stigg · Jun 13, 2019

Ayoh said:
Stigg said:

Pentax AF, after experiencing it with the K-01, is far better than what I thought it was. After trying out Sony, Canon and Nikon cameras and lenses these past months, I must state that they are a great disappointment. No, I did not try the highest-priced models (though some of the lenses were mid to high-priced). The claims that are chronically repeated simply do not represent what the cameras and lenses do under actual working conditions. Here is my ultimate example:

In 2017 I tried the Sigma 50-500 with my K-01. It was suggested by some that this combination would be problematic, yet my first simple tests were indoors and the lens successfully focused in each instance. This is not the case with popular well-regarded lenses and cameras from Sony and the others. I was told that it would be ridiculous to expect telephoto zooms to focus with indoor light. Furthermore, I found that the same difficulty or lack of AF occurred with these same cameras and lenses outdoors on overcast days! The K-01 combined with any AF lens I tried in K mount (Tamron, Sigma, Pentax, etc.) all focused in any lighting situation.

I am certain that if I purchased the most recent $3000 to $5000 cameras the AF may have been better. If I had also purchased the upper tier lenses along with those upper-tier cameras they may have been further aided in focusing indoors, but I still have my doubts.

The K-01 was always regarded as a camera with very limited AF ability, even among Pentax fanatics. I have not tried other Pentax digital cameras, but gauging the situation by K-01 AF, the others should be fantastic.

Click to expand...

Try photographing something which is moving and see how many in-focus shots you get. This is where there are large differences between Pentax and the competition

I didn't see your post at first but am glad I found it.

I very much tried shooting very active, erratic subjects with the K-01 and several long lenses. The results were better than what I have been getting with the recent cameras and lenses I have tried from other manufacturers. The number of in-focus shots increased substantially once I started using the highest frame rate the camera offers. Of course I had shots that were not in focus, but in most instances I got the shot of the subject that I wanted in focus.

As I explained to robbo in a post below, Pentax AF is for the active, involved shooter: involved with the camera and the subject. By being active and involved Pentax AF is almost ideal for a working photographer.

Lazy, uninvolved photographers have demanded from camera companies that the camera should do all of the work through its internal computer. This probably accounts for a lot of the dullness and vacuity of so many of today's images. With manual focus cameras we have to be active, involved and aware of our equipment, the subject and our surroundings. Thankfully Pentax has maintained this line of thinking and its been to the benefit of those who want to work with their camera to get the best results.

My hope is that there will be a mirrorless Pentax camera (with or without a separate EVF) that continues and improves the K-01 image character and Pentax AF system.

Stigg · Jun 13, 2019

GossCTP said:
Massao said:

For specific uses (BIF, sports, fast moving kids or pets, etc) there are better options out there. Since I don’t take photos in such settings, I am satisfied with Pentax’s AF.

Kind regards,

Massao

Click to expand...

I agree, but a lot of people have kids and that's why af is a big deal in the general marketplace. My brother in law has a lot more tied up in Pentax than I do, but the last time we talked he said the clock was ticking regarding af tracking after the birth of their first child. Now im in the same situation. I doubt Ill sell off much, but realistically if Pentax doesn't produce something in the next 1 -1.5 years i will need another system to fill the gap.

I never understood the obsession with the need for perfection of baby and child shots that has developed in the last decade or two.

In any case, whatever the subject may be, lazy photographers will demand a machine or device to take up the slack. Those that are willing to work to obtain the results they want will find that Pentax AF is almost ideal.

Stigg · Jun 13, 2019

Massao said:
GossCTP said:

Massao said:

For specific uses (BIF, sports, fast moving kids or pets, etc) there are better options out there. Since I don’t take photos in such settings, I am satisfied with Pentax’s AF.

Kind regards,

Massao

Click to expand...

I agree, but a lot of people have kids and that's why af is a big deal in the general marketplace. My brother in law has a lot more tied up in Pentax than I do, but the last time we talked he said the clock was ticking regarding af tracking after the birth of their first child. Now im in the same situation. I doubt Ill sell off much, but realistically if Pentax doesn't produce something in the next 1 -1.5 years i will need another system to fill the gap.

Click to expand...

Well, you do have a point, but there are a few more things to consider.

Indeed, if you want above 80% hit rate (subject in focus), then newer cameras by Sony, Nikon, Fujifilm etc offer that with their focus tracking and eye-focus features. However, we must remember that before these new tools became available (at a premium right now though), photographers were able to take photos with subject in focus. Yes, the hit rate was probably never this high, but you can increase the hit rate by increasing the aperture number a bit. I do take pictures of my and relatives’ children (not in play ground though , and usually it is the shutter speed I’m more worried about than the “focus”. In few more years, we won’t have to pay “extra” for these features, and then it would be silly to buy a new Pentax DSLR with out-dated AF technology, but for now, there is no rush —unless you want the latest and greatest.

