Originally posted by wallyb Wow, a couple people are being WAY too sensitive about something factual (looking at you, Falcons). They should also tone down the personal insults, it just makes you look ignorant.
I came to the Pentax camp after being in the Minolta/Sony one for a while -- it was my first experience with a DSLR, actually. As someone who knows quite a bit about both now, I can state what should be obvious to most people -- both camera systems have their strong and weak points. The reason why I use Pentax primarily now is because I like Pentax's strong points more than I like Sony's, on average.
Yes, all Sony DSLRs, especially the A700 (which is markedly faster than all others) have faster continuous AF speed than even Pentax's best offering. Yes, the A700 has considerably better ISO noise levels than even the K20D, or even the A900 for that matter. However, the A700 is currently the "bread and butter" of the Sony camp. All of their other cameras are either poorly designed (a digital teleconverter button? WTF?) both with menus and buttons/dials, or in the case of the one comfortable Alpha (A100), have horrible, HORRIBLE noise problems (nighttime photos are absolutely useless after ISO 400).
Sony's cameras are also considerably more expensive than Pentax's when comparing the same featureset (15-30% more), though the used lens market is comparable to that with old pentax glass. The biggest feature that brought me to Pentax, however, was how easy it was to use old MF lenses, either K-mount of M42. The best M42 adapter for sony systems is still crap compared to the built-in compatibility of Pentax. And again, this is a strong selling point for me -- there are so many great lenses available in M42-mount that I actually own very few AF lenses for either system, yet still have every possible situation handled.
To summarize, everyone who is getting bent out of shape because someone else is simply pointing out the factual things that Sony (or other companies) are better at than Pentax is just insecure about their purchase. There are many things that Pentax does better, and to me (and I assume almost everyone else here), they're the things that are more important to us. As a corollary, since I use so much manual glass (and since it's basically expected of you if you want cheap lenses in the Pentax system), the AF speed isn't really important to me. And, if AF speed is REALLY that important to you, it's because you're either a sports photographer or a professional gainfully employed nature/sports/event photographer, in which case price doesn't matter and you can just waste gobs of money on Canon FF bodies and L-glass xD
Hey I'm not being sensitive about something Factual - I know full well that the current Pentax system isn't on par with the competition as I am sure Pentax themselves are quite aware of it. I chose Pentax because it was Cheaper and a far better camera than the canon 350D simple as that -
if I was going to make a living from a Camera taking portraits or weddings - I would go Pentax K20D as it is the best bang for buck camera out there that would provide the greatest return on investment.
If I got a gig photographing sports it would be Canon 1ds Mk111 - without a doubt.
As I stated before, if anyone is shocked or surprised at this revelation on Pentax AF you have spent the last few years with your head in the sand - for some of us though the AF is just fine - perhaps some of you on here will have to start accepting that I am Pentax's Target Market and you aren't.
What does get my goat is little trolls like Supreme Mofo and his ilk who haven't contributed on the site for 5 months (with the last contribution being a whine on AF as well) coming on just to stir up trouble - I have learnt to usually ignore them but every now and again i can't help myself - I like to give a bit back at them.
What also gets on my Goat is that it is acceptable to come on this forum and point out Pentax short comings etc but heaven forbid if you dare say you like your camera you are derided as some sort of weirdo fanboy.