[DogLover]

You think Canon is a "primarily photo oriented company"? Out of the three dslr makers with the largest market share, only one is primarily a photo company.

Read more carefully. I said they were "known" to be primarily a photo company. Ask the average consumer what Canon is known for and get back to me.

[fs999]

There is no doubt that Sigma HSM lenses focus faster than SDM lenses.

My only lens which is hunting in low light is the 150-500mm HSM !

I have, and so I do. Claiming that valid criticism of your favored system must be based on ignorance just because it is critical of your favorite system is the sign of a fanboy, not an objective observer.

And your are the only one here who is an objective observer and know everything...

[rparmar]

Once again this conversation has degenerated in the usual way. Here's my take.

Want accurate AF for 99% of applications? Pentax is perfectly fine.

Want excellent AF for sports? Get Canon or Nikon.

Want to buy a camera with good quality control? Buy a Leica.

In any case, get the correct camera for your needs and stop the ridiculous bitching. It's one thing to offer useful critical commentary and other to simply rehash the same old rubbish. Me, I couldn't care less about AF. Vivitar, Tak, Zeiss and Leica lenses won't autofocus no matter what body I put them on.

[Balog]

Read more carefully. I said they were "known" to be primarily a photo company. Ask the average consumer what Canon is known for and get back to me.

I'd imagine they'd say copiers or calculators, but the hypothetical knowledge of a hypothetical "average" person is hardly relevant, now is it?

And your are the only one here who is an objective observer and know everything...

No, but I do know what my camera and my lenses do, so being told "Nope, those problems don't exist! Anyone who says they do must just be ignorant and parroting second hand disinformation!" is annoying. Perhaps you don't use your camera in such a way that you have issues, or you just don't have experience with the alternatives to know that there is something better out there, or you are simply such a fanboy that you manage to ignore any data that disagrees with your pre-conceived notions.

Regardless, I have personally experienced the difference between the AF systems on the K5 and D7000 with similar lenses in identical situations, and I can attest that the K5 is objectively worse in every measureable area one could judge an AF system on. It's certainly better than the K20d I had previously, and whether it's "good" or "good enough" or even "bad" is entirely subjective. But what is not open to serious argument is whether it is better than it's direct Nikon competitor (which at least at the time we bought ours was actually cheaper than the K5).

Want perfectly decent AF for 99% of applications? Pentax is perfectly fine.

If you accept crappy AF because "We'll, it's usually good enough" then Pentax has no real incentive to make things better, do they? There is no reason to accept (comparatively) poor performance with a little shrug. If Pentax wants to expand their marketshare, they shouldn't just ignore a legitimate concern for a significant number of consumers.

[DogLover]

I'd imagine they'd say copiers or calculators, but the hypothetical knowledge of a hypothetical "average" person is hardly relevant, now is it?

Well, it would take some imagination to think that. And it is relevant in that it's what I said, not what you misinterpreted.

[DogLover]

No, but I do know what my camera and my lenses do, so being told "Nope, those problems don't exist! Anyone who says they do must just be ignorant and parroting second hand disinformation!" is annoying. Perhaps you don't use your camera in such a way that you have issues, or you just don't have experience with the alternatives to know that there is something better out there, or you are simply such a fanboy that you manage to ignore any data that disagrees with your pre-conceived notions.

Regardless, I have personally experienced the difference between the AF systems on the K5 and D7000 with similar lenses in identical situations, and I can attest that the K5 is objectively worse in every measureable area one could judge an AF system on. It's certainly better than the K20d I had previously, and whether it's "good" or "good enough" or even "bad" is entirely subjective. But what is not open to serious argument is whether it is better than it's direct Nikon competitor (which at least at the time we bought ours was actually cheaper than the K5).

If you accept crappy AF because "We'll, it's usually good enough" then Pentax has no real incentive to make things better, do they? There is no reason to accept (comparatively) poor performance with a little shrug. If Pentax wants to expand their marketshare, they shouldn't just ignore a legitimate concern for a significant number of consumers.

If AF is such a high-priority for you, why on earth do you shoot Pentax? Granted, faster is always better (as long as accuracy is not sacrificed), and I'll welcome any improvements they make going forward, but who anyone who craves state-of-the-art AF and chose Pentax should maybe have their head examined.

[uccemebug]

here's a link to the article, didn't tell me anything i didn't see or suspect already (Quite a number of people I knew at Sony left the company for other companies in the last 10 years) Has Sony?s makeover failed? - thestar.com

Brutal. But you know, I've read very similar descriptions of several Japanese firms over the past few years. Including Toyota, of course. One change that's come in in the past couple of years is a strong willingness to bring new blood in from outside the country at even junior levels.

Sony is a disaster as a company right now

My biggest complaint with them is their willingness to savage their own product lines for no seeming reason. Long before the MP3 players were obsoleting the MD, Sony was actively destroying the platform by shutting out third party manufacturers and implementing firmware DRM. I had made hundreds of MD's and was unable to use any when my player packed it in. Thanks, Sony!

