[Rondec]

Which is precisely my point - they only read DXO or listen to salesmen. But the 'base guy' buys the vast bulk of the dSLR's made - the base of the pyramid - but you probably know thatYou have no basis to make that statement. In a few months there will have been enough new lenses and enough K-3II's tested in the wild by both biased and disinterested parties to begin to make qualified statements. Until then anything such as this is at best ill-advised speculation or at worst intentional spreading of FUD.

It is also a straw man argument, since Pentax makes no claims to be a sports/action camera brand. The claim is to be a field camera, with emerging attempts to break into the professional wedding space - but you probably know that.

These statements get indexed quite high on Google searches because of the clicks received on PF - as I suspect you fully understand.

I agree. I just don't know how many sports/wildlife shooters there really are out there. Certainly it doesn't seem like many of them shoot Pentax any more. If you shoot weddings, or portraits, or street photography, or astro photography or, landscapes -- all of which seem to have plenty of Pentaxians doing them -- you just don't need super speedy auto focus with amazing tracking.

People act like shooting a wedding is some kind of hair raising experience requiring killer auto focus, but it isn't that bad and is easily doable using a K5 II or a K3 with existing lenses.

[JimmyDranox]

Maybe people who buys Canon 6D are not looking at numbers on DxO, but at pictures at IR Comparometer and DPR Studio Scene. Not everybody wants high Mps, and a lot of stuff on their cameras, but clean images, crisp images, at high ISO. Personally, I hate to spend a lot of time cleaning images. I really hate that. I don't know if is only the sensor, or together with the Jpeg engine, but they make a good work with that 6D. Hope that Pentax will do the same, or better, with their future cameras.

[Rondec]

Maybe people who buys Canon 6D are not looking at numbers on DxO, but at pictures at IR Comparometer and DPR Studio Scene. Not everybody wants high Mps, and a lot of stuff on their cameras, but clean images, crisp images, at high ISO. Personally, I hate to spend a lot of time cleaning images. I really hate that. I don't know if is only the sensor, or together with the Jpeg engine, but they make a good work with that 6D. Hope that Pentax will do the same, or better, with their future cameras.

Same reason people get Fujis, I suppose, for the good jpeg engine.

[waterfall]

I don't know about most people. I only know that I bought into Pentax because of great lenses and the weather resistance of the camera body. Pentax has exceeded my expectations and now I own lots of lenses, albeit few WR and mostly Limited. Plus a couple manual focus A series. The test results on DXO never crossed my horizon until after I owned a K3 and I still find those test results vague, verging on irrelevant. I bought a WR system with great lenses (old and new) that gives me choices about which lens to mount in tornados and which in blue bird weather. But always, I know I can be out in the elements and the only failure of my gear would be from my bad choice to use a dry lens instead of a wet lens. BTW, when I began this odyssey, no other manufacturer could offer WR DSLR gear at the same price point. AF performance was never a consideration at the beginning. Now I like AF-A expanded, select my spot and it works very well. Tracking of BIF is good, although my shots are always in open spaces. Just saying, Pentax works for me and I look forward to the sensor shifting technology, although my tripod shots number less than 100. I walk, stalk, wait. My style might change, who knows, but I will always be outside, where WR and Pentax rule.

[rawr]

I suspect that for AF and tracking the latest pentax lenses with K3-II will not even match a sigma with a D7100/7200 not maybe in ultimate speed (moderately usefull) but in capacity to have the thing you want in focus really in focus on action/sport type of shootings.

You seem to consider it an article of faith that Nikon has flawless AF. It doesn't. Having shot sports with Nikon and Pentax (with Sigma on both sometimes), both Nikon and Pentax have complex and capable AF-C systems nowadays. You can shoot similar scenes with similar results with a K-3, a D7100/D7200, or D610. (You can also mess up just as badly with Nikon AF as you can with any other camera system until you get experience with it);

Re the 6D, it's success reflects the fact that there are probably 100 X more wedding photographers, portrait shooters, modelmayhemmers etc in the world than sports or wildlife shooters. Good low-light AF and IQ, compact body, good lens selection, affordability trumps 50 point AF, 10 fps etc for that [vast] group, I suspect.

[mee]

The 6D sells because its 1) a modern digital FF 2) Affordable and maybe because its 3) A Canon. First two are hand-in-hand.

And, yes, there are a lot of momtogs out there.. A LOTTTTTTTT. Just check facebook if you don't believe me.. anyone with a big camera and some software presets is now (in their own minds) instantly a professional portraits photographer these days.

[monochrome]

momtogs

That's a new one for me!!

[JimmyDranox]

And yes, is everyone's right to fool himself saying that:

1. One of the best cameras today is selling well just because of the brand. 2 Just because it's affordable 3. Just because he didn't understand why, and he's not willing to search for the facts (pictures), to see with his own eyes. Yes, it's his right to stay blind, and state blindly those above.

[Rondec]

And yes, is everyone's right to fool himself saying that:

1. One of the best cameras today is selling well just because of the brand. 2 Just because it's affordable 3. Just because he didn't understand why, and he's not willing to search for the facts (pictures), to see with his own eyes. Yes, it's his right to stay blind, and state blindly those above.

