[biz-engineer]

Had you focus adjusted the lens? Also worth testing a swaying bike that's approaching the camera in the same manner as dpreview.

No, I havn't any AF adjustment with this lens, I use default settings. That is true that the bike aren't coming towards the camera. I'll do other tests during the day, with bike coming toward the camera, if I have time.

---------- Post added 07-07-16 at 01:15 ----------

At least, this controversial thing about this poor Pentax K1 AF has generate 1600 posts and the K1 is know at the top of the most popular camera in the front page of DPreview website.

What make me laught also are all the folks coming from Nikon and Canon jumping in to reinforce the bad AF review that DPR gave to the K1, while they actually know nothing about the Pentax K1 AF performance since they never tried it a single time. So it doesn't really matter how the K1 AF performs, Nikon and Canon guys are going to do their bashing anyway.

---------- Post added 07-07-16 at 01:19 ----------

Funny there is no mention of Canon at all in it. Nikon can go to sleep and don't worry. A good test I Think.

So , Ron, you believe the test? They can post anything and you believe it? Great.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 07-06-2016 at 04:18 PM.

[Rondec]

Clearly the speculation with regard to this test is that it doesn't jive with what we have experienced. I don't think anyone would argue that the K-1 has the fastest auto focus on the market. It doesn't. Kenpo said that in the beginning. At the same time, the idea that the camera is unable to track a moving object and get a majority of images in focus is completely the opposite of what I have experienced in my shooting.

I wasn't surprised at the DP Review score overall. I knew they would ding the camera for lack of video and for lack of lens supports. At the same time, clearly from a price standpoint, this camera has to measure up to the 6D and the D610. I think it does so in spades and DP Review actually admits that this camera betters the D810 in some respects, for a significantly lower price.

Hard to say what their results actually mean.

[monochrome]

This (Canon / Nikon users piling on the AF) is why a flawed, poorly executed review by testers who should know how a Pentax camera works (Richard Butler) is so dramatically unfair and damaging. It should be reviewed with the camera profile stated upfront - this isn't a Sports Camera, so don't expect that performance - then compare it to the best ONE camera per brand that best matches its features. Don't compare each separate feature to the best camera for each feature, then discount the one leading feature the camera has.

I don't argue with the score, or with Silver. I argue with testing parameters and the choice of words in the text. I'll bring along an iPad* to read ImagingResource while waiting for DPReview to write a competent review.

I wouldn't be shocked to learn it is intentional click bait. Pentax Users are so predictable.


* Reference to the 'bring a Kindle to read while you wait for AF' comment lends some credence to my suspicion of intent, given that DPReview is owned by Amazon and Kindle is Amazon's proprietary tablet.

[slip]

DP replying in the comments about the bike test

Rishi Sanyal
Yet another set of poor assumptions. Every test was done in Focus Priority, not FPS priority.

Our bike test is actually not fast moving at all by today's standards. Even a CDAF-bases Sony RX100 IV passes it with flying colors in single point mode, as does an a6300, a7R II, Panasonic with DFD, Canon 5Ds, Nikon D500, etc.

If it can't keep focus on our cyclist, that's not an indication that we used AF-C wrong, it's an indication that AF-C cannot keep up nearly as well as what we expect from most cameras, particularly DSLRs, today.

The implications being that even tougher focus scenarios, like actual sports, or candid portraits of your newborn or kids, will see the K-1 faltering even more. Nor can you use subject tracking reliably to keep a subject in focus no matter where it moves to in the frame even for a single shot. It's not like we only did the bike test to come to our AF opinion... AF simply does not impress.

What I particularly fail to understand is why are people offended by our pointing out a strongly vetted shortcoming? Aren't shortcomings exactly what potential shoppers wish to know? Perhaps Pentax brand loyalists should stop for a minute and try to be a bit more selfless - realizing that shortcomings like this are exactly what a buyer needs to know to make an informed decision. Don't care about AF? Great, no harm done. Care about AF? Then consider our findings.

The camera still scored well - consider that a D810 with better base ISO image quality for typical (non Pixel Shift) shooting thanks to ISO 64 and a far far more capable AF system only scored 2% higher. Getting offended over our presenting valuable findings helps no one (unless of course we're wrong)

I agree we Pentax people do get our feathers up and get defensive about our cameras. in a nut shell no matter what test we or they do, Pentax AF is behind when you compare to other brands. how much so is what is debatable. It is what it is, so let's focus on encouraging Pentax to put more resources into future AF capabilities and move on

Randy

[bwDraco]

Again, I'm not ruling out the possibility of a defect. It's possible their review sample had a faulty AF module.