Kind regards,

Massao

Your thought echo mine. We don't need endless in focus shots of a subject; just the in focus shot we are looking for. These new AF tracking systems may or may not work in real situations. However a working photographer can get the shots they want if they work with a camera that has good, basic AF such as what I found in the K-01. You also mentioned the cost of these cameras and having studied Sony's entire lineup, there is no longer a mid to low- priced camera in that lineup.

Where I disagree with you is where you label Pentax AF as outdated. It is only outdated if the photographer is lazy and outdated.

Ian Stuart Forsyth · Jun 13, 2019

Where in your lazy photographer self appointed scale of laziness does spraying and praying fall?

I am just interested in how does it fall in your realm as to what is lazy, if you are needing to use the frame rate or use a camera with a higher framerate to capture more in focus images is this not a lazy way of photographing the world. Does this fall above or bellow using the cameras AF system to capture in focus images ?

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62780850

"The number of in-focus shots increased substantially once I started using the highest frame rate the camera offers. Of course I had shots that were not in focus, but in most instances I got the shot of the subject that I wanted in focus."

To me this is as or even more lazy than a person using a system with a better AFing system.

People always speak as if the user of a camera system with a better AF system as a lazier photographer but many times that user pushes their skills to a much higher level and captures more difficult images, this is furthest from being a lazy photographer.

I can tell you that with more robust AF system I am after the more demanding images, this is where I am shooting much closer to the subject along with a much shallower DOF for nicer subject isolation. Along with the focus plane being on the eye of your subject, the leads us to the persons expectations.

My expectations in 2019 are much higher than most, I want the focus plane to be on the eye of my subject , I don't want to shoot at a DOF to hide AF errors, I don't want to limit how I photograph subject by shooting them at a greater distance to hide AF problems and finally I don't want to cull a great deal of images with my fingers crossed that I wishfully captured the in focus images at key times.

Even when I am photographing stationary wildlife and at the working distances that I am now accustom to you need very consistent AF and only get the chance to maybe take 1 maybe 2 frames in a action sequence.

So when I look at what I want from photography it is anything but far from being lazy other than using FPS and culling to find get my keepers.

I am truly lazy in that regard

Massao · Jun 14, 2019

Stigg said:
Massao said:

GossCTP said:

Massao said:

For specific uses (BIF, sports, fast moving kids or pets, etc) there are better options out there. Since I don’t take photos in such settings, I am satisfied with Pentax’s AF.

Kind regards,

Massao

Click to expand...

I agree, but a lot of people have kids and that's why af is a big deal in the general marketplace. My brother in law has a lot more tied up in Pentax than I do, but the last time we talked he said the clock was ticking regarding af tracking after the birth of their first child. Now im in the same situation. I doubt Ill sell off much, but realistically if Pentax doesn't produce something in the next 1 -1.5 years i will need another system to fill the gap.

Click to expand...

Well, you do have a point, but there are a few more things to consider.

Indeed, if you want above 80% hit rate (subject in focus), then newer cameras by Sony, Nikon, Fujifilm etc offer that with their focus tracking and eye-focus features. However, we must remember that before these new tools became available (at a premium right now though), photographers were able to take photos with subject in focus. Yes, the hit rate was probably never this high, but you can increase the hit rate by increasing the aperture number a bit. I do take pictures of my and relatives’ children (not in play ground though , and usually it is the shutter speed I’m more worried about than the “focus”. In few more years, we won’t have to pay “extra” for these features, and then it would be silly to buy a new Pentax DSLR with out-dated AF technology, but for now, there is no rush —unless you want the latest and greatest.

Kind regards,

Massao

Click to expand...

Your thought echo mine. We don't need endless in focus shots of a subject; just the in focus shot we are looking for. These new AF tracking systems may or may not work in real situations. However a working photographer can get the shots they want if they work with a camera that has good, basic AF such as what I found in the K-01. You also mentioned the cost of these cameras and having studied Sony's entire lineup, there is no longer a mid to low- priced camera in that lineup.

Where I disagree with you is where you label Pentax AF as outdated. It is only outdated if the photographer is lazy and outdated.

I disagree on this point. Pentax AF is already out-dated. Its not about being lazy; it's about a choice between sticking with an older AF technology by valuing other things more (like ergonomics, light-weight limited primes, etc., in my case) or a better AF system with another set of advantages and disadvantages. There is nothing lazy about either choices. If you want to obtain a higher hit rate (in-focus subjects) than there's nothing wrong with choosing Nikon Sony or Fujifilm. It's simply about priorities.

Kind regards,

Massao

Massao · Jun 14, 2019

Stigg said:
GossCTP said:

Massao said:

For specific uses (BIF, sports, fast moving kids or pets, etc) there are better options out there. Since I don’t take photos in such settings, I am satisfied with Pentax’s AF.

