[jatrax]

That said, for "everyday shooting" such as landscapes, portraits, and travel shots, there really isn't much of a downside to the Pentax (if any). I've been using the K-1 pretty much exclusively since it came out, and I'm happy with it. I don't feel like I've been held back by the AF system. It's great in low light, too.

Well stated. The K-1 and the K-3 before it are quick, accurate and rarely miss when focusing on almost any 'normal' subject. The issue, as far as I can tell, is from shooters who desire 'tracking' not auto focus. I think those that complain about poor tracking and just call it auto focus do the brand a huge disservice and create nothing but confusion. 'Auto focus' is dead solid and I get almost 100% keepers. Tracking on the other hand, as Adam states is a bit slow for good results. Whether that is the camera not being able to recalculate fast enough or the lenses not able to keep up I have no idea. I recently shot a crop duster flying at extreme low altitude right toward me. Using the DFA 150-450 I got a good number of excellent shots but the results clearly indicated that the camera could not maintain the focus during the plane's full run.

The low light auto focus is nothing short of magical. I recently had the opportunity to shoot inside a large commercial refrigerated storage facility. The only light was from our cell phones. Yet the K-1 locked focus reliably on shots that I honestly could not see what I was shooting at. I used the cell phone light to determine what I wanted to shoot and then aimed the camera and got a focus lock. Images came out amazing, and things I never saw showed up on the images.

I'll also echo Adam's complaint about zooming to focus in live view. It does not work as I would expect and having the camera zoom back out when you press the AF button is disconcerting at the least. It does work very well for manual focus, but I am still confused about why the AF does not operate in this mode.

In short if you want tracking for sports, aircraft or any other fast moving subject there are better alternatives. That does not mean you cannot get good results, it just means you have to be a bit better photographer than the guy using the Nikon. Outside of that the K-1 is as good as anything I have seen or used.

[cleaverx]

YMMV, but the widespread claim that "Pentax AF sucks" is far from accurate IMO. "Pentax AF isn't cutting edge" would be more appropriate, because in all fairness, it isn't. But most users will still be happy with it

Nicely sad.
I shoot mostly birds and many times BIF (Birds In Flight) and with my K-50 which has older 11 point autofocus system
(nothing fancy here ) I can get decent amount in focus shots while tracking birds in flight with my 55-300mm WR lens. It hunts sometimes,
but I am sure that K-3 or K-1 has better AF.
Main point is that unless you shooting fast action, BIF etc for a living or must have the absolute best AF system then Pentax is just fine.
From the price point of view Pentax beat Canon, Nikon and the rest with the hands down.

Here is example of Tundra Swan in flight. This one surprised me. Small flock of them just came from nowhere at the Skagit Bay heading for the grass fields. I had split second to take a shots as they were flying over my head. K-50 with 55-300mm WR did just fine to keep tracking.
Shot bellow is almost full frame.

[jddwoods]

Nicely sad.
I shoot mostly birds and many times BIF (Birds In Flight) and with my K-50 which has older 11 point autofocus system
(nothing fancy here ) I can get decent amount in focus shots while tracking birds in flight with my 55-300mm WR lens. It hunts sometimes,
but I am sure that K-3 or K-1 has better AF.
Main point is that unless you shooting fast action, BIF etc for a living or must have the absolute best AF system then Pentax is just fine.
For a price point of view Pentax beat Canon, Nikon and the rest with the hands down.

Here is example of Tundra Swan in flight. This one surprised me. Small flock of them just came from nowhere at the Skagit Bay heading for the grass fields. I had split second to take a shots as they were flying over my head. K-50 with 55-300mm WR did just fine to keep tracking.
Shot bellow is almost full frame.

beautiful picture especially considering you took it with one of Pentax's slower autofocus lenses, the 55-300. I also have this lens and a K-3. I will have to try AF-C with it, it sure looks like it works for you. Did you crop the picture?

