[jcdoss]

Didn't Sony have that years ago in he Alpha 900 already?

Apparently, they did! It would still be killer. The lack of SR in the Sony A7/R is about the only thing keeping me from going after one.

[Franc]

We also see someone that isn't familiar enough with Pentax to understand that every camera for 3 years now has had major improvements to it's AF system. And quite simply, those of us with the cameras don't know where we are. We know the camera is a lot better. But we aren't in a position to say where it is compared to Nikon and Canon, except for one test against the D7100 which was pretty much a draw.

totally agree with your post.
Haven't seen yet a review where they use the same lens on a pentax and a canikon. Use a pentax lens and you have a longer throw then another lens. So its still apples and pears.I have a higher success rate with a k7 then a k5 , so i can't wait to have the k3 (beginning next year along with the 20-40)

[philbaum]

Ok, this is what gets me, recently one of the review magazines posted their numbers, wherein the K-3 had faster AF than the Nikon D7100 and was very close to it in tracking. So, one has to ask, where is this coming from? Like , in what generation of cameras was Pentax AF inferior. In what price range is K-3 AF inferior to Canon or Nikon? Or is it at all? Ricoh/Pentax made a commitment to improving AF on Pentax systems and the first link in that was the K-30. We've now been the through the 3 years of constant AF improvement. On the forum, this has been analyzed to death. We've also seen studies where it was suggested that Pentax had a higher keeper rate than any other maker on stationary objects.

Well said Normhead. K3 is a well thought out camera, and as Thom Hogan pointed out - its the D400 that Nikon should have built. And noone but K3 has switchable AA filter, at any price. Ricoh - has a nice sound to it :-)

[Mistral75]

Apparently, they did! It would still be killer. The lack of SR in the Sony A7/R is about the only thing keeping me from going after one.

They still do with Alpha 99.

[Mistral75]

Err...do you remember how Danton finished his life ?

French politicians in the '90s (1790s ) were like SLR manufacturers in the '80s: many disappeared prematurely .

[Rondec]

I think pentax does have a competitor for the D800e, it's called the 645D. IMO I think if pentax could come out with a successor with minimal updates (figure a shutter that lasts 100,000 clicks instead of 50k being high on the list) and sell it for a competitive 4-5 grand -and it needs to be that low to compete with the D800/D800e- they could make much more in the development of glass, something Pentax is excellent at. Skip full frame completely and give me an affordable successor to the 645D and I'll sell my canon kit and motorcycle to afford it. Priced over 5 grand and it makes more sense to go with the much more versatile D800.

I don't know. The issue with the 645D as a competitor for the D800 is that most of lenses that are currently available for its mount are pretty expensive. As in a lot more than most full frame lenses.

[ElJamoquio]

I don't know. The issue with the 645D as a competitor for the D800 is that most of lenses that are currently available for its mount are pretty expensive. As in a lot more than most full frame lenses.

There's a couple of drawbacks:

1) Cost of lenses
2) Size of system
3) Price of body
4) Likely A/F

That said I'd still like a 645D. It's just tough to justify $20k when you can spend $8k. You lose some sharpness, absolutely. Some color, probably. Yet another case of diminishing returns...

---

Last edited by ElJamoquio; 12-24-2013 at 01:34 PM.

[dosdan]

The issue with the 645D as a competitor for the D800 is that most of lenses that are currently available for its mount are pretty expensive.

Don't know about other MF cameras, but I doubt the 645D would work at all for sports: K-5 era AF; the AF array only covers a small area of the MF frame; lack of long enough lenses; smaller DOF issues; not optimised for high ISO work; slow shot rate.

I think the D800/E would be suitable for sports, landscape & perhaps even product and fashion photography.

Dan.

[RobA_Oz]

Great art demands great suffering…

On the other hand, I look at the gear that people here have bought over the past few years (me included) and I see the price of a 645D and a few decent lenses (maybe not new ones) in the signatures. There's obviously a business case to be made for the investment, especially if you make your living from photography, but longevity is a factor in investment decisions that few people make who aren't commercially minded. You're much more likely to keep a 645D for longer than a D800, simply because Nikon will soon be marketing its successor to you, and you'll probably buy it.

[Rondec]

Great art demands great suffering…

On the other hand, I look at the gear that people here have bought over the past few years (me included) and I see the price of a 645D and a few decent lenses (maybe not new ones) in the signatures. There's obviously a business case to be made for the investment, especially if you make your living from photography, but longevity is a factor in investment decisions that few people make who aren't commercially minded. You're much more likely to keep a 645D for longer than a D800, simply because Nikon will soon be marketing its successor to you, and you'll probably buy it.

Honestly, I don't shoot sports or, fashion, just mostly landscape and I think a 645D and a couple of lenses would work well for my style of shooting. But even with price drops, it is still awfully expensive.

[RobA_Oz]

Honestly, I don't shoot sports or, fashion, just mostly landscape and I think a 645D and a couple of lenses would work well for my style of shooting. But even with price drops, it is still awfully expensive.

It's a lot of money for most people, when you think about it in terms of other life purchases, but such is the cost of anything that you value highly and intend to keep for a long time. Many people change their cars every three years or so, at much greater cost. Many people here buy the latest camera body (or in some cases, bodies) whenever it is released. The point I was making was that the bigger the investment (generally speaking) the longer the replacement cycle time. If you annualise the costs of upgrading equipment, you may be surprised at how well buying a more expensive but longer-lasting item can compare with buying less expensive but shorter-lived ones, but you have to do the calculations to know which finishes up the more expensive. So-called short-termism is a plague visited on us by consumer fashion and get-rich-and-get-out company CEOs.

[Uluru]

...

So, even when Pentax was the slowest, it was still better in some ways than it's competition. So the long time posters, with thousands of posts have been through all this. have seen the current numbers, and have been dealing with the "pentax needs to improve it's AF for years." The Nikon/Canon speed was paid for with less accuracy. Yet no one repeats over and over, "Nikon and Canon need to improve their focusing accuracy." So what long time Pentaxians see, in a criticism like "Pentax needs to improve it's AF and SDM" is Canon and Nikon marketing hype. And when someone with 5 posts comes on a dwells on those issues, we are suspicious, one because there are folks who make their living selling Canon and Nikon gear who come on and make exactly that type of post....

I totally agree with you and it is infuriating.

1. Starting from PF's own review, when in their K-3 "test", they disregard comparison with the D7100 on the same grounds, but compete keepers in comparison with the D610, and then state "K-3's AF is still behind the best". Their review shows total incompetence and lack of basic camera understanding, firstly by comparing apples and oranges, and then secondly by totally disregarding inherent advantage of the FF camera in keepers score, due to its DoF advantage.

2. The Camera Store reviews the K-3, and in otherwise excellent review, they say "It seems D7100 locks faster on quick change between distances'. Argh! But does't it focuses accurately!?! No one asks that nor spends hours to verify! To them, as long as "the beep" appears to come faster, a hidden assumption creeps in that "the whole AF system must be better". Totally bogus.

3. DPR's first impressions of the K-3, same fallacy repeated: a subjective feeling about how fast the AF should be, and the beep doesn't come as fast as "it should". But again, no one tests it through by making some 1,000 shots, to ascertain how statistically relevant or irrelevant is a beep in terms of acquiring a well focused photograph!

On the other hand, a study done by Panasonic (!) which was used in their advertising, showed that K5 (or K5II) has a better keepers rate than D7000 (D7100).

My conclusion is that the only problem Pentax has is not having a damn FF camera with exactly the same AF system, and it would then appear as a perfect match to both Nikon and Canon in keepers rate, maybe even better.

Most impressions that build into Canon's or Nikon's "superior AF performance" idea are based on results when using their FF bodies with ultrafast motorised lenses, because the FF by default has lots of advantages in acquiring a well focused photograph over the APS-C format. And then when the same AF system is just put into the D7000/71000, they are presumed to be "as good as their FF siblings", which means, "better than Pentax".

It is a whole domino effects of hidden, and totally wrong assumptions.

But no one spends any quality time to go on and analyse this new SAFOX X1 AF system from Pentax, which with its 25 cross type sensors is simply ingenious and perfectly made for an APS-C system.

[normhead]

There's a couple of drawbacks:

1) Cost of lenses
2) Size of system
3) Price of body
4) Likely A/F

That said I'd still like a 645D. It's just tough to justify $20k when you can spend $8k. You lose some sharpness, absolutely. Some color, probably. Yet another case of diminishing returns...

Ya no kidding, my dream Nikon system would be more like 12 K with tax. But I want the 645 D for landscape and I've picked up a couple of manual 645 lenses, so if I ever see a 645D for around 5k, now I'm ahead of my cheapest D800 cost. I got a 645 and two lenses for $500. If those lenses ever get onto a 645D, they'll be the steal of the century.

[ElJamoquio]

Ya no kidding, my dream Nikon system would be more like 12 K with tax. But I want the 645 D for landscape and I've picked up a couple of manual 645 lenses, so if I ever see a 645D for around 5k, now I'm ahead of my cheapest D800 cost. I got a 645 and two lenses for $500. If those lenses ever get onto a 645D, they'll be the steal of the century.

If the 645DII is a larger sensor (approaching FF 645) then I'll start looking for lenses, maybe purchase a used 645D.

[jon404]

M made interesting comments re their desire for best image quality -- color and 'tenderness -- vs a FF race per se. If I were Pentax, would want to get my weather-sealed APS-C cameras used by pros and get their testimonials.

My background is in the ad agency business. For so many images, you just don't need FF or medium format -- exception being double-page ads perhaps. As a creative director, I wanted compelling images first and foremost. Images that told a story. Images that sold the product. Against that, maximum image quality was nice if you could get it but not essential.

Would also get the US Army or Marines to formally take a few into Afghanistan next year, before we leave. Combat photographer's choice. Tough enough for the mud, grit, and dust outside Kandahar? You bet, so get one for those ad product shots of snowmobiles, ski equipment, etc.

Repeated testimonials from pros will drive the advanced-amateur market better than anything -- would you agree?

P.S. -- Merry Christmas, everybody!