[RockvilleBob]

Since the K1 recorded the bike sequence it does not appear to be a buffer size or fps issue, the images were recorded but most were just out of focus. Perhaps it was the lens but the article indicates that the lens used was the recently announced "(all images were shot at 200mm using theHD Pentax D FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW lens)" which is fairly fast - almost as fast as comparable Nikon and Canon lenses. It seems to me it is either the way the camera was set up or just poor AF tracking performance or both.

[beholder3]

It seems to me it is either the way the camera was set up

They wanted the face of the biker to be in focus.

Sadly nobody seems to have educated the tester enough to tell him that if John Doe wants to keep a subject in focus he needs keep one of the many autofocus sensors on top of it all them time, because the camera will focus on what you point the sensors at.

Overlay the K-1 autofocus points over the misfocused images and you know where the issue is. Hint: It's not the camera.

The test-setup itself is brainless: The camera is fixed on a tripod pointing to the sidewalk in infinity. You are deliberately not following your subject, but just hope the camera will focus on something which accidentally crosses the frame. "point and trigger at random" at its best.

What results would you expect when shooting BIF by fixing the camera and lens pointing to the sky and then just pressing the trigger once a bird happens to fly across the frame (and actually flying directly towards you).

[Dijker_t]

They wanted the face of the biker to be in focus.

Sadly nobody seems to have educated the tester enough to tell him that if John Doe wants to keep a subject in focus he needs keep one of the many autofocus sensors on top of it all them time, because the camera will focus on what you point the sensors at.

Overlay the K-1 autofocus points over the misfocused images and you know where the issue is. Hint: It's not the camera.

The test-setup itself is brainless: The camera is fixed on a tripod pointing to the sidewalk in infinity. You are deliberately not following your subject, but just hope the camera will focus on something which accidentally crosses the frame. "point and trigger at random" at its best.

What results would you expect when shooting BIF by fixing the camera and lens pointing to the sky and then just pressing the trigger once a bird happens to fly across the frame (and actually flying directly towards you).

This sounds like the only reasonable explanation of the 'test' result. Stunning how this flawed test is taken seriously by so many.

[clackers]

This sounds like the only reasonable explanation of the 'test' result. Stunning how this flawed test is taken seriously by so many.

But like Northrup, why has anyone on this forum taken it seriously?

And some people have.

[RonHendriks1966]

Well it is a 1800 $ camera and thus will be compared to more expensive models then thè K-3. So people expect way more from this K-1.

Overhere it's 1999 euro and for that I can also buy a D750 that is blasingly fast in auto focus.

[jake14mw]

An astoundingly brief review. Are all their camera body reviews that brief? I have been saying for years that the three areas that Pentax was behind were AF, video, and flash system. Apparently, DPReview doesn't care about flash because it wasn't mentioned. We all know video is not something Pentax cares about at all.

The AF review area did surprise me. I have been reading such good things in this forum about the K-1's AF performance. The bike test did not surprise me, but only a 50% keeper rate in simple centerpoint focusing? How can that be true? This does not jive with what people have been writing in this forum. I am interested to hear what people think about this.

From everything that I have seen and read, Pentax seems to have done a great job with the K-1 to cater to the Pentax community. I think they packed a lot of features at an excellent price point. In their next flagship camera, I would really love it if they overhauled the AF system. Not tuning SAFOX, an overhaul with great AF performance. Every camera is always the same, AF TUNING. What are we on, SAFOX XII? Enough already, overhaul it. I would also like to see them address some of their flash system deficiencies. Regarding video, I give up, I honestly don't think they are ever going to take it seriously, so while I would love better video handling, I expect nothing there. Whether or not they or we like it, video is becoming more and more blended with photography, and more people are using it.

I'm quoting my own post here to correct my own epic fail. I followed a link to the review SUMMARY, and somehow thought that was the whole review! So, I take back my dumb comment about the review being brief!

[clackers]

Well it is a 1800 $ camera and thus will be compared to more expensive models then thè K-3. So people expect way more from this K-1.