[cleaverx]

beautiful picture especially considering you took it with one of Pentax's slower autofocus lenses, the 55-300. I also have this lens and a K-3. I will have to try AF-C with it, it sure looks like it works for you. Did you crop the picture?

Thanks,
Very little cropping...almost full frame.

[normhead]

The only people who've actually set up measured tests and compared comparable models actually say Pentax AF is pretty good. But in measured comparisons done in a lab, Pentax does well is speed of focus lock and not so well in tracking. But the only actual numbers I've seen say they are in the ball park. Action shooters will experience times when the small differences can make huge differences, in keeper rate, because the Pentax is just beyond it's capability and the competitor is just within it's capability.

So what I'd say would be, if you want better than Pentax AF be prepared to pay for it, just as with any other camera system. The entry level systems do not have the same capabilities as the high end systems.

But from my perspective speed of AF is a small part of the picture. Techniques like prefocusing can get you the absolute best images with a K-1. here's the way I look at it,

I can pay for great AF with 1Dx or 5D Fx

for the Nikon 5Dx 8,499 CAD I get an amazing AF system and 12 FPS, -great pro gear, 20 MP
for the Canon 1DX MkII or a 7,999 CAD , 20.2 MP

So lets say I take a $2499 CAD K-1 and $2500 150-450 at 1/3 the price and I'm in the same photographers pit.

The way I see it, what they have given to get that superior AF and Frame rate is resolution. As simply stated as possible if they are sitting there firing away with their expensive gear worth more than 10k, easily, and I'm sitting there pre-focussing with my K-1, if I can accept the challenge, fight through the "adversity" and nail a couple of images, my resolution will mean I end up with the best image. It may not happen as often, but if you're a guy like me looking for the best image likely to be produced by any photographer at any time , in any location, you will forego the fancy AF for a shot at a really, totally knock out image.

It's all about how you choose to work. If you're working for the Toronto Star covering a Jays game, you want the highest possibility of an acceptable image. You have to produce every day, every game.

If you're a guy like me who sells directly to the public, I have to have the best quality image ever taken of my subject. They don't care if I'm cranking one out every day to earn a salary they just want one picture they can hang on their wall, and say "this is possibly the best image ever taken of ______________ whatever the criteria are.

So what we are talking about here are two totally different modes of operation. East and west and never the twain shall meet. This is much more apparent to us old guys who have used large format, with no AF at all. When we leave the studio, for the type of work I do, we might even take a 4x5 film camera. We know, way less chance of getting the image we want, but if we nail it......

SO you go out there confident in your ability to produce, one of the techniques you've learned over the years is going to get you the shot you want, and Faster AF and Tracking is not an acceptable trade off for less image quality.

A coupe of the guys I shoot with are shooting with 600mm F4 lenses on 1Dx or 5Dx bodies.. You'd be amazed how often I go out with the K-3 and DA*60-250 with the 1.4 on it and at the end of the day have the best images of the group. They have frame rate and AF, I have file size and portability, the ability to quickly move to a position that gives me the best light shooting position.

So forgive me if I'm a little disrespectful of the value of fantastic AF. All I want to know is how do I get the best image. I will accept the days when they get better images because of advanced tech, for a better image every now and then with average type of tech. They bank on their gear. I bank on my skill and understanding.

What kind of guy you want to be is completely up to you, but do I think the guys I shoot with who are carrying $15k worth of gear to get images that aren't as good as mine at least 50% of the time? From my perspective, having a wallet that's always empty and not much income to spend on gear, I think they are idiots.

For me it's all about final image.
What it takes to get it, is for me to figure out how to get it as cheaply as I can.
To me hobby photographers stressing about AF speed are missing the point.
And people who buy fast frame rate and top of the line AF who aren't shooting professional sports are wasting their money.

All I care about between a K-1 and D810 is, if I can figure out how to get the image I want on the K-1, and that I have a shot at having the K-1 image being the best image possible in those conditions. Pixel shift and in camera shake reduction will give me that. End of discussion, at least for me.