I think it needs to be stated clearly that there aren't any bad cameras out there. The cameras with the worst sensors still out perform most of the camera from the film era and even most of the digital cameras of recent history. The fact that we can come down to arguing over number of focus points or, a few points on a DXO Mark score says where cameras are at.

As to 6D performance, it is fine. If you do a lot of high iso shooting, it isn't particularly different from a camera like the D610. The place that it (and other Canons) suffer is in low iso dynamic range. Once again, if you aren't shooting landscapes that require high DR, then it probably isn't an issue. Certainly for a jpeg shooter who doesn't like to post process, the cameras are probably equivalent. It is clear that you would be more likely to have to shoot multiple exposures with Canon cameras if you do a lot of landscapes.

[mee]

The fact that we can come down to arguing over number of focus points or, a few points on a DXO Mark score says where cameras are at.

I think it says much more about the state of our community here.

[jpzk]

Is there anything new to report on the new Pentax K3II ?

I am lost in all of those posts on the Canon and Nikon cameras ....
(I had to rant).

JP

[enoeske]

People act like shooting a wedding is some kind of hair raising experience requiring killer auto focus, but it isn't that bad and is easily doable using a K5 II or a K3 with existing lenses.

I shot weddings with the K-20d and K-5 and it was a nightmare compared to the K-3. The K-20d autofocus just plain sucked in the less than ideal light of the reception and the noise from high ISO killed the shots. The K-5 fixed the autofocus speed and ISO problems but introduced more problems that also made it a terrible wedding camera. In the dim tungsten light, the autofocus would front focus so badly and bouncing a flash had crazy overexposure issues.

The K-5ii and K-3 fix those issues. The only issue I have with the K-3 is the slight P-TTL lag. I'll take that over the previous issues anyday.

[derekkite]

With all this stuff you have to start with the realization that 75% of the photos ever taken can be captured with almost any camera ever made. What makes technological improvements important are the 25%. It was possible to get stunning wildlife shots with film, but it took a container full of film, a couple helpers loading bodies, and a staffed lab somewhere to process them all. A huge pile of money helped. That is what National Geographic did, and did well. Now with a $1k or less body and that much again on a lens you can get stunning shots.

That canon with the low DR and small number of points are good for 95% of the photos taken.

So this is what I face to get a decent wildlife shot. This is an uncropped unprocessed shot of an osprey nest yesterday morning. I am unusually close to the nest, very seldom am I able to get that close, and the male will land on a post half the distance away. If I told you where it is I would have to shoot you. 500mm sigma 4.5 lens on a k3

On the K3 the focus point is about the size of the head of the bird. I am able to get good reliable focus. The K5 would span the shoulders and part of the other bird, and there were lots of throwaways as a result. The canon would have the same problem.

At twice the distance, the point is too big. I would like a point half the size, I miss shots on things further away. But, and a large but, a smaller focus point means that the slightest movement changes focus, either me handheld trying to keep the thing steady, or the subject moving. So it is necessary to add points and logic to help the photographer get good shots. In my shooting yesterday morning with these birds flying around I had maybe 25% keeper rate. There will never be 100%, but every marginal improvement in hardware capabilities gives me more keepers. I shot manual focus 400mm for a year and got birds in flight. About 1 in 600 shots. The K5 with 150-500 sigma was quite a bit better, but maybe 10% or slightly less were ok.

For a smaller point to give me more keepers requires that there be points surrounding it. Right now on the K3 a flying osprey can disappear between points, which I think causes loss of focus. So smaller points, tightly spaced gives enough to the logic to keep focus. Yes we are talking tracking, but with small focus points tracking is a necessity in a busy dynamic scene.

In all these discussions it is easy think that what we have works. What I have found is that I limit my shots to scenes and situations where I know I can get results. If you have a lens that flares, do you take shots into the sun? No way, it is a waste. But if you have a nice 15mm limited, that is all you end up doing because the results are amazing. Same with focus. A fast moving subject in a busy scene usually means I don't lift the camera because I won't get a shot anyways. If my body and lens were quick enough, had a very large number of points and a fast processing engine to implement very good logic, I would take those shots.

The K3 is pretty good with focus, it has rudimentary tracking ability. Some improvements with faster lenses and some optimizations of the logic are possible, and I think the K3II will maximize it's capability. To improve requires more points more logic capability, more speed. That will be in the next major update of the aps-c.

[Rondec]

Is there anything new to report on the new Pentax K3II ?

I am lost in all of those posts on the Canon and Nikon cameras ....
(I had to rant).

JP

I'm not sure if you heard, but I think the K3 II is lacking on board flash.

[lukulele]

I'll follow Derek with the pretty much the same situation focusing on a on a similar subject with manual focus A400 and the K-3. It's what I can afford and Tav can increase the keeper rate substantially. Practicing two years with manual on 55-300 made me now realize it's taken over three years of following Ospreys to get that 25% The biggest problem with any camera I've ever used is user error (me). I'm sure the K-3II will be fine and complaints will continue as usual.