[Barry Pearson]

Neither series shows a jogger (moderate speed) coming right at you. Try again.

True! Perhaps the K-1 can only shoot jet planes and racing cars, etc.

Perhaps shooting a slow moving jogger needs a camera specialised for slow moving action, such as a Nikon.

---------- Post added 22nd Aug 2016 at 07:55 AM ----------

Do you have a K-3 and a modern, DC lens?

That is a good question, especially when applied to the K-1 rather than the K-3.

I typically use the D FA 150-450mm for "things in flight", and the D FA* 70-200mm for motorsports. I find with the K-1 that they quickly and confidently lock-onto the subject and stay there. These lenses are better with the K-1 than with the K-3-series, because the extra field of view often gives me an extra frame at close range that turns out to be the best in burst. And I think the K-1 really needs modern lenses (not necessarily Pentax) to be at its best with action.

But my shooting style is probably also a factor: I typically use center Spot focusing, then keep that center AF point on the subject I want to have in focus. I don't use camera-tracking. So I'm perhaps working harder than some of the people around me to get those keepers.

I'm not claiming the K-1 is perfect with all of the above. But the great majority of my rejects are my fault, not AF problems. This puts it into perspective: it is a general purpose camera, not a camera specialised for action photography. But it certainly isn't a camera that can't shoot action: I end up with far more potential keepers than I can use, and I'm rejecting photos that with previous cameras I would have been pleased with.


(My K-3II was better at action-auto-focusing than my K-3. My K-1 is better at action-auto-focusing than my K-3II. Which is why my K-3II is is just my back-up in case my K-1 breaks, and my K-3 is on loan to a friend).

[C_Jones]

True! Perhaps the K-1 can only shoot jet planes and racing cars, etc.

Perhaps shooting a slow moving jogger needs a camera specialised for slow moving action, such as a Nikon.

---------- Post added 22nd Aug 2016 at 07:55 AM ----------



That is a good question, especially when applied to the K-1 rather than the K-3.

I typically use the D FA 150-450mm for "things in flight", and the D FA* 70-200mm for motorsports. I find with the K-1 that they quickly and confidently lock-onto the subject and stay there. These lenses are better with the K-1 than with the K-3-series, because the extra field of view often gives me an extra frame at close range that turns out to be the best in burst. And I think the K-1 really needs modern lenses (not necessarily Pentax) to be at its best with action.

But my shooting style is probably also a factor: I typically use center Spot focusing, then keep that center AF point on the subject I want to have in focus. I don't use camera-tracking. So I'm perhaps working harder than some of the people around me to get those keepers.

I'm not claiming the K-1 is perfect with all of the above. But the great majority of my rejects are my fault, not AF problems. This puts it into perspective: it is a general purpose camera, not a camera specialised for action photography. But it certainly isn't a camera that can't shoot action: I end up with far more potential keepers than I can use, and I'm rejecting photos that with previous cameras I would have been pleased with.


(My K-3II was better at action-auto-focusing than my K-3. My K-1 is better at action-auto-focusing than my K-3II. Which is why my K-3II is is just my back-up in case my K-1 breaks, and my K-3 is on loan to a friend).

Thank you for the information and shots.

[Class A]

In one of the DPReview threads Barry Pearson pointed us to, Rishi Sanyal writes:

"That's not to say it's terrible, it just falls behind the speeds we expect from a Nikon DSLR, a Canon DSLR, or a Sony a7R II.

There you have it: The K-1's AF is not terrible.

Of course the original language of the DPReview review of the K-1 used completely inappropriate language like "poor AF performance" -- one really wonders what the writing qualification of some of their staff is -- and that gave rise to all sorts of criticism. DPReview is not good at doing repeatable tests in a fair manner and is often poor at expressing what they really mean. That's the main problem. Not that the K-1's AF is terrible. Not even DPReview thinks it is terrible.

P.S.: Rishi Sanyal even writes that the AF-S hesitation goes away when you change the AF mode to "release priority". He does not explain why doing so is not an option to avoid the problem. In my experience, using "release priority" does not result in less sharp shots as long as one awaits the focus confirmation. So if the latter occurs without hesitation with "release priority" then why not simply use that mode?

[FantasticMrFox]

P.S.: Rishi Sanyal even writes that the AF-S hesitation goes away when you change the AF mode to "release priority". He does not explain why doing so is not an option to avoid the problem. In my experience, using "release priority" does not result in less sharp shots as long as one awaits the focus confirmation. So if the latter occurs without hesitation with "release priority" then why not simply use that mode?

That's Pentax' fault though, isn't it? The phrasing "Focus priority" and "Release priority" suggests the former gives you every shot properly focused, with the downside of sometimes taking a bit longer, while the latter would fire as soon as you want it to fire, even if proper focus has not yet been achieved.

So if your priority is to get every shot properly focussed, why would it even occur to you that 'Release priority' is a good option for that?

[Kunzite]

So they should make "Focus priority" miss the focus?

[FantasticMrFox]

So they should make "Focus priority" miss the focus?

Assuming that 'Release priority' gives you as good results as 'Focus priority', but without the AF hesitation', what's the point of the two modes in AF.S?

But then I'm assuming a lot from Rishi's statement

[Class A]

So if your priority is to get every shot properly focussed, why would it even occur to you that 'Release priority' is a good option for that?

This is now a criticism of Pentax terminology or inappropriateness of the manual, which is entirely different from a criticism of the AF system.

The point is, it occurred to DPReview to try the other setting and they observed it to avoid the hesitation but their conclusion remains unaltered. It is as if the goal is to report on the performance of some settings which happen to make the camera perform suboptimally for a certain crition instead of reporting on the performance enabled by the best settings (however non-intuitive they are).

Again, I could forgive a reviewer for not finding the best settings if they are not intuitive, but I'm puzzled about this attitude of ignoring better settings despite being aware of them.

[Kunzite]

Assuming that 'Release priority' gives you as good results as 'Focus priority', but without the AF hesitation', what's the point of the two modes in AF.S?

Assuming that you can use the AF-C via the back button to focus&lock, what is the point of AF-S?
They're different modes, with different behavior. 'Release priority' will only give you as good results if you're careful and wait for focus confirmation.

[monochrome]

This is now a criticism of Pentax terminology or inappropriateness of the manual, which is entirely different from a criticism of the AF system.

The point is, it occurred to DPReview to try the other setting and they observed it to avoid the hesitation but their conclusion remains unaltered. It is as if the goal is to report on the performance of some settings which happen to make the camera perform suboptimally for a certain crition instead of reporting on the performance enabled by the best settings (however non-intuitive they are).

Again, I could forgive a reviewer for not finding the best settings if they are not intuitive, but I'm puzzled about this attitude of ignoring better settings despite being aware of them.

There seems to be no level of rational response that will sway the prejudgment that Pentax is bad. Answering an objection just opens another thread of objection.

At some point one has to wonder, "Is there intent behind all this?" Merely asking the question causes an accusation of 'Fanboy conspiracy theorist', which is a classic disruptor technique.