For what I want, a K-3 and a good lens, is more what I want than those $15k systems listed above.
Some one will probably jump in and say, "You're just saying that because you can't afford the big system."

Well let my put this out there....

No, I wouldn't buy those systems, unless I were a pro sports photographer.
But I probably will be looking at a K-1 and a 150-450 sometime in the next year. Thanks to some favourable circumstances I'll be able to afford what ever I want. And none of those fast AF cameras is on the list. They don't have what I value. And for 99% of the world, that is true for them as well.

Nothing makes me growl more than some amateur pretending he needs advanced AF and frame rate. What an ego trip.
Most of us are going to settle for something less than the best. SO why are folks concerned about which is better, when most are better than the worst, and none are better than the best? We all choose the compromises that give us a chance at what we want, and super fast tracking and AF are not really even on the table. You have to give up too much to get them.

Some of us choose what we want for totally spurious reasons and then learn to make the most of what we bought. Nothing wrong with that either.

The only question is, given my skill set etc. can I get the best image possible in the situations I find myself with this camera?
If you have confidence in your ability to make lemonade out of lemons, leaning on technology is just an expensive crutch, especially if you have to give up Image Quality in the final image to get it, or on the case of the K-1 and D810, pay an extra thousand dollars to get it. I will always try and learn new skills to make what I have do what I want, before I start leaning on better much more expensive technology. Us old large format are used to this. We know all you need is something to capture the image and a makeshift bellows , a magnifying glass, and few doo dads, card board and duct tape and we'll produce an image. All these modern bells and whistles completey obscure the point. You have to keep in mind what exactly it is you're doing.

And the crazy thing is, the guy with the D810? He can get the images his system is good at that I can't get , I can get the images my K-3 is best at, that he can't get, and we can both go home happy. Buying something expensive isn't smart. Buying the most appropriate thing for what you do is smart. And AF speed for most of us, is a very small part of that equation. Recently I went through A 24 frame wildlife burst next to a guy shooting a 1Dx. One of my 24 frames was the shot I wanted. The fact that he got 36 frames in the same time frame at lower resolution means, in that scenario I win. He didn't get the same angle as me, he didn't get as good a pose as I did, he didn't get the same resolution I idid. He got 36 images, not one of which was as good as the five I kept.

He had the fastest focusing, highest frame rate on the most expensive camera and lens available, but that didn't get him the best image, at least not that day. It's a whole system. Don't get lost focusing on one small part. And realize that practically "small difference" in the end works out to be "no difference" most of the time, it's not about frame rate, it's not about AF, it's about at the end of the day, who has the best image.

"Find the lens you love and buy the camera it fits on."

[Winder]

I see a lot of references to Pentax' AF system, and how it lags behind its competitors. Is it really that much slower than Canikon and Sony? At all levels of use and across the range of cameras? I have a k3, and find it to be fast and accurate. If there's a problem with focus, it's invariably me. Additionally, does the AF on the K1 blow away the K3? I'd be interested in the responses of those who have 2 different systems. Is there anywhere pentax beats their competitors? Thanks!

If you shoot other systems you will notice the difference pretty quickly. The K-1 is definitely improved over the K-3, but its still not as snappy as Canon, Nikon, or Sony Alpha. Even mirrorless cameras like the Sony A7RII and the Fuji X-T2 are quicker in good light. Yes. Ricoh is a generation or two behind the rest of the industry on AF.

Where does Ricoh beat the competition? For the money, the K-1 is the best FF DSLR camera on the market. The RAW files are excellent.

If you need fast, accurate AF for fast action, or shoot a lot of video, then K-1 is probably not a good choice. For everything else it is an excellent camera.

[K5_Ltd_User]

Hello,


This guys tells it a little bit better (although I sense he' s moderate) :

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

Enjoy

[rawr]

True confessions time: aside from my Pentaxes, I have several Nikon DSLR's (D610, D7200), and Sony cameras (A5000, NEX F3, RX-100).

