[RockvilleBob]

I've answered your same question on DPReview! But I'll repeat it here in case anyone else is interested.

Quote:
What do you mean by tracking?

I've been told (I think) that it refers to the ability of the camera to keep focused on a subject as it moves across the field of view. In other words, to switch from one focus point to another.

As I said above [DPReview thread]:
"In the past, I've used centre-spot focusing for nearly all my bird photography. That is simply because I got used to that while using Pentax film SLRs, and I carried on doing something I was comfortable with. That means I've been wasting all those extra AF points, and all the development effort in the latest Pentax cameras designed to help with the sort of photography I do!"

So I've never seriously used tracking until yesterday!

I've occasionally tried it to see what happens, but then found I didn't really understand what was going on, so rapidly reverted to centre-spot focusing.

If you are referring to the ability of the camera to predict the required focus as a subject moves towards or away from the camera, (which I thought was "predictive focusing"?), then the "birds in flight" photos suggest to me that the K-1 is better than the K-3II. Which I suspect is equal to, or better than, the K-3.

Thank you for the reply - this is very encouraging.

[Poit]

Very similar. It's a fair bit chunkier than the k-3, and you notice the weight difference, but after 5 minutes you won't care.
The GUI is much sleeker, and everything just feels more responsive (if you made a switch from the K-5 or K-3, you'll know that feeling already - it's the same feeling when switching up to the k-1 from k-3)

The buttons have moved around a bit. I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced all the changes have been for the better, but I think I would need to live with it for a while before I'd give a definite yay or nay.

The viewfinder is really big, and really bright. I do like that a lot!

The flippy screen is interesting. I can't see too much use for that myself, other than to confuse the hell out of my friends.



Well you know, you'll be spending the first 15mins attaching the strap, setting the date/time, and fiddling with settings to get it to work how you like, so it'll take a little while.

Its definitely a camera that grows on you. Initially it feels a little bit like the k-3, but it is different enough that it'll take a little while to figure out where all the buttons have been moved to. It's similar to shooting with the K-3, but the experience is quite different (see autofocus below). It is after all a different format. The hit rate on my first day or two was much lower than it would be on the K-3. You will be relearning the behaviour of your lenses, so it does take a while to adjust your style to suit FF.

Honestly though, it's really grown on me. I'm very happy with it.

Once you get those first images into Lightroom though, you'll be smiling...



Yes. The image quality is top notch. The subject isolation you can get with the FA limiteds is superb. The high ISO performance is mind boggling. ISO 8000? You just don't care. You'll know it will clean up nicely in Lightroom.

The K-1 is a beast, and I'm glad it's here.

I remember reading somewhere (DPR maybe), that the camera may out perform legacy glass. I think I might agree with that assessment (but I know there will be examples taken with old K and M glass that will look great). I've got a couple of non-limited FA's (28 and 135). They don't quite cut it in my eyes. Sharpness is all good, but the colours, contrast, and flaring just doesn't seem as well controlled when compared to the FA limiteds, DA*'s, DA limiteds, or DFA lenses. Indeed I'd say the lens coatings on the FA limiteds are slightly behind the DFA's and DA's. The older M, A, and K glass I've tried suffers from similar issues. (I've not used legacy glass in anger too much though, mainly the FA limited if I'm honest). I haven't been that wowed by the K's and M's I've tried (K18, A20, M40, K55 f1.8, K50 f1.4). I think there is some truth to the old adage that APS-C is using the best part of the image circle of legacy glass. Your favourite legacy lenses on APS-C, might not be quite so great on the K-1 (but the reverse may also be true: some lenses you didn't like on apsc, might be much better on the k-1). YMMV.

Two lenses I haven't tried are the plastic fantastic DA primes. I'd love to see how those perform!



Depends on what your needs are. Let's get the bad stuff out the way first: the focus points feel a little bit too squished in towards the centre of the frame. I can see this being a problem for people shooting sports, or those who need to track movement from one side of the frame to the other. As soon as you want to focus on something near the edge, you'll be switching to manual focus. So that's the bad bit out of the way.

Now for the good: the focus speed is much faster on screwdrive lenses than on the k-3. Accuracy seems to be better as well. I really like the new viewfinder confirmation for the focus points. Using autofocus for macro shots actually works (I haven't seen the DFA100 hunt once, it just locks on every time. On the k-3 this was a ball ache of a lens to autofocus, on the k-1 it's superb).

Tracking seems to be better, but I haven't used that in anger yet, so that's just my initial impression.

The autofocus in the K-3 is pretty decent all round (for me anyway). The K-1 has improved much of it, but the lack of frame coverage can be a little frustrating at times. (I'd imagine this is less frustrating than on the 645z though!)

Thanks for the thorough response!

It sounds, as I feared, just awesome. OK, time to start saving