[HopelessTogger]

Ricoh needs to make serious improvements. Mirrorless has surpassed Ricoh in terms of AF speed and accuracy. Some of them even track better at this point.

The A6000 with the FE 70-200/4 . . . it's like a miniature sports set up.

[Winder]

The A6000 with the FE 70-200/4 . . . it's like a miniature sports set up.

Yes, even older technology like the Fuji X-T1 gives better results when it comes to speed and accuracy in decent light. I have the D-FA* 70-200mm and the K-1 on order. I also have the A7II and a couple of lenses. If the K-1 can deliver then I will be very happy, otherwise I will probably sell my K-mount gear and mover all over to Sony. I'm not a fan of Sony cameras, but the AF accuracy in the conditions that I typically shoot has been excellent.

[HopelessTogger]

Yes, even older technology like the Fuji X-T1 gives better results when it comes to speed and accuracy in decent light. I have the D-FA* 70-200mm and the K-1 on order. I also have the A7II and a couple of lenses. If the K-1 can deliver then I will be very happy, otherwise I will probably sell my K-mount gear and mover all over to Sony. I'm not a fan of Sony cameras, but the AF accuracy in the conditions that I typically shoot has been excellent.

I have that dilemma at the moment. Waiting to see K-1 AF performance (especially with the longer zooms) before I decide whether to sell the Sony gear (I really don't enjoy using Sony FF mirrorless cameras though, it's no pleasure). I can't run two systems, it's daft and stupidly expensive.

I'm sure (and be surely grateful) if you'll let us know how well the K-1 and 70-200 perform.

[rawr]

let us know how well the K-1 and 70-200 perform

Add me to the list pls.

Although I suspect the K-1 is intended to mainly be a DFA 15-30 type of camera, I hope it will also pair very well with the 70-200.

[HopelessTogger]

Add me to the list pls.

Although I suspect the K-1 is intended to mainly be a DFA 15-30 type of camera, I hope it will also pair very well with the 70-200.

As soon as "a great landscape camera" is mentioned, my hopes and dreams become somewhat deflated. Really I'm trying to turn a VW into a Porsche I guess, a sports camera is what I'm after but again . . . so much gear . . . so little money (we should put that on a t-shirt).

[rawr]

I'm trying to turn a VW into a Porsche I guess, a sports camera is what I'm after but again

I'm just thinking of all the other 36MP FF's out there - A7R, D800, D810, even the A7RII. Although their AF may be good, none are sports cameras either, with their huge files, smallish buffers and relatively low fps. K-1 won't be much different.

[RonHendriks1966]

The lens is in stock overhere, so all pre-orders have been fullfilled.

[HopelessTogger]

I'm just thinking of all the other 36MP FF's out there - A7R, D800, D810, even the A7RII. Although their AF may be good, none are sports cameras either, with their huge files, smallish buffers and relatively low fps. K-1 won't be much different.

Aye! I wouldn't really expect it either.

[Winder]

The lens is in stock overhere, so all pre-orders have been fullfilled.

I would expect pre-orders where on the low side. It is an expensive lens for specific needs. The Tamron 70-200mm is almost 1/3 the price and a very solid performer optically. That lens is a great value. I think I did things the opposite of many of the people I have seen on the forum. Most plan on getting the K-1 first and if the K-1 is really good, they will invest in the D-FA* 70-200mm lens. I went ahead and bought the D-FA* 70-200mm expecting to see a big improvement in AF performance over my Sigma glass, and its not happening. As I said above, I had become convinced that my glass was the reason for the below average AF-C performance on the K-3 and that is not the case.

Optically the D-FA* is really, really good. I have been shooting it at 85mm to test it against my Sigma 85mm and my Sony 90mm FE 2.8 and the D-FA* is holding its own. On the K-3 there is no distortion that I can see and the contrast and colors are really good.

[rawr]

On the K-3 there is no distortion that I can see and the contrast and colors are really good.

Sounds like a great landscape lens.

[But seriously, the other day I saw some cool landscape shots on DPR that were taken with the DFA 70-200].

[jatrax]

As soon as "a great landscape camera" is mentioned,

Funny as soon as "a great landscape camera" is mentioned I get all fluttery

I seriously doubt the K-1 (or any of the 36mp cameras) will be as good at fast sports as a dedicated sports camera with lower MP, faster FPS and so on. One camera to fit all situations also means the camera is not going to be as good at anything as a camera dedicated to that particular function. That is true of most anything really. A leatherman multi-tool is really useful, but it is not as useful as a full bag of single purpose tools. Unless you are stuck someplace with only the Leatherman, or if weight is the overriding concern.

I think photographers are better off defining what they personally need and buying a system that fits that. Or systems. I have been a single system user since 2010, only Pentax gear. But I wanted a small pocket-able camera for use on the street and to just always have with me. I listed the requirements: RAW, zoom lens of about 24-70 equiv., pocket-able, well built, flexible LCD, pop up flash, SD card. I came up with a couple of choices and bought a Sony RX-100III. Is it as good as my K-3 in all respects? No. But for the purpose I have in mind it is very, very nice. On a recent vacation I used it about half the time, the K-3II the rest. And I got better pictures in total using both cameras than I would have gotten by using only one or the other.

[HopelessTogger]

I would expect pre-orders where on the low side. It is an expensive lens for specific needs. The Tamron 70-200mm is almost 1/3 the price and a very solid performer optically. That lens is a great value. I think I did things the opposite of many of the people I have seen on the forum. Most plan on getting the K-1 first and if the K-1 is really good, they will invest in the D-FA* 70-200mm lens. I went ahead and bought the D-FA* 70-200mm expecting to see a big improvement in AF performance over my Sigma glass, and its not happening. As I said above, I had become convinced that my glass was the reason for the below average AF-C performance on the K-3 and that is not the case.

Optically the D-FA* is really, really good. I have been shooting it at 85mm to test it against my Sigma 85mm and my Sony 90mm FE 2.8 and the D-FA* is holding its own. On the K-3 there is no distortion that I can see and the contrast and colors are really good.

Price for the D-FA 70-200 here in the UK has dropped. Was £1850 now £1549. Much more palatable.

[Winder]

Funny as soon as "a great landscape camera" is mentioned I get all fluttery

Just about any camera produced in the last 7 years is a great landscape camera. That is probably the least demanding field of photography. Tripod/pano-head, base ISO, and a little stacking/stitching software and you can get world class results with anything.

You Tube

You Tube

[jatrax]

Just about any camera produced in the last 7 years is a great landscape camera.

Ouch! I guess I should cancel my K-1......................

[ffking]

Just about any camera produced in the last 7 years is a great landscape camera.

come on- we're talking comparatives here - the fact that the field is crowded makes 'great' more meaningful