Each model camera has strengths and weaknesses with regard to AF and their other features. The K-1/K-3 are just great under bad light for exposure and AF, but the K-3 images suffer under high ISO. K-1 solves that problem, and is just a general powerhouse in AF (when combined with the right lenses), and for general shooting. D610 combined with Nikon glass is awesome during daytime and has awesome image quality in high ISO, but the AF falls apart in low-light, D7200 is good in low light but dynamic range sucks and the images look dead compared to FF - even when using the same lenses. All the Sony's are only just OK in low light and bad for AF tracking performance, but redeem themselves for being discrete, having great face detection, and having nice features like good panorama mode, small size, and flippy screens.

tl;dr - comparisons aren't easy, for AF or anything else. There is never one feature that makes or breaks a camera.

[Rupert]

So what I'd say would be, if you want better than Pentax AF be prepared to pay for it, just as with any other camera system. The entry level systems do not have the same capabilities as the high end systems.

I read your similar words about a year or so ago and they are as true now as ever. I can't understand why this is so hard for some to "get"?????

It is out there, if you just have to have it, pay up and get it!

Meanwhile, if anyone hasn't read Adam's reply here then go back and read it. Makes absolute good sense in a fair and accurate manner.

I am 100% thrilled with the AF on my K1. I won't tell my Bigma 50-500 story here again, but I've told it many times around here, and I consider the K1 a miracle in AF improvement. Low light AF is outstanding...like no other Pentax I have ever owned!

Dark moonless night...can barely see the subjects with my own eyes and not at all in the viewfinder. Before the K1 I used to try and hold a spotlight in one hand ...camera in the other and see if I could get AF to work on my previous Pentax cameras. No more...it locks fast and sure with no spotlight, just the camera assist. Previously even if you could get AF it was most often back or front focus in the dim light.....with the K1 it is most often right on target. Yep, I'm very satisfied!





Regards...Be happy!

[cleaverx]

For me it's all about final image. What it takes to get it, is for me to figure out how to get it as cheaply as I can. To me hobby photographers stressing about AF speed are missing the point. And people who buy fast frame rate and top of the line AF who aren't shooting professional sports are wasting their money.

Nicely said Norm. That is why my main lenses are SMC 500mm f/4.5 and SMC A 400mm f/5.6. Both manual focus lenses and each under $500.

I just bought K-1 today and I can't wait to get some good shooting with it. I was able to play with it a little bit and I am loving it. It was my birthday present from
my lovely wife. Best B-day present ever

I would just add that IMHO it is that lens quality is more important that super duper super fast AF DSLR body. You can make superb images with top notch
glass and decent camera body. But not the other way around. You can have the most expensive DSLR with crappy lens and you get crappy pictures.
Also huge factor it is the person who pushes the shutter. You can have $20,000 gear, but if you don't know how to utilize all that power, then you don't get the
pictures you want.

Just to prove your point Norm here are few shots taken with fairly inexpensive gear.

K-50 SMC 500mm f/4.5




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

K-50 SMC A 400mm f/5.6

[K5_Ltd_User]

Bottom line,


You won' t take any air show shots with the Pentax AF system, unless you don' t mind a low percentage of keepers.
It's not up to Today' s standard (d5(00) , or Canon 1DX MII) . Some may argue that it' s in a different price range, agreed.
But don' t try to compare them (the brands) , as they are totally different; Nikon, Sony and Canon being the German cars of the photo world, Pentax being a Toyota or a Honda Civic (value for money) .
I don' t agree that at this price range it (the K1) should be qualified (excused) as 'amateur' , but maybe that' s just me.


Enjoy!

[jawsy]

You won' t take any air show shots with the Pentax AF system

If you're having problems focussing with high DoF, uniform contrast backgrounds and predominately panning movement it's not the camera's fault. AF isn't the 'keeper driver' for airshow photography, composition, anticipation, framing and a steady hand are.