(P.S. They're also aware that the site exists. I occasionally pass useful threads on to a friend who works in their camera unit.)

[Balog]

Well, it would take some imagination to think that. And it is relevant in that it's what I said, not what you misinterpreted.

I refuse to have a debate about the imaginary perceptions of a hypothetical average person.

If AF is such a high-priority for you, why on earth do you shoot Pentax? Granted, faster is always better (as long as accuracy is not sacrificed), and I'll welcome any improvements they make going forward, but who anyone who craves state-of-the-art AF and chose Pentax should maybe have their head examined.

It's not the highest priority for me. If it was, I would indeed have went Nikon or Canon. However, saying it is not my first or most important concern is not the same as saying it is utterly irrelevant either. I'm frustrated by the number of people so desperate to defend their brand that they attempt to refute or diminish any criticism of it. Pointing out a flaw and saying we should not settle for less is how improvements are made.

Even if AF performance is not a top priority for you, please give me one good reason why we should merely accept that Pentax has a vastly inferior system? Why should we not want better? What is the harm in not accepting mediocrity? If you're paying $13-1400 for a camera, why should it not be the best it can be in every way?

[Winder]

Regardless of Sony's other issues. They are making great sensors which is putting pressure on Canon and everyone else. The SLT technology is interesting and will give them a cost advantage over OVF. When the SLT technology matures (and it will) it could be very attractive. The NEX system has a lot of potential. A "Pro" version of the NEX system (think GH1/GH2) could be very competitive with some well designed CZ glass. OVF is still king, but EVF is going to catch it eventually.

The K-5 and its successor is going to have a lot of competition from a lot of different angles. I hope Pentax has a few surprises left. Samsung's new voice coil AF system is pretty neat, fast and silent. Let's see some innovation out of Pentax.

[DogLover]

I refuse to have a debate about the imaginary perceptions of a hypothetical average person.

Dude, you misinterpreted my post and I corrected you on it. That's it. Move on.

[twitch]

I for one hope Sony's DSLRs keep doing well so they keep cranking out those amazing sensors. I'm looking forward to seeing what the 77 is capable of when it's released in July with it's 24MP APS-C sensor, the one I'd imagine the K-3 will have when released next year.

[DogLover]

I for one hope Sony's DSLRs keep doing well so they keep cranking out those amazing sensors. I'm looking forward to seeing what the 77 is capable of when it's released in July with it's 24MP APS-C sensor, the one I'd imagine the K-3 will have when released next year.

Agreed.

[garyk]

Actually I will never leave Pentax. I love the quality of the pics. The colors are the best in the industry for my type of shooting. AF is limited no dout. With the next camera i hope to see better AF. You can do it Pentax..
I have to have better AF, but it is funny. I am really pulling for Pentax. Even when i change to Canon I will never leave Pentax. I have no earthly idea why??? But i get a kick out of rooting for the underdog.

[JHD]

There is no doubt that Sigma HSM lenses focus faster than SDM lenses.

That is an understatement! HSM vastly superior to SDM.

[Class A]

But I cannot let say the K-5 has a poor AF. Comparing a 1000 € camera with a 2000 € camera is not fair too.

The € and US$ prices for the K-5 and Canon 7D are not the far from each other. For instance on amazon.de: K-5 = € 1149, 7D = € 1461.

I used the DA* 50-135mm and the focus was fast and accurate.

I'm glad for you that the lens is fast enough for you, but in absolute terms that lens is known to have slow AF. The K-5's AF is quicker than that.

I'm convinced that this is more an example of poor Pentax QC. Falk's study evaluated just one camera as I recall.

But he only started the study after many users complained about the K-5's low-light AF.
Even after the study and the new firmware more than just one user complained about AF inconsistency in certain conditions.

It would be nice if one could reduce all K-5 AF problems to bad copies, but I'm afraid it is not that simple.

Want accurate AF for 99% of applications? Pentax is perfectly fine.

Want adequate photos for 99% of all applications? The cheapest Sony Cybershot is perfectly fine.

Who defines what "99% of all applications" are? If I shell out >$1000 for a camera, I should be excused for having expectations towards its performance. I might also be excused for having applications for it that go beyond the "99% of all applications of all shooters". Why would I need fast lenses and high ISO performance if I didn't want to get good results in restaurant light? And apparently it escaped you that people had/(have?!) problems in studio light? Can they use MF? Of course they can. Should they be forced to with a >$1000 DSLR? Not in my book.

In any case, get the correct camera for your needs and stop the ridiculous bitching.

Pardon me?
What if people believe the K-5 is the best choice overall but take issue with its AF? What if people want to use Pentax lenses and need a Pentax camera to do so? Are you telling all of them they should switch brands? You cannot be serious.