Kind regards,

Massao

Click to expand...

I agree, but a lot of people have kids and that's why af is a big deal in the general marketplace. My brother in law has a lot more tied up in Pentax than I do, but the last time we talked he said the clock was ticking regarding af tracking after the birth of their first child. Now im in the same situation. I doubt Ill sell off much, but realistically if Pentax doesn't produce something in the next 1 -1.5 years i will need another system to fill the gap.

Click to expand...

I never understood the obsession with the need for perfection of baby and child shots that has developed in the last decade or two.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the desire to obtain perfect pictures of children. People have the right to desire a higher success rate with pictures and purchase the appropriate camera and lenses to ensure that.

Stigg said:
In any case, whatever the subject may be, lazy photographers will demand a machine or device to take up the slack. Those that are willing to work to obtain the results they want will find that Pentax AF is almost ideal.

I bet people using manual lenses must be the most hard working photographers and everyone else using AF must be lazy from their perspective? Technology is there to be used--for a price though. Blaming the technological advancement makes no sense at all. We don't pick fruits to eat breakfast or hunt animals to eat dinner anymore, but that doesn't make us lazy. Some people still do that and most of them are either homeless, hippies, zealot environmentalists, or a combination of all three.

Kind regards,

Massao

Model Mike · Jun 14, 2019

Sadly I can't agree that Pentax AF is any good at all compared with modern competition.

How do I know? Well after 17 years of shooting the same landscape in Spain, I left my K-70 behind this year. Instead, I took a Panasonic G9 and four lenses. Because the landscape hasn't changed, comparisons have been easy. And it's clear I made the right choice.

Not only is the AF an order of magnitude better with the G9, but the overall IQ in is better thanks to the very nice Panasonic Leica 12-60. For landscapes in good light the quality from the 20MP sensor is very good indeed and the higher DoF is actually a benefit. And this is primarily what I'm using the G9 for.

I shoot raw and process in LR 6. I'm currently printing the images to A3 size and am excited by the results. The icing on the cake is that the Panasonic G9 accepts the L190 batteries from my K-5 Super.

I had a K-01 until I got rid of it recently (in part-exchange for the G9). Yes the AF was accurate as one might expect from a contrast detect system. But the focusing was ridiculously slow and it wasn't a practical proposition without an EVF.

--
Mike
http://flickr.com/photos/rc-soar

Massao · Jun 14, 2019

Model Mike said:
Sadly I can't agree that Pentax AF is any good at all compared with modern competition.

How do I know? Well after 17 years of shooting the same landscape in Spain, I left my K-70 behind this year. Instead, I took a Panasonic G9 and four lenses. Because the landscape hasn't changed, comparisons have been easy. And it's clear I made the right choice.

Not only is the AF an order of magnitude better with the G9, but the overall IQ in is better thanks to the very nice Panasonic Leica 12-60. For landscapes in good light the quality from the 20MP sensor is very good indeed and the higher DoF is actually a benefit. And this is primarily what I'm using the G9 for.

I shoot raw and process in LR 6. I'm currently printing the images to A3 size and am excited by the results. The icing on the cake is that the Panasonic G9 accepts the L190 batteries from my K-5 Super.

I had a K-01 until I got rid of it recently (in part-exchange for the G9). Yes the AF was accurate as one might expect from a contrast detect system. But the focusing was ridiculously slow and it wasn't a practical proposition without an EVF.

Model Mike · Jun 15, 2019

Massao said:
While I do agree that Pentax's AF is behind virtually all competitors; still its likely (not sure) that k70's sensor is better than G9's. Nonetheless the difference in image quality might not be huge.

I do agree the K-70 sensor is better, however it's just one element in the pipeline. My experience with my two MFT lenses has been very positive, particularly the Leica 12-60. I find I can shoot wide open and the results are consistent from edge to edge. Also the results only have to be good enough for their intended purpose - I don't print larger than A3.

Massao said:
I'm more surprised that you bought a smaller sensor system for landscape photography and that too because of AF speed. What kind of landscape photography requires fast AF? Was "weight" a concern in all the decision making?

The two main drivers were better AF performance and reduced size/weight for a 1- or 2-lens kit when shooting out in the hills.

Pentax K-70 + 16-85 + 55-300 = 1618 g
Panasonic G9 + Leica 12-60 + Pana 45-175 = 1188 g

Here are a couple of examples where the AF of the G9 comes in handy. The camera is set to continuous AF with a set of custom AF points which cover the the model as it approaches the camera. To shoot this with the K-70 reliably would be next to impossible - I'd have to resort to pre-focusing with a small aperture and high ISO, and even then the hit rate would be low. With the G9 it's click click click and it's in the bag.

