Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 6, 2006, 3:20 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 546
Default

I plan to buy a K100D in the very near future, but now I'm getting nervous. I keep reading reviews that are saying how poor the K100D will be at sports photography. One reviewer states that he wouldn't recommend it for action shots because it has a small buffer for continuos shooting. Another reviewer says that he doesn't think the camera is capable of focusing fast enough for sports. I'm not planning on trying to get a job with Sports Illustrated with this camera, but I do plan to photograph my son's football games. I have a 3 year old Minolta Dimage Z1 that actually does pretty darned well at getting some good sports shots. I can't believe that a true DSLR like the K100D wouldn't be able to do at least as well! Am I going to regret my purchase?
gadgetnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 6, 2006, 3:51 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
jabilson007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 182
Default

I think in comparison to the other big two companies Pentax is not as suitable for sports photography. In my opinion the autofocus system(speed) in the pentax cameras is severly behind all other dslr makes. I have tested them all. In low light situations it is worse.Recently I have seen some race car photos that came out nice and if you manually focus on an area you could get good shots and the continuous is not that bad a 2.8 fps. I was able to achieve this with manual focus only, if trying to use continuous focus it will be hit or miss.You will have to try it for yourself and see. I suggest purchasing it at a store that allows returns. Except for fast moving subjects, the Pentax cameras take excellent photos as you can see in this forum.Jon
jabilson007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2006, 4:12 PM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 79
Default

Yes, it is very slow in low light situation. However, in bright scene, the AF speed is on par with Nikon or Canon from the certified test results I saw so far. Continuous shot is another story. The buffer is rather small but for a few burst shots, it is as fast as others in its peers as well. Of course, the lens plays a big role in AF speed as well.

If you need better speed, you will need to spend $$ for something like Canon 1D or 5D.
Foxbat121 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2006, 4:15 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 20
Default

jabilson007 wrote:
Quote:
I think in comparison to the other big two companies Pentax is not as suitable for sports photography. In my opinion the autofocus system(speed) in the pentax cameras is severly behind all other dslr makes. I have tested them all. In low light situations it is worse.Recently I have seen some race car photos that came out nice and if you manually focus on an area you could get good shots and the continuous is not that bad a 2.8 fps. I was able to achieve this with manual focus only, if trying to use continuous focus it will be hit or miss.You will have to try it for yourself and see. I suggest purchasing it at a store that allows returns. Except for fast moving subjects, the Pentax cameras take excellent photos as you can see in this forum.Jon
Could you name how many times Pentax is slower in focusing using subjects in AF-C mode? (From your experience). I would be most grateful :}
Verloc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2006, 4:19 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 546
Default

Thanks. I guess what I'm trying to figure out is if it is going to be unsuitable to me. I realize that the people who are doing these reviews are used to $2000+ DSLRs. I don't expect the K100D to compare to those, but I certainly want it to out perform my $200 P&S Minolta. I figured that if I can get decent sport shots from a fixed-lens P&S, then I should be able to do even better with a DSLR...even an entry level model. I'm just really concerned that I'll be dissapointed now.
gadgetnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2006, 4:21 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 1,868
Default

Valid concerns. At the end of the day, despite brand loyalty, a camera is a tool. It is designed to capture an image. For landscape that doesn't move, a slow camera (even a 10x8 plate) is ideal. For fast action, fast lenses and camera are required, and IMO the Pentax does not cut it. BUT although other brands may be marginally better, better still would be a film camera with fast motordrive - 36 exp in 18secs. Choose your tool to suit the job and you won't be disappointed.

Me, I do allsorts photography - landscapes, wildlife, portrait, macro - so I chose a camera to suit. Not too expensive (wanted to add a few lenses and a flashgun) and suitable for all general purpose pictures.



For me, Pentax is the brand that fits the above. (By the way, I have spent around £1,000 since June this year on DL2 body, flash, and assorted lenses and bags).



Darren
Dal1970 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2006, 4:39 PM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 79
Default

For those care about the actual AF numbers, here is what I remembered from certified test of Samsung GX-1S (Pentax DS2 clone) and Canon 30D from Pop Photo:

Pentax: from less than 0.5 second in good lighting to more than 2 seconds in low light.

Canon: around 0.5 second through out the different lighting conditions.



Other stuff to consider: 100D has 11 AF points, 9 of them are cross type. All others only have one cross type in the center and rest are linear type. Cross type AF sensors are more accurate to different texture alignments in the scene. Also, due to the lack or in-lens AF motor for Pentax lens, Pentax uses closed-loop AF mechanism which the camera has to re-check the AF status after re-focus the lens. It is more accurate but slower process. Others use open-loop AF mechanism where camera caculates how much the lens needs to move based on initial assesment and never re-check the AF status again. This is obviously faster and as long as lens are calibrated correctly, the AF target generally will fall into DOF range for acceptable AF accuracy but not as accurate as Pentax.
Foxbat121 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2006, 6:13 PM   #8
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Hastings UK
Posts: 70
Default

Well I have absolutely no idea about numbers, statistics reviews or anything else. I do however have a dl2 (which doesn't have the shake reduction of the k100d), and a 50 200 mm kit lens (well it was part of the kit over here in the UK.)

To the best of my knowledge Greyhounds are prettty much the fastest land mamal other than a jaguar so I guess that the photo I posted to another topic the other day (98...99...100..coming!!) would class as sports photography of a sort. Certainly it was taken using continuous shooting mode and with auto focus. IMHO that = sports photgraphy as per the definitions that are being used here to judge Pentax cameras in general. Did every shot from that session come out, No, but does every shot from a professional come out?No idea, I obviously only get to see the good ones.

I would guess that with a good fast lens and decent light sports photos (from an amateur point of view like mine) will be every bit as good as those from comprable Nikon or Cannon models.

Dom
dms25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2006, 6:26 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 1,868
Default

For sports photography, I don't think it is just the autofocus speed which counts, as this can be sorted out by either a very fast lens or manual focus (much quicker if you practise), but also the buffer for taking a continuous number of shots. On the DL2, it isabout 3 per second for 3 RAWor 5jpeg - not exactly fast for something like football.



Darren
Dal1970 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2006, 6:44 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Black Knight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Oxford, CT
Posts: 1,309
Default

DMS I agree
I shoot a lot of auto racing and I really have no Issues Either. Yes, the buffer is Small and in low light its harder for the Camera to Focus, but only marginally. IMHO-- The Pentax is head and Shoulders above any P & S

Just My .02

BK


dms25 wrote:
Quote:
Well I have absolutely no idea about numbers, statistics reviews or anything else. I do however have a dl2 (which doesn't have the shake reduction of the k100d), and a 50 200 mm kit lens (well it was part of the kit over here in the UK.)

To the best of my knowledge Greyhounds are prettty much the fastest land mamal other than a jaguar so I guess that the photo I posted to another topic the other day (98...99...100..coming!!) would class as sports photography of a sort. Certainly it was taken using continuous shooting mode and with auto focus. IMHO that = sports photgraphy as per the definitions that are being used here to judge Pentax cameras in general. Did every shot from that session come out, No, but does every shot from a professional come out?No idea, I obviously only get to see the good ones.

I would guess that with a good fast lens and decent light sports photos (from an amateur point of view like mine) will be every bit as good as those from comprable Nikon or Cannon models.

Dom
Black Knight is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:02 AM.