My Pentax K-3 II has no trouble tracking moving subjects of this sort.

Pentax K-3 II with DA* 60-250mm @ 250mm. TAv, 1/1000s f/5.6 ISO 320.


Draco

[rawr]

when using something like f8 it is more a test of the shutter speed then it is about focus tracking

True enough with 28-105. Not necessarily the case with all lenses, of course. After all, f8 at 10m @600mm on FF gives only about 10cm of DOF. And f8 on a FF 100mm 1:1 macro certainly isn't lots of DOF either.

[RockvilleBob]

Again, I'm not ruling out the possibility of a defect. It's possible their review sample had a faulty AF module.

My Pentax K-3 II has no trouble tracking moving subjects of this sort.

Pentax K-3 II with DA* 60-250mm @ 250mm. TAv, 1/1000s f/5.6 ISO 320.


Draco

Pentax should be getting a fully operational camera to them for testing along with an person to help them conduct the test (insure the camera is set up correctly etc.) The cost of doing this would be minuscule to what the review will cost them if it is not corrected.

If Pentax does nothing we can only assume they accept the review.

[rawr]

If Pentax does nothing we can only assume they accept the review.

To be fair, as has been pointed out before, Pentax certainly seem to expect/hope no-one pays much attention to the K-1 AF.

A case in point is that when you look at the way they sell the camera features on the Pentax Japan web site:
even though they do say positive things about the K-1's AF tracking ability:

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

the AF features only make it to page 5 of the 6 'K-1 Features' pages. The AF is literally just about the last thing they want to highlight about the K-1:
Features5 | PENTAX K-1 | RICOH IMAGING

And of course video/'Movie Recording' sits even further back, on page 6, as feature they want to highlight.

As much as I dislike DPR, if their negative and flawed review can motivate Pentax to pay a little more attention to AF development and refinement, there may be some positives to come out of the DPR review.

There's a lot of AF improvements Pentax can probably implement even at the level of firmware, in terms of tracking logic, movement detection, face detection algorithms in PDAF, etc. Plus some changes just at the user interface to AF - like improved AF point illumination settings, the ability to zoom in on playback on the active focus point, and on playback, an overlay across the whole screen image of the active AF points.

[pkokity]

... remaining part of the burst.

Nice pictures, Biz. I think you should redo the sequence someone riding bike as you have, showing a little back skin like your gal does, and scribble on them in small-letters worthy of the K-1's resolution, "If you can read this, the K-1 has good enough tracking." Then, take a series of pictures for the pixel peepers to critique.

[pinholecam]

Someone should organise a DPRixt to protest and show them the users mean business. ��

[ogl]

Special K? Pentax K-1 Review: Digital Photography Review

Worst AF ever seen...I doubt...K-3's AF is not bad at all. If K-1 has the same level, it's good level.

[Dan Rentea]

I do have a Pentax K1 with DFA24-70 and DFA150-450, and I wouldn't say that it is 100% good, however, there is no way I can believe the AF test results of DPReview which is way off the actual AF perf. that I observe from my copy of the K1. I've also used a D750. While K1 AF can be more hesitating at times (let's say 5% of the AF runs), 95% of AF runs it's as good as the D750 I've used. In short, I agree that Pentax K1 is not as robust as Nikon D750, but since I own the K1, I have shot 5000 frames from birding to horse racing and I never had any poor results like presented by DPReview. DPReview could still say that Pentax K1 AF is inferior to Canon/Nikon, but saying that they get 85% out of focus in tracking indicates a test problem that can't be generalized to how all K1 copies behave.

I had K-5 II and K-3 II so I tend to laugh a little when I see the Af results from DPreview tests. I know Pentax is behind Canon and Nikon when comes to tracking, but not as much as DPreview is saying. Too bad that in Romania is imposible to rent Pentax gear in order to do some side by side tests.

What surprised me most is that Ricoh is unable (or doesn't want) to wake up the ambassadors and publish some articles and images regarding the K-1 performance. I mean, where the heck are the Pentax ambassadors and most important, who are they?

I don't want Ricoh to argue with independent reviewers, but I want them to show us from their point of view what a K-1 can do in the hands of a proffesional photographer.

First, there can be comments on Pentax K1 AF performance from everybody not having used a Pentax K1, but it is very subjective since you rely on review and what you think of Pentax AF for whatever reason.