Here are a couple of landscape images shot with the G9, processed in LR 6. I've uploaded them at full resolution, so zooming in to 100% should show the detail available.

All in all, I'm pretty happy with the G9. Nothing is perfect - it can't quit match the simplicity of the Pentax user interface, or that sensor. However it's a very capable camera which is fun to use and provides consistently good results.

--
Mike
http://flickr.com/photos/rc-soar

robbo d · Jun 15, 2019

You seem to be fixated on Pentax being such a great AF system for people who like to engage their photography actively ..... maybe by pursuing their subjects .... getting closer ... spending more time at their computers to find that one in 20 images that might have worked? ........ being able to pat themselves on the back that they created such a wonderful image with a Pentax that all other photographers have become a lazy and succumbed to technology that has turned them into non-creative drones of the 21st century .......... ?????

I too began with a fully manual SLR (Praktika), I then used Pentax for a decade, beginning with the Kx for low light shooting reasons where AF was not in issue., before shooting weddings with K5iis, k3 and k1 ending with the k1 and the latest D FA 70-200 f2.8.

Have i taken action images with Pentax ? yes I have .... have they been good? some of them are ...... motocross and car racing is child's play, as is all sports where the action is at one point or on a parallel plane. Shooting birds on a branch or in parrallel flight is simple.

Children, pets and even wedding action, where subjects are making unexpected movements or heading straight towards the camera is somewhere that Pentax AF struggles BIG TIME.

This does not mean that Pentax is any more ideal for people who actively engage their subjects, because I can turn 3D tracking off (as best I can) .... or even shoot MF in my Nikon D800 (5 year old model) and still actively engage my subject and pat myself on the back that i'm not ... one of those lazy photographers....

Therefore Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Fuji and Sony are just as capable of being used by people who want to actively engage their subject, as you put it.

It means that Pentax IS behind the competition for AF technology .... for whatever reason .... .

The K1 and D FA 70-200 f2.8 was ' the last straw for me' where I was hoping this combo would leave me satisfied enough that I could remain with the brand. NO, even the latest pro quality lens is slow by competition standards and the combo could not keep up with bridesmaids walking directly towards me up the church aisle, where I wanted to shoot at a wider aperture to stay in focus and keep good image quality with a higher shutter speed.

I had about 2 very average images amongst 20 for the bride and bridesmaids shot at f4. A bad result and hence my brand change. Most other images were fine, but I felt with a fairly fast paced environment of modern wedding photography where one shoots quickly for candid moments, that ensuring the focus points are close enough for my Pentax was draining the creativity that I am now afforded with my Nikon, where I can look for instants of time and feel confident that I have nailed the image.

Back in the good old days of film and manual focus, the style was much more based around subject posing or remaining still. This doesn't suit my nor many other photographers who can now shoot in a journalistic/candid manner.

The K-01 IS very slow .... it produced nice images and i'm sure it focus' better than what you were lead to believe .... which in 'forum speak' was probably some form of impossibility.

If you want to make an art of using it for some form of action photography where you feel engaged, then all credit too you, but that doesn't make me or any other photographer "lazy".

Trying to tell us that the K-01 is better at AF than even a recent model Canon rebel or Nikon D3200 or a Sony a6000 is stretching the imagination very much.

As has been said, we are now pushing the envelope of what was previously impossible and making what was previously possible seem commonplace.

The images I am seeing from everyday photographers on instagram are stunning. The images I am seeing from skilled photographers is .....other worldy.

Something you may not be aware of; is that with higher megapixel counts, the camera's need faster shutter speeds to cope with the pixel density. I noticed that by going from 12mp to 16mp and then to 24mp crop sensors that I needed faster shutter speeds to keep up with action. Faster shutter speeds need wider apertures to provide the same light , that or higher iso ..... modern camera systems and lenses are making their centre sharpness max out at about f4 nowadays where in film days it was more common when stopped down. This means super sharp images at f2.8 or f4, which gives more light, faster shutter speeds to cope with high pixel density keeping iso down and resulting in insane image detail. Therefore depth of field is reduced and requires much more accurate AF systems.

Your making very generalist comments based on film days and a K-01. And whilst some of us, including myself agree that modern cameras are making image taking more easy for the "unskilled" photographer, we are pushing the boundaries moreso because of that technology, where non-lazy photographers are using incredible skill sets and technology to capture and create amazing images.

Non of this means that Pentax nor the K-01 are bad or impossible to work with. It means one has to work extra hard to make it work and most likely miss good shots because the AF was not good enough. Going through 20 images to find one decent is annoying for me.

If I can trust my (now older) D800 to come up with the goods while I concentrate on moments and creativity .......... am I lazy ? I think not.

starbase218 · Jun 15, 2019

If you are happy with your camera and lens, that’s great. But I personally can’t really take your claims seriously.

Pentax AF

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts