[Barry Pearson]

Obviously there are persons that use the K-1 for advanced level photography. A professional or non-professional user still has the opportunity to utilize the K-1. Professional does not necessarily have to be the most advanced user. If a K-1 is available to an advanced user, the user is most likely going to utilize it in its best manner, meaning excellent results in satisfactory conditions a majority of the time, including the use of the K-1 AF system. To say that the K-1 is meant for only landscape or slow moving subjects, or not usable for a simple wedding shoot is ridiculous, and advanced users utilizing it for action photography have already proved it to perform for non-extreme and extreme speeds.

I am aiming this comment at no one specifically. Of course, you do not have to agree or disagree with what I have expressed.

The K-1 is covering a lot of ground, and many users are able to utilize it with their shooting abilities as an all around performer with a majority of great results. I wish all of you K-1 users well, and please note that I also know that performance is easy enough to come by using the proper shooting techniques. I am not negative about K-1 features, and that includes very efficient AF function.

A very good description!

Given that I have a K-1, my approach typically isn't "what can't the K-1 do?", but rather "what can I make the K-1 do?". (Especially, "in combination with the modern Pentax FF lenses").

The answer is "rather a lot, including things that many people who don't have a K-1 assume it can't do well, if at all!"

[Class A]

I stumbled across this demonstration of the StrobiStrip by Michael Zelbel and was intrigued by the AF problems he had with his Sony A7R II.

The A7R II's AF performance was praised to the moon and back by DPReview and got multiple plus points related to AF in the conclusion. Meanwhile, in real life, Michael Zelbel is unable to obtain focus in the space of 30s. Jump to ~15m 10s of the video, if you want to see the A7R II fail dramatically with a Tamron lens on a metabones adapter.

If only Michael Zelbel had a Kobo (a proper eReader) with him to entertain himself while his A7R II does its thing...

I concede that I do not know how slow that Tamron lens is and that an adapter scenario is not ideal. The drastic failure is definitely just anecdotal but nevertheless perhaps one piece of evidence for the notion that DPReview's findings are not entirely reliable.

[C_Jones]

A very good description!

Given that I have a K-1, my approach typically isn't "what can't the K-1 do?", but rather "what can I make the K-1 do?". (Especially, "in combination with the modern Pentax FF lenses").

The answer is "rather a lot, including things that many people who don't have a K-1 assume it can't do well, if at all!"

Thank you. I see your point, there is nothing to lose. The K-1 can perform very well using sensible technique.

[Winder]

The A7R II's AF performance was praised to the moon and back by DPReview and got multiple plus points related to AF in the conclusion. Meanwhile, in real life, Michael Zelbel is unable to obtain focus in the space of 30s. Jump to ~15m 10s of the video, if you want to see the A7R II fail dramatically with a Tamron lens on a metabones adapter.

The lens and adapter (as you mention) are key. Pretty much all of the adapters hurt the AF of the A7 line. I put my Zeiss 55mm on an A7rII and it is very snappy and tracks very well for a mirrorless. With native glass the A7rII is definitely better than the K-1 in most lighting. In poor light the K-1 is probably better but I have not tested. My issue with Sony has more to do with build quality and consistency than with the performance of the technology. The face recognition and eye AF of the Sony are really nice features for wedding and event shooters. The ability to program the brides face into the camera so that it will recognize her and automatically focus on her is a great feature. Rioch needs to figure out a way to implement this type of technology into an OVF camera.

[mee]

I concede that I do not know how slow that Tamron lens is and that an adapter scenario is not ideal. The drastic failure is definitely just anecdotal but nevertheless perhaps one piece of evidence for the notion that DPReview's findings are not entirely reliable.

Therein is an issue.. Rishi claimed a forum member's own AF test proved his own review findings. However, the member AF test used a variety of older lenses for the K-1 and the baseline (a Canon 5d) used a high value single point. That is fine if you simply wanted to compare camera A with a variety of old lenses to camera B with a single lens. But that doesn't detail the story. Plus, that single point of data was rather high (using a 70-200 USM F/4) and the K-1's were an average of many points (some much approaching the 5d baseline, others woefully not even near) which make it look rather poor.

For whatever reason there is some kind of chip on their shoulders when anyone mentions the 'P' word. I don't even care if I didn't use Pentax products because their view, while subtle, is still rather clear. Rishi especially.. He argues his claim and shoves it down peoples throats in the Pentax section of their forums. Then, when several others came in to diffuse the situation, he still doesn't back down -- literally claiming everyone else is wrong and he is right. No agreeing to disagree, no just walking away. So it is rather political over there with the DPR staff. And it does seem like a political campaign looking to make mountains out of molehills on any sort of flaws in those they don't want to see succeed, while dismissing any flaws in their own 'candidates.'