[K5_Ltd_User]

If you're having problems focussing with high DoF, uniform contrast backgrounds and predominately panning movement it's not the camera's fault. AF isn't the 'keeper driver' for airshow photography, composition, anticipation, framing and a steady hand are.

Hello,


AF doesn' t really count for composition. Strictly on the AF system, it' s a few years behind.
This subtle provocation of 'composition' is besides the subject and sort of childish.


Good day to you sir, or maddam!

[cleaverx]

You won' t take any air show shots with the Pentax AF system, unless you don' t mind a low percentage of keepers.

I don't mind a low percentage of keepers shooting air shows...because I don't shoot air shows and I just bought K-1 I wouldn't trade it for ANY Canon or Nikon.
Also I disagree that you can't take fairly high percentage of keepers with K-1 shooting air shows. Do you own Pentax K-1?? If not I would suggest you rent K-1 with HD Pentax-D FA 150-450mm F4.5-5.6 ED DC AW and go to the air show and find out yourself.
Normhead wrote very nice piece at post #20 worth reading.

If you're having problems focussing with high DoF, uniform contrast backgrounds and predominately panning movement it's not the camera's fault. AF isn't the 'keeper driver' for airshow photography, composition, anticipation, framing and a steady hand are.

Couldn't be said any better.

[normhead]

Bottom line,


You won' t take any air show shots with the Pentax AF system, unless you don' t mind a low percentage of keepers.
It's not up to Today' s standard (d5(00) , or Canon 1DX MII) . Some may argue that it' s in a different price range, agreed.
But don' t try to compare them (the brands) , as they are totally different; Nikon, Sony and Canon being the German cars of the photo world, Pentax being a Toyota or a Honda Civic (value for money) .
I don' t agree that at this price range it (the K1) should be qualified (excused) as 'amateur' , but maybe that' s just me.


Enjoy!

I guess my paragraphs are too long for you to read.

If I set up at an air show, use my usual airplane technique, manual focus slightly ahead, count on my slow reaction time to bring the plane into focus and shoot a burst hoping to catch the plane with shutter priority, I'd have more chance with a faster focusing system, your 1Dx, D500 shooter will have nothing that will match my keeper if I nail 2 or 3. SO this is slightly misleading. For me, it's not about the percentage of keepers, it's looking for that one classic image that defines the genre.

If I nail my shot with a 645z, I sell , they don't. Simple as that.
Your post assumes that having a lot of average kind of shots is worth something. My assertion is that one really good composition taken with a high resolution camera is worth more than 10,000 images taken at half the resolution in some circumstances. So therein lies the confusion.

IN using a 1Dx or a D500, you have already given up on getting a really hi res image. So if you're the type of photographer who's goal is a hard drive full of lower resolution images. that's cool. But some pros have made a very high percentage of their income on 2 or 3 images a year. Air show photography is niche photography and shouldn't even be mentioned in conversations with every day shooters.

A 645z or k-1, or even a K-3 can be better than a 1Dx, 4Dx or D500 in terms of IQ produced in your images. Those cameras meet some imaginary "modern focussing system" standard. They fall short in the "modern resolution" standard.

IN the end it's all about getting the image you are going for in focus. Having a 1Dx will not guarantee you will. Having a K-3 is no guarantee you won't. Most photographers figure out how to get what they want out of what they've got. And use a camera their skill set can take advantage of, something not the best at anything but good enough, as opposed to buying really expensive niche cameras that are only the right tool for the job a few times a year.

Personally I'd buy a 645z as an every day camera before I'd buy a 1Dx or D750. Sucky AF and all. I may not get as many "keepers" but what I get, will look better as a large print on my wall than anything taken with a 1Dx.

You simply cannot discuss and understand Pentax AF, without looking at the big picture.The only question is not "it there better?" the only question is, does it meet your needs?