Originally posted by jaad75 I own one and guess what? It's useful like any other and working great for 6 years now... Even if the SDM fails it's fairly easy and cheap to repair, so I don't really care.
It sounds, like you shouldn't choose the Pentax system back then... Isn't the lens selection the most important thing when you choose it? If lenses don't suit your needs why to buy it?
It should be K-F1 not the other way, just looking at the recent naming scheme, but I don't think so.
Canon?
...and Dalsa, Renesas, Aptina...
That's seems like a specious argument...how would I know that what Pentax was doing a decade ago would end up more expensive and less improvements to AF compared to others? I know other people do own multiple systems, but I would probably take a bath on selling a system that most people wouldn't want, unless you're into shooting mostly static things. Nearly 10 years ago, I was perfectly happy to get into the dSLR arena with a K100D to do just landscapes, and it was a massive upgrade over my P&S cameras. Now I really like shooting baseball too. Ex, some people really care about video, but it's not a major requirement for me, but there are some systems built around that.
If I knew then what I know, I probably wouldn't have considered Pentax, as it doesn't fit all my shooting styles now, but it's not like the competition only considers one type of shooter either, if people want to shoot landscapes and fast action, they work on ways to improve the lens focusing and AF detection because things change. Pentax is gimped by the screwdrive and SDM IMO, although the bodies are competitively priced and have some killer features.
I'm expecting my upcoming K3 to be quite a bit better in AF, compared to my K20, but I just know some things will be more difficult than even with my refurb Nikon J1.
I'm not trying to negative, just completely honest in my assessment. It could just be the segment that Pentax markets to as well, more purposed than the rest.