I'm sure they'd say "We test cameras as they are, in order to show what they are" but that is a load of bologna when they weigh AF tracking so highly throughout the conclusions on one review and not another. It might be, comparatively, worse off. But the tests so far don't definitively prove it as they were conducted. They even claim single AF acquisition was hesitant. That is what really got me looking deeper. Because, it wasn't hesitant on my Pentax digital bodies from 6 years ago, I doubt the K-1 is any worse. How could it when the AF module is 4 versions/generations newer?

It is so frustrating reading slanted opinion formed as an objective review, because others will read those opinions thinking they are truth, then we have to deal with people who now believe these heavily slanted opinions. Doubly worse when they're tied in with a major retailer (Amazon).

The hilarity of that, though, is the 'Top customer review' of the K-1 on amazon is a 'converted Canon 5d user'. Who makes no mention of hesitant or inferior AF. As a matter of fact, they appear to be ecstatic about the new Pentax body.

But the more I see DPR respond, the more I get a feel for their true colors. Of course there is some fanboyism in the Pentax section of the forums, but that isn't the issue here. Take DPR with a grain of salt.. treat them as a single data point..

It almost reminds me of a movie critic.. hates/dismisses a movie (perhaps because they don't understand it; trying to make it something ti isn't designed to be), yet it still gets really high marks with the actual audience (who do understand it and appreciate it for what it is).

[monochrome]

@mee Good analysis. The question is, "Why might DPR be prejudiced against Pentax?" There can be many reasons. Some that come to mind are:

• Unconscious Centering - they are actually biased FOR what they use rather than AGAINST Pentax
• Confirmation Bias - expecting an outcome and promoting it against contrary evidence
• Amazon Corporate policy - Amazon wants volume break points on favored gear and Pentax is real competition
• Pentax sells to Amazon on less favorable terms than favored brands (a more generalized version of above) - see snark-laden Kindle reference)
• Social Othering - in order to strengthen group affinity with favored brands, create the "Other" which they are NOT
• Clickbaiting - intentionally arousing Pentax sympathies to elicit online argument
• Playing to the weight of members - reverse affirmation of the much larger 'Favored Brands" Forums (similar to Othering)
• Chance personal insecurity of the reviewers - afraid to be an outlier (proclaiming "I am a Ph.D.!!!")
• Simple incompetence

All of which is a shame, really. I had previously thought Chris M. Williams (new, and a former microbiologist) , Richard Butler and Dan Bracaglia (both veteran DPR Administrators and Editors) were at least professional, unbiased writers. I think the latter two reputations have been sullied by "rishii", who I take to be Rishi Sanyal, and Chris Williams. I think it interesting that 'to rishii" is becoming an active verb, such as "to Fisk" (or "to boriscleto").

Whatever is going on, it doesn't seem to be random.

[Barry Pearson]

But the more I see DPR respond, the more I get a feel for their true colors.

Here are indications of one of the things that is wrong:

Here is a comment from a DPReview Administrator in the Comments section of the K-1 Review:
"Fast jets, cars racing around a track etc., are often positioned at infinity, more or less, and when you're tracking them, you're essentially tracking them from infinity, through infinity, towards infinity. An iPhone with a long enough lens could do a pretty good job of that - it isn't hard. And if you're just panning, the AF system has even less work to do."

My response to that statement is here.

Here is a comment from another DPReview Administrator in the Pentax SLR Forum:
"Objects at infinity are one of the easiest use-cases of AF systems. To put this in perspective: even Fuji mirrorless can do this well. Lovely cameras, but struggle with more challenging AF scenarios, like subject tracking, face tracking, or subjects that rapidly change in relation to relative distance to camera. This is precisely why we don't use airplanes as an AF testing method. It wouldn't differentiate any camera, and doesn't at all represent the results you might get in more challenging use-cases photographers may typically encounter."

My response to that statement is here.

Their statements are surely indications that they've never shot that sort of action in their lives! (And is the similarity between their statements a coincidence?)

Rishi Sanyal has some very good photos (that I like) on his website. He is actually a very good photographer. But ....
Look at what his subjects are. Or rather, think what his subjects are not.

[C_Jones]

Pentax AF.C wildlife example from last Tuesday. Crop of Osprey at approximately 45 yards away. Original is furthest below.

[Dan Rentea]

Pentax AF.C wildlife example from last Tuesday. Crop of Osprey at approximately 45 yards away. Original is furthest below.

Nice image, but it's not the best example of an image where AF-C would have been necesarly. This is rather a good example where AF-S or pre-focusing technique could have been used with success.

And why f13? An aperture between f.6.3 and f8 would have sufficed, given the distance between the camera and the bird.

