[Uluru]

A6000 autofocus looks impressive on paper, but in reality, it's missing around 80% of action shots.
Maybe I am more familiar with K5 but I have similar results with it's continous autofocus (using af back button).
The only real advantage of A6000 is more fps so it definitely have more successfull action shots per second than k5.

Well, time today brings in so many cameras, and at such a fast rate, and we tend to change them so quickly that we forget how to use photographic tools. If the insane continuous shooting mode is the way to obtain a well focused photograph, then as a species we have gone back several millennia.
We became believers in what papers say, and have thrown our own experience through the airlock.

[ElJamoquio]

If the insane continuous shooting mode is the way to obtain a well focused photograph, then as a species we have gone back several millennia.

Several millenia? AF-C was terrible back in the day, which is why you never see any pictures of the aliens that built the pyramids. I assure you that current autofocus systems outperform those hieroglyph+papyrus based systems.

[Wired]

Well, time today brings in so many cameras, and at such a fast rate, and we tend to change them so quickly that we forget how to use photographic tools. If the insane continuous shooting mode is the way to obtain a well focused photograph, then as a species we have gone back several millennia.
We became believers in what papers say, and have thrown our own experience through the airlock.

This is why even though Jared Polin can be a complete tool, he actually does spout useful advice, like learning how to anticipate the moment. he runs a D4s but doens't take advantage of the high shutter speed.

Something I learned running a D800 at weddings and live music shows is anticipating the moment. I don't got the buffer size or the shutter speed to spray and pray. I also don't got the memory cards or hard drive space to sit there and go go go. Stupid camera is almost like shooting film with the size of those files, but I digress.

It seems things like this are lost on the current generation of young photographers. Everyone needs to at least once a week every few months turn around and just shoot film. You can get a K1000 with an 50mm f2.0 on Kijiji almost anytime of year for $50, buy it, throw the digital in your closet, go out and get back to basics. It's amazing how much I my photography improves when I give myself an analog reminder.

[ruggiex]

I don't even know where to start understanding how the conversation went from MILC AF is overhyped to K-5 can't compete with A7 to K-3's center AF is similar size as K-5 to K-3 is smaller than K-5 but inferior to Nikon...

[stevebrot]

Wouldn't a hipster likely prefer a K1000? Or is "hipster" becoming something else?

Both are equally effective as hip items and rank right up there with tube nose piercings.


Steve

---------- Post added 08-22-14 at 04:10 PM ----------

K-S1 looks to be more focused on fun and ease of use. It might actually be Ricoh/Pentax version of a digital K1000 that many have asked for.

A K1000 was and is not particularly easy to use. Straightforward...yes. Easy...no.

I would consider the K-S1 to be the digital successor to this worthy item from the past. They even sport a similar look.




Steve

[Wired]

I don't even know where to start understanding how the conversation went from MILC AF is overhyped to K-5 can't compete with A7 to K-3's center AF is similar size as K-5 to K-3 is smaller than K-5 but inferior to Nikon...

Every camera has it's role, and people often forget that there is not one great camera that will solve everyones problems. You can find fault in every device be it a camera or a car, what works for someone wont work for someone else.

This is why I have a D800, K3, and K5. I use them all regularly, and love them all in different ways. One is not superior to the other in my opinion, they are all just better at different things.

[stevebrot]

I don't even know where to start understanding how the conversation went from MILC AF is overhyped to K-5 can't compete with A7 to K-3's center AF is similar size as K-5 to K-3 is smaller than K-5 but inferior to Nikon...

It is the Pentax Forums way...without drift there no certainty of direction...


Steve

(...or something mystical like that...)

[Wired]

Both are equally effective as hip items and rank right up there with tube nose piercings.


Steve

---------- Post added 08-22-14 at 04:10 PM ----------



A K1000 was and is not particularly easy to use. Straightforward...yes. Easy...no.

I would consider the K-S1 to be the digital successor to this worthy item from the past. They even sport a similar look.




Steve

what is this pretty camera, and how do I get one without my wife smacking me over the head with it?!

[Tesla]

Pentax A3000. My mother use to have one, but I like the K1000 SE or the ME Super better. So when will they leak the photos of the new FF?

[rawr]

No the center point is much smaller with K-3, one of the reasons I upgraded from K-5.

I don't know about 'smaller', but the K-3 certainly has a greater AF 'point' density than the K-5: 27 'points' overall vs 11, more cross-type AF 'points' (25 vs 9), and the three K-3 centre 'points' are particularly sensitive.



It does seem to make a difference. Behind the scenes I think the K-3 AF also makes use of more data from the metering sensor than the K-5 did. Some of the K-3 AF.C algorithms also are more evolved.

[stevebrot]

what is this pretty camera, and how do I get one without my wife smacking me over the head with it?!

You might be able to get one on eBay. There are not many survivors though. My understanding is that the built in motorized film advance was not very robust. Modes are limited to P, X, and B with exposure comp available. DX encoding only for setting the film speed.


Steve

[boriscleto]

You might be able to get one on eBay. There are not many survivors though. My understanding is that the built in motorized film advance was not very robust. Modes are limited to P, X, and B with exposure comp available. DX encoding only for setting the film speed.


Steve

Non-DX film defaults to ISO 100.

They show up on shopgoodwill from time to time, though not as frequently as the ME, K1000, or P3. One was listed today.

[ruggiex]

I don't know about 'smaller', but the K-3 certainly has a greater AF 'point' density than the K-5: 27 'points' overall vs 11, more cross-type AF 'points' (25 vs 9), and the three K-3 centre 'points' are particularly sensitive.

It does seem to make a difference. Behind the scenes I think the K-3 AF also makes use of more data from the metering sensor than the K-5 did. Some of the K-3 AF.C algorithms also are more evolved.

Maybe they are using the adjacent AF points to figure out you are outside of center point a bit quicker than K-5 (due to denser AF points) that makes it at least feel smaller. On K5 it felt like anything within the proximity of the center circle area counts.

[Tesla]

My opinion on the Pentax K-S1 design.. better than the K-01, but not as good as the K-30. The K-30 was in the right direction with a fluidic design. The only thing I didn't care for on the K-30 was that the Pentax badge was slanting down.

[rawr]

the adjacent AF points

I prefer to think of them as 'areas', rather than 'points', since 'point' implies a pin-prick of sensitivity rather than an area of sensitivity. I prefer how Nikon illustrates their AF pattern as little rectangles rather than 'points' to make that point - eg for the D600: