[redpit]

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.

That phrase of Normhead couldn't be put better and is the core of photography in general (at least for me and people thinking like me). I'm mainly shooting airshows and aviation and my favourite themes are aircraft in flight and guess what I shifted from Nikon to Pentax (D7000 to K-5) initially almost by coincidence and then I sold my Nikon equipment and now I'm only shooting with the K-1 (K-5IIs as second body) and the DFA 150-450. My keepers rate? It is always greater than 80% and I could raise it even more but that is not my goal. The goal is what Normhead said. I have thousand of aircraft pictures and although a FF seems like not the proper step forward (in comparison with a K-3II or a 24Mpxl or even bigger crop sensor) I took it only for those 2-3 or 10 times that I know now that I have the experience to fill my frame and let the K-1 image quality power do the rest for me... If you don't get that I don't know how to put it differently. Since images are better than words I will upload some samples from various occassions to explain my rational.

But I went up the stream - took the difficult road from Crop to FF and from getting almost 100% keepers (I'm sure that if that was my target I could get very close to that) to getting 10% of my shots that make the difference. In an medium airshow you have about 500 people shooting with what they've got to the same theme from more or less the same spot... If you think that o D500 would give you an advantage under such circumstances you can get this AF tracking beast... After many years of shooting I've found another truth and I wouldn't exchange my K-1 with any other camera* (imagine that my K-1 is stuck in Manual mode at the moment and I'm still using it for my aviation pictures).

*645Z would be great to try if I could hand held that beast with a telephoto in front of it but that is almost impossible!

[normhead]

*645Z would be great to try if I could hand held that beast with a telephoto in front of it but that is almost impossible!

Well that's the other thing, you have to be sure you can actually get the image you're thinking about with the camera. From past experience, and i have lugged an MF camera through the bush on canoe trips, I know I can buy a 645z and it will do spectacular things with those images, but honestly, when I owned it, I usually left my 645 gear home. You have to feel really inspired to commit to that kind of size and weight. It's all about finding the system that will give you the best shot at the images you want, given not only the camera, but your own abilities and preferences. There's nothing wrong with deciding even a K-3 is too heavy and going for a Panasonic FZ1000 if you honestly have stopped carrying the K-3. If you won't do what it takes, it doesn't matter what camera you use. It's not going to be good enough.

[redpit]

Here are some samples. I don't think photos are necessary to prove that Pentax AF is more than adequate or can be used for action photography too. Also some preceptions about photography are just wrong. I totally agree with what @Jawsy said before. As an example of aviation photography here is a heavily cropped picture of a HAF Canadair CL-215 taken with the K-1 in manual mode and using the SMC Pentax-A 35-105mm F3.5 also a manual focus lens from those vintage Pentax lenses that can't be used on high resolution DSLRs (according to some web reviewers). It's a decent manually created photo as those who were taken on film not so very long ago (many could be from this same aircraft!).

I read that the K-1 had problems focusing on a moving bicycle and that it's AF is almost useless on moving subjects where tracking is needed. So I also include 2 pics that I took during the breaks on a recent airshow. Planes and helis are easy to follow and track with the K-1 but I was also impressed of how accurate the AF was on smaller birds even when they were not flying against the sky but against bussy backgrounds. If the Pentax AF isn't helping that makes me either a great photographer or a very lucky one!

I was shooting airshows and aircraft in flight with my K-5IIs for many years with great success and I switched to Pentax when I realized what a great IQ I could get in comparison with the competition. The K-1 has an averall greatly improved AF system that makes it even easier to lock focus on such cases and subjects. I haven't tried the new D5/D500 or 7DII or other alternatives that fall under the "sports-action" cameras category simply because I'm SURE that they offer better AF tracking than my K-1 as SURE I am that my K-1 gives me better image quality which at the end is what matters TO ME. If I was shooting Nikon I would use the D810 not the D5 because the D5 would gave me plenty of material but the D810 would gave the pictures that stand out of the crowd, as @Normhead very well analyzed above. It's just a matter of what your photographic priorities and your goals are. There are cameras for everyone's taste out there, but there are NO perfect cameras. Find those that suits your needs and pay attention to the characteristics and performance that really matters to you.

[beholder3]

When did "enthusiasts" stop wanting to have skills in the craft and degenerated into button-pushers relying completely (and that is what we read every day: how essential it is to have those supporting wheels on your bicycle, that you can not ride it without) automatic focus helpers that follow your subject where you did not manage to properly?

When did "enthusiasts" stop wanting to have skills in the craft and degenerated into button-pushers relying completely on mass quantity of FPS and buffer depth output so they spray and pray.In which other artistic discipline do grown up people describing themselves as not total beginners declare a comfort function of their tools as essential?

Only photography, where it all has turned from "enthusiast photographers" into "entertainment-electronics users" with the ongoing computerization. A certain degree of mumbling complaining about life, weather and some tool features is natural to human behaviour. But this goes far beyond.

[normhead]

And where do people get off complaining that some camera's AF system is inadequate, when for many of us, no AF is quite adequate in many situations. Beware of anyone that tries to tell you can't do, with any modern camera, what was done back in the days of MF. The are clearly un-aware of the accomplishments of pre AF photography. Do they really think photography started with AF?

[devouges]

And where do people get off complaining that some camera's AF system is inadequate, when for many of us, no AF is quite adequate in many situations. Beware of anyone that tries to tell you can't do, with any modern camera, what was done back in the days of FF. The are clearly un-aware of the accomplishments of pre AF photography. Do they really think photography started with AF?

Let's face it ! In unusual conditions, being able to use manual focus ( read-between-the-lines being old ) is an asset !

[cleaverx]

When did "enthusiasts" stop wanting to have skills in the craft and degenerated into button-pushers relying completely (and that is what we read every day: how essential it is to have those supporting wheels on your bicycle, that you can not ride it without) automatic focus helpers that follow your subject where you did not manage to properly?

Nicely put, I love the "button-pushers", but very true.

---------- Post added 08-09-16 at 08:32 PM ----------

Let's face it ! In unusual conditions, being able to use manual focus ( read-between-the-lines being old ) is an asset !

Yep, time to buy more manual focus lenses to add to my collection

[JimmyDranox]

That's very nice, to use manual focus lenses.

But if your eyes doesn't help you, (in my case, +3), autofocus is the only way.

If you don't have time to set the focus point somewhere, autofocus is necessary.

If the light is to little, to control the focus manually, autofocus is strictly a necessity. And here, latter models of Pentax are among leaders.

[GodsPetMonkey]

When did "enthusiasts" stop wanting to have skills in the craft and degenerated into button-pushers relying completely (and that is what we read every day: how essential it is to have those supporting wheels on your bicycle, that you can not ride it without) automatic focus helpers that follow your subject where you did not manage to properly?

When did "enthusiasts" stop wanting to have skills in the craft and degenerated into button-pushers relying completely on mass quantity of FPS and buffer depth output so they spray and pray.In which other artistic discipline do grown up people describing themselves as not total beginners declare a comfort function of their tools as essential?

I think you raise some good points, and in my view a lot comes down to the goals and expectations of the hobbyists.

Let's be honest, it is a very normal thing to look up to those who are perceived be amongst the best at something and want to emulate their work. Often this means looking up to those who are considered 'professionals', and by that I mean those who make a real living out of it. This applies to sports stars, it applies the musicians, and yes, it applies to photographers.

Now by wanting to emulate, many amateurs rely on equipment (often to their detriment). To a professional sports photographer, frankly, the art is the least of their interests (though they may care in their personal, unpaid photography). If you rely on capturing 'the shot' from a fast paced event, be it sports, air shows or whatever, you will want every advantage you can get, because every advantage means more food on the table (as it were) - faster, more accurate AF and faster frame rates count, it may not guarantee the shot, it may not even double your chances, but that increase is critical when it is the difference between being paid and not. Now, being professionals, they have honed their skills through experience, lots and lots of experience, and the equipment works hand in hand with that experience to produce results. For amateurs, they see great photos (never mind the thousand that didn't make the cut), they see the expensive gear, and think that gear = results. Now for some (the gear heads) this may be what gives them the joy of their hobby - never underestimate the desire of a great number of people who just want to own 'the best'. For others, they put their poor results down to their gear, and with no frame of reference this makes sense to them - when they get the gear they know works (because they see the professionals use it) they are content, no longer is the gear the possible limitation - never mind that the professionals would still get stunning results with the 'lesser' gear (at the possible cost of their competitive edge).

Then we get back to goals. The above is more or less my experience with those who look up to most 'professional' photographers, those paid to document something. If you look at those who admire photographers who are more 'artsy', you see a different breed of hobbyist - I don't think any lomography shooter ever wasted time debating AF performance online (they would substitute with something equally inane, but more in line with their preference).

It seems that the former type of photographic hobbyist greatly outnumbers the later, and I think this is down to a few things - first, many more photographers make a living documenting than by being artistic (starving is almost a way of life for artists). Second, and I think this is more important, it is much easier to measure the technical stuff - sharpness and be measured, so can focus, and motion blur. Plenty of really good photos are technically crap (out of focus, crappy optics, loads of grain, bad composition, bad lighting, poorly exposed) but they are still good photos because they capture something, but that something is near impossible to measure. For an amateur, if you cannot measure, how can you track your progress? Much better to know you are advancing your skills because you photos are measurably better then by feeling you photos are better. Neither is really right or wrong, but it's face it, we have all seen the attractiveness of one path or the other.