If I'd rank DSLR AF performance from best to worse, it would be in this way:
1) Nikon D5/D500
2) Canon 1Dx
3) Nikon D750/810
4) Canon 5DII/7DII
5) Pentax K1/K3
6) Nikon D610/D7200
7) Canon 6D/70D

Based on your comment, I have to ask: you ranked the af performance from the cameras you listed based on your shooting experience with all of them or you ranked them based on specs? What I want to understand is if you are subjective or objective when you did ranked these cameras based on their af performance.

I've tested my K-3 II along with a Canon 6D for a few months and after more than 3.000 shots taken in various conditions with both cameras I sold my K-3 II and I bought a 6D. In my opinion and based on the experience with both cameras, 6D tracks better than K-3 II.

[ffking]

It's become such a mantra that Pentax's weak points are AF,video and modern lens selection that these will always be highlighted -but Ricoh is working on them, as it must. The lens issue is a perfectly reasonable one to draw attention to for anybody thinking of buying into the Pentax system for the first time - being able to expand into specialist areas as you progress is an important point. For instance, I do a lot of macro work, and, if I was starting with a clean slate, I might be tempted by Canon because of the amazing MP-E65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro lens, the like of which nobody else offers as far as I know.

I assume Pentax, who used to have some unique lenses, found that as their user base shrank the development and manufacturing costs couldn't be justified, and got caught in a vicious spiral -but the truth is that these lenses are no longer reliably available. None of this is Ricoh's fault, and they are addressing it, but it takes time and investment - just as improving the AF does -if there was an easy or cheap fix, they'd be utter fools not to have implemented it - I suspect that they are partly hoisted by the petard of Pentax's backward lens compatibility - that doesn't mean they're not improving it - but it's still not good enough. And whether we like it or not, it does matter - maybe not 95% of the time - just are there are features on my K-3 I have never used and possibly never will - but having the confidence that the AF won't let you down when you don't have time for workarounds is important - and as long as AF is perceived as an Achilles heel, there will always be a stick to beat Pentax with.

I do think that the dpreview was unnecessarily negative about some things - I think they were grudging about the strengths ( though some of these too, have a mantra-quality about them where they become received wisdom beyond argument) - and that their conclusions were more negative than the testing they were based on in places - but, like with Tony Northrup's review, if you step outside the Pentax bubble and look at the camera from the point of view of a consumer who has an open field to chose from, the points are not unfair. I love Pentax cameras and don't want to change, but that doesn't stop me wishing that the focusing on my K-3 was a bit more decisive, because that's about the only thing that stops it being well nigh perfect for insect macros. I'm not going to mention video because I never use it, other than to say that if Pentax don't develop it, it will go on being another stick to beat them with. I think where the review is better than many is that they don't expect contradictory things - like high frame rate AND high Mp, or rugged weather-sealed construction AND feather-lightness.

But I think that we, and Ricoh, need to take the criticisms on the chin. Ricoh need to deal with them at cause and stop them being issues - and the evidence is that they are working on this - and we need to stop being defensive about them and tell people why, in spite of them, Pentax cameras are still our cameras of choice.

[RonHendriks1966]

But I think that we, and Ricoh, need to take the criticisms on the chin. Ricoh need to deal with them at cause and stop them being issues - and the evidence is that they are working on this - and we need to stop being defensive about them and tell people why, in spite of them, Pentax cameras are still our cameras of choice.

This is very important. When you look at the long list of comments at dpr one could be ashamed by some of them. Today REPUTATION is almost everything. Currently the Pentax crowd is one that is not very pleasantly to the outside world out of the bubble. When this doesn't change there is not much future for the brand no matter how great the camera's are.

[Tatouzou]

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

IMO, the most probable is that they wanted to downgrade the K1 and chose the test paramaters in order to obtain poor results but hide it behind what seemed objective measurements.
I just remember their initial pixelshift test, using Lightroom or ACR, which dont support this feature, to process the files and conclude it didnt work as should be expected.
Then, after hundreds of replies pointing out this bia, they retired the initial review and wrote a new one.
I also remember the K3 review in 2014: they delayed it 6 months, and produced the same bicycle test to conclude the AF was underaverage, and didnt really improve from previous models. I have a K3 and K30, my son had K5 and nows has K3, and the AF improvements are obvious.
I am an average photographer, with almost no experience in action shooting or birding. I tried the K3 AF-C tracking with s9 setting at passing cyclist, and all shots were in focus.
Also they said that the JPEGs in K3 were poor because the default setting (bright) were overprocessed, with too much sharpness and saturation. I dont have K1, but they rate the JPEGs as poor because the default settings (natural I guess?) are dull and lack sharpness and saturation.
I wonder what would have been the review if the camera had had "nikon" engraved on it instead of Pentax.