Originally posted by Alex645 The company with the best AF will make a big deal about how their AF is the best. But just using AF as the measure of a pro requirement is oversimplification.
Yes, Pentax users are best apologetics of the status quo of the brand, and all the same, all are blind to same predicaments.
All things being similar or comparative among cameras, AF must too be similar or comparative and talked about. Why is that important? Because even the mirrorless offers are starting to surpass AF available in Pentax DSLRs. With ISO, AF is the part of marketing sales toolkit and if AF is really not relevant, then please explain why DPR slandered K-1 so viciously (and undeservingly)? They didn't bother to test all facets of the AF, just tried things where Nikons wins by default and gave the final score. Horrible review, an insult to common sense, but — it did all the damage.
Why it did the damage? Because it's the DSLR game dictated by the DSLR game owners, who take AF far more seriously than Ricoh.
Lack of presence of a professional-level crop body is a sting in Pentax's side. But they have enough expertise to make a pro-level crop body so I hope they will realise it is time to do it. And, sorry Ricoh, selling a brand new K70 with 11 points AF is not a way to attract new customers; the reviewers will point that out immediately and lower the score. They won't even bother reviewing your effort properly. That economy of yours, dear Ricoh, by using the AF from 6-7 years old cameras, won't work. Instead, stick the same level AF in all medium grade bodies, and bring all new AF for the pro level crop camera.
---------- Post added 07-19-2016 at 08:27 PM ----------
Originally posted by stevebrot You might want to consider that Michael is a working pro and knows his gear. He also shoots with both the K-3II and recent top-shelf Nikon APS-C product. He knows both systems and I would suggest that his opinions constitute field validity.
Steve
Well, yes, I see where this argumentation goes, and I'm telling you, that dog won't hunt.
Ansel Adams too was a working professional, and he needed but a manual focusing camera.
As many of you know, photography today is not about art, but largely about performance, so a smart brand must have
at least one contender in that silly game.
How difficult is that to admit?
If Pentax had, say, crop K2 at a level of D500, Pentax could sell K3II cameras at $250-300 higher price, and still sell
same amount of them. THAT is how things are done. It is all about perception. But without a pro level camera, Pentax must sell K3II at prices that are pathetic.
For Pete's sake, Fuji will sell X-T2 at $1600, which is 40% higher than K3 was at its launch! And the press and the websites buzz about X-T2 more than they did about all Pentax cameras together. Why? Because it has 4K video, 11 fps and 300+ freakin' AF points. When compared to K3II, it
sounds uber-pro. Nikon anticipated that and similar threats and issued D500. Ricoh didn't, and they must lose money selling K3II at prices below human dignity.