So to bring it back to the actual topic of Pentax's AF, the hobbyist who desires technical perfection sees their idolised professionals all out at the game/air show with Canon and Nikon gear, and so in their mind it MUST be much better. Is it better? Yes, marginally. The AF is slightly faster, the tracking has a more refined algorithm, the lens motors are a little quicker. Does this matter? To the professional, yes - they don't want the phrase 'starving sports photographer' to enter common usage like 'starving artist' has, so every little advantage counts, and frankly, they have the skills to back it up, so good on them. For the hobbyist? No, probably not. There may be some who push against the limits of some gear in some cases, but the majority would not find a difference between their performance with Pentax and Canon/Nikon outside of their own minds.

Finally, should we care? Probably not. If someone wants to spend upwards of $10,000 on a top end body and trinity of f2.8 zooms for an occasional Facebook picture (but otherwise leaves the gear in the cupboard as it is frustrating) so be it. Be happy in your own mind. And I say that despite being involved on another forum where if you don't have a FF body with the holy trinity you are a nothing is the general attitude of the self appointed experts (so yes, they annoy me to). I just wish they would be as happy with their choices as I am with mine. That they, or anyone, needs to constantly talk down the needs, goals and choices of someone else says all you need to know about them.

[Winder]

I see a lot of people who comment here apparently don't actually shoot with anything other than Pentax and manual focus.

For the people who think the difference is marginal..... Does anyone here remember the Canon 1DIII? It will smoke the K-1 in AF speed and accuracy, but it lost Canon thousands of professional photographers because it had an AF problem. Canon gives guidance on 1D Mark III AF issues - CNET. The 1DIV was rushed out to market to replace the 1DIII. The problem was with C-AF. People make money in the margins. The difference between good work and really great work is in the margins.

Do you need super fast & accurate AF to make great images. Of course not. That's not even the question. If you happen to be one of those wealthy fine art photographers who only shoot what they want to shoot when they want to shoot it, then you can do whatever you want with what ever you want. For those of us grinding it out for a living, our clients expect sharp images. Saying your sorry for missing the bouquet being thrown because your lens was hunting isn't going to work.

Is the K-1 AF good enough? Again. That isn't the question the OP has. The question is a question of comparison. How does Ricoh AF compare to the competition. The K-1 is last in its class when it comes to C-AF. There is not a single current production FF DSLR with C-AF that is as slow or as inaccurate. Does that mean that Ricoh C-AF it is bad? No. Just that its not as good. I get the feeling the new Sony A99II will be the king of the hill for fast accurate AF (if the lenses can keep up). The A99II AF has potential to be amazing with enough processing power. The A99II will also be 2x the price of the K-1. Which bring up the next point. The K-1 is the best FF camera you can buy for the money. It might not have the best AF, but it has good AF and in many other ways it is a much better camera than the Nikon/Canon/Sony options at the same price point or even higher. If the K-1 had D5 AF speed and accuracy, it would be selling for $4,000.

[condor27596]

My sister gave me a Nikon D70s. It focused faster than my k-5iis. With made in Vietnam kit lens.

My *ist ds would not focus before the shot was gone. The k200 was a huge improvement.

I'm at k-3ii now it seems a lot has been improved since the *ist. Have the completion improved ? Dunno.

[brightseal]

For those of us grinding it out for a living, our clients expect sharp images. Saying your sorry for missing the bouquet being thrown because your lens was hunting isn't going to work.

I'm wondering how did photographers mange pre-AF era..........

[JimmyDranox]

I have learn a lot from this thread. What if we extend a little, and go to cars. Who need cars, when we had two feet and can go using them. We can go in vacations using carts. Fast cars? Airplanes? No need of it. After all, people was living for thousands of years without this sort of transports.

By the way, as an artist specialized in portraits, I think that I can make a fortune, if no camera ....

[bxf]

For those of us grinding it out for a living, our clients expect sharp images.

Understood. But not every professional task demands AF tracking.

Saying your sorry for missing the bouquet being thrown because your lens was hunting isn't going to work.

Hmmm, what, you'd focus on the flying bouquet? I'd have thought that the people are the more likely subjects, and they are relatively stationary.

[redpit]

I have learn a lot from this thread. What if we extend a little, and go to cars. Who need cars, when we had two feet and can go using them. We can go in vacations using carts. Fast cars? Airplanes? No need of it. After all, people was living for thousands of years without this sort of transports.

By the way, as an artist specialized in portraits, I think that I can make a fortune, if no camera ....

I think we all talk about cars here, not cars VS other means of transport. But we are talking about cars with drive by wire and auto parking systems VS simple cars that let you do the drive or intefere less with your driving... The fact that in a few years there will be cars that will drive you to your destination doesn't change the fact that I might find it better or more pleasant to drive my car...