[C_Jones]

Just a sample. No offense, but AF.C can be used in many scenarios. When I am shooting birds that are perching, wading, or families in their nests, if I have light I may use an aperture such as F13 for depth, in case I have two birds as a subject for example. My ISO was not high, the aperture did not cause a negative effect. Another ISO and aperture could have been used, and AF.S could have been used, but that would possibly involved more presses of the shutter button as opposed to the constant focus of AF.C mode. It may not be the only type of AF.C sample, in that it does not cover all scenarios, but it is an example of AF.C use. AF.S can serve as an effective tool, you are right, but I tend to prefer AF.C almost always when shooting wildlife due to movement tendency of most wildlife. Thank you for mentioning that the image was a nice one, I appreciate it. It may not be the so called "best" I have, but the Osprey was posed nicely and thought it was a good one of a variety I took of it.

Have a good day.

[Dan Rentea]

Just a sample. No offense, but AF.C can be used in many scenarios.

Of course AF-C can be used in many scenarios. I'm not questioning this statement.

When I am shooting birds that are perching, wading, or families in their nests, if I have light I may use an aperture such as F13 for depth, in case I have two birds as a subject for example. My ISO was not high, the aperture did not cause a negative effect. Another ISO and aperture could have been used, and AF.S could have been used, but that would possibly involved more presses of the shutter button as opposed to the constant focus of AF.C mode. It may not be the only type of AF.C sample, in that it does not cover all scenarios, but it is an example of AF.C use. AF.S can serve as an effective tool, you are right, but I tend to prefer AF.C almost always when shooting wildlife due to movement tendency of most wildlife. Thank you for mentioning that the image was a nice one, I appreciate it. It may not be the so called "best" I have, but the Osprey was posed nicely and thought it was a good one of a variety I took of it.

Have a good day.

Don't get me wrong, I would also have used AF-C in a situation like that. It's just that f13 got you a quite long shutter speed (1/320s) which can cause "trouble" if you use a long focal length and if the birds decides to take off.

I know what you mean about DOF when more than one bird is in the frame, but again, DOF is related to the distant between the camera and the subject. The further you are from the subject, the larger the aperture can be used.

[SamuelDixon]

to all pentax apologists, just face it, pentax af has never been and still isn't up to par.
That doesn't mean the af is useless, or that pentax is useless, it means that the af functions is behind the competitions af. That´s it.

blasphemy!!! All pentax products are perfect in all ways! Off with his head!

[Kunzite]

I'd like to see a list of Pentax apologists claiming the Pentax AF is "up to par" - with the corresponding quotes.
Only after that, sarcasm as in the post above would be warranted.

[Rondec]

I don't understand the weird focus on AF-C. It is an area where clearly the K-1 is adequate, but not great. But then again, as has been mentioned numerous times, who is going to take a 36 megapixel full frame camera (regardless of brand) to shoot at a major sporting event? You could do it, but frame rate and buffer size are going to limit you as much or more than the AF-C performance.

The DP Review review of the K-1 never really talks about other cameras in the K-1's price range. The D610 in a similar, but not the same focus test (they used a 70-200 f4 lens not an f2.8 lens) only got 4 of a possible 6 frames sharp. The 6D review just has generic comments about how it only has 11 focus points and at 4 fps it is useless for sports. It seems to me that none of these cameras, except maybe the D750, have great continuous auto focus. It's just that the K-1 got tested a lot harder than the other cameras in this group.

[SamuelDixon]

Man you are wasting your time trying to reason with some of these folks. There is some creepy Pentax cult worship thing going on. You wrote a generally very positive (and fair, the autofocus really isn't as good as other systems) review (as did Nothrup), but ANY negative thing just does not compute for some reason.

It's a camera, not a religion...

Hi,

I wrote the review. Sorry to hear you think I don't have the requisite skills, but I'll have to respectfully disagree with you. Indeed, I did not just set it to Auto, because as you pointed out, the camera typically chooses whatever is closest to it and given that the riders were approximate 30-150 feet away, it surely wasn't them. I used AF-C with single spot and sometimes Expanded Area AF, both of which provided similar results. Coming from my Canon system, I did indeed consult the manual to use optimum settings as I wanted to understand Pentax's terminology and AF logic; the issue was that the camera simply wasn't fast enough most of the time. I think what you're seeing in my writing is the delicate balance between providing an informative review and boring the reader with an overload of details. The takeaway point was that the tracking is not up to par. As for lifting off the focus button, that's often not an option in fast action photography, because your eye is to the viewfinder and can't see objects outside the frame until it's too late; while I knew where those objects were after a while, the point was that if I didn't, I would have been out of luck. Also, I had focus priority set, while unfortunately, the manual is very unclear in its description of the focus hold function, making it seem as if it's designed to keep focus for an amount of time if you accidentally take your focus point off the subject, not as a counteraction for objects that cross into the frame.