Overhere it's 1999 euro and for that I can also buy a D750 that is blasingly fast in auto focus.

But don't DPR have anyone who knows how to take a photograph, Ron?

[Rondec]

Since the K1 recorded the bike sequence it does not appear to be a buffer size or fps issue, the images were recorded but most were just out of focus. Perhaps it was the lens but the article indicates that the lens used was the recently announced "(all images were shot at 200mm using theHD Pentax D FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW lens)" which is fairly fast - almost as fast as comparable Nikon and Canon lenses. It seems to me it is either the way the camera was set up or just poor AF tracking performance or both.

I would just say that this test is not indicative of the results I have seen with the K-1 and that lens.

As to comparing it to the D750, by all accounts the D810' is pretty worthless as a camera, because the D750 tracks a little worse than it does.

[beholder3]

DPR has defined that there are exactly two peers to this camera against which it is competing. The Canon 6D and the Nikon D610. So we expect similar performance. No point here discussing this, because the reviewer has published what it is.

Ok, both are far behind Pentax when it comes to image stabilisation (especially fast lenses, low light etc) and many other capabilities, but even focussing on autofocus:

They tested 6d autofocus on static objects only. They simply have no comparison available.
They tested the d610 just with a cyclist simply driving straight at the user and even this one the user was actively following the subject. Much easier pice of cake. No valid comparison.

Now they are surprised a camera does not focus on something where there is no autofocus point.

[Dan Rentea]

But don't DPR have anyone who knows how to take a photograph, Ron?

But Ricoh does have such a photographer? Where are the Pentax ambassador photographs? I understand that some of the online reviews are biased when comes to Af performance, but I expected from Ricoh to publish some ambassadors photographs...

[monochrome]

The defined parameters for, and execution of this review demonstrate either pathological incompetence or intentional malicious intent.

DPR has defined that there are exactly two peers to this camera against which it is competing. The Canon 6D and the Nikon D610. So we expect similar performance. No point here discussing this, because the reviewer has published what it is.

Ok, both are far behind Pentax when it comes to image stabilisation (especially fast lenses, low light etc) and many other capabilities, but even focussing on autofocus:

They tested 6d autofocus on static objects only. They simply have no comparison available.
They tested the d610 just with a cyclist simply driving straight at the user and even this one the user was actively following the subject. Much easier pice of cake. No valid comparison.

Now they are surprised a camera does not focus on something where there is no autofocus point.

[Kunzite]

For some reason Pentax seems content being recognized as a camera with poor autofocus.

Are they?

You Tube

You Tube

[beholder3]

If anyone wants to analyse their "test", here is a file which shows the K-1 viewfinder overlay:
Superimposing K-1 viewfinder details and/or AF points: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Use it in PS or LR and check yourselves.

[c.a.m]

In my opinion, the DPR review of the K-1 AF capabilities is not credible, simply because it does not provide sufficient details of the experimental methodology, the test set-up, the precise camera settings, the environment, or the data. The standards are not described (e.g., what measure constitutes "poor" performance?), and the tests are not reproducible from the scant information provided. Furthermore, there is no discussion of the possibile sources of error (i.e., other than the camera) or a comparison with other similar tests that have been published online.

In science, medicine and engineering, reports of this nature would be readily discounted. To be sure, testing a camera is not rocket science, surgery or bridge building, but this report falls short of the basic principles of experimentation and testing.

- Craig

[ffking]

The defined parameters for, and execution of this review demonstrate either pathological incompetence or intentional malicious intent.

in terms of the autofocus tracking -m they don't seem aware that the competence of any camera is dependant on lighting conditions - the examples they show look to me to be a very low contrast scene - unless they consistently test is low contrast conditions at the same (measured) light level, then comparisons between cameras are meaningless - trying to exclude all but one variable is just basic science. This isn't to say that Pentax AF is as good as Nokon - it isn't - but pseudo-scientific testing helps nobody.

Also +1 above - written at the same time as I was writing