You know what? I actually don't care about cross-type AF points, how fast a lens focuses, how many pixels the metering sensor has, tracking algorithms, whether or not the AF sensor sees a stabilized image or any other of that stuff. What I care about is the end result. I was at a zoo last Saturday with my K-3 and DA* 60-250. It was raining all day and I had no reservations walking around with my camera all day long. But when I tried to take shots of even a giraffe - not a fast animal at all - walking towards me, with tracking enabled, the focus was off in a lot of cases. Granted, I did not play around with the AF hold setting (it was probably still set to "normal"), and I might have gotten better results by playing with it, but I feel a camera like the K-3 should get at least half of the shots in perfect focus. It didn't. I know I could spend more money and get the K-3 II for that purpose, but really I shouldn't have to. And that annoys me.
---------- Post added 06-28-2016 at 02:43 PM ----------
Originally posted by Dan Rentea For birds in flight it’s best to keep image stabilization turned off. Any professional wildlife photographer can confirm this.
IS should not be used for tracking subjects in motion (except panning), since the IS will try to keep the image stationary. When IS is enabled (regardless of mode) your autofocus system may take longer to initially acquire the subject (especially for birds with chaotic flight.). This can result in more out of focus images.
Ok, that's a good point. I hadn't thought of that. Actually we were going quite a bit of topic. I only mentioned it as another aspect that might impact tracking. But you are right, for moving (non-panning) subjects, it should not matter.
But like I stated above, I really don't care what technology or combination of technologies or things like that make the difference. I do know that I love my K-3 for its ruggedness and weather sealing, but tracking AF can be a pain in the #$$.
---------- Post added 06-28-2016 at 02:46 PM ----------
Originally posted by Kunzite It's your choice. One French review and one Youtuber claiming one thing, versus one British review and few owners being impressed with the lens. Though Sandy Hancock used it with a K-3, so it doesn't really count if we talk about FF corners.
Tony's claim is also a personal statement, and nothing more than that. Except that he seems to want his brand "win"
Doesn't everyone? But regarding Tony Northrup, he also said he saw similar results to the French review while using the lens. So at least he's giving a little more information than just saying "it's not as good".
But like I said, I suspect something is going on as the ePhotozine review really praised the sharpness across the range.