[philbaum]

I don't see the point of these blanket statemetns "Nikon AF *is* superior to Pentax. Canon not really."

I think that at the *entry* level (D3100, 550D, K-r) Pentax isn't significantly behind or is at par.
....

According to Douglas of Sweden's post above, the Kr with kit lens beats the Nikon D3100 with a similar kit lens for focus speeds at all 3 FL tested (between 18 to 55mm). We are so used to admitting Pentax's deficiency in AF perhaps when Pentax does beat a comparable model, we find it hard to write it that way

Some hard numbers. The journal FOTO, the oldest photographic magazine in Sweden, tested the K-r in their 2011 January issue. Here is the autofocus speed compared to what they consider similar Canikon models (with similar lenses, all 18-55 kit zooms):

Penta K-r at 18, 35 and 55mm: 0.30s, 0.35s, 0.39s (shutter-delay 0.08s)
Canon 500D at 18, 35 and 55mm: 0.28s, 0.31s, 0.31s (shutter-delay 0.13s)
Nikon D3100 at 18, 35 and 55mm: 0.31s, 0.45s, 0.47s (shutter-delay 0.13s)

Pentax has come a long way in the last 3 years.

best wishes,

[miltllama]

After reading all this, what I want to know is what the OP thinks of the K5. Regardless of where it stands in relation to other manufacturers, it seems to be generally agreed that the AF is a significant improvement over the previous generation.

[orly_andico]

My personal take was.. I couldn't afford to blow $1400 on a K5 to see how good the AF is. Even if the K5 is "perfect" I guess too many people aren't willing to put their money down (those of us who "grew up" on the older Pentax DSLR's where the AF is slow).

[Ash]

I couldn't afford to blow $1400 on a K5 to see how good the AF is.

But does this mean you can afford a $2400 camera that is assured to have zippy AF?
What if the K-5 is decently fast enough for you? Is it worth it then?
The K-5 has significantly improved AF performance from previous models, and is the model much anticipated for all the important advances so many Pentax users have been asking for. If you're uncertain, but still contemplative, why not go out and test drive it at your local store?

[magkelly]

If I had an extra $1300 I'd put it down on a K-5 no hesitation whatsoever. Just because I can't afford one doesn't mean I wouldn't want one and honestly I can't think of much that I'd ever want to do that camera can't do. Would I buy it over a similarly priced Nikon or Canon? Yes, I would and I'd have no qualms about it nor likely any regrets either.

One of the things I really do not like about people discussing and critiquing cameras is when people compare completely different cameras, cameras meant for a totally different range of use and then use the fact that one camera can't do something that it's not even meant to do to say that the camera that they don't want other people to think is any good is somehow inferior. That's just utterly not fair.

You cannot just compare one camera made for work at one level to one made for work at another level. Canon and Nikon do make more cameras that are meant for heavy duty pros. Pentax does not currently. It aims for the beginning consumer to semi-pro market and I believe it does that pretty darned well.

I really think I could match up a K-x or K-r to any Canon or Nikon IN THEIR CLASS and say that Pentax matches or even exceeds standards for cameras made by Canon or Nikon for the same market. Ditto the K-7 and K-5 for cameras meant for their same market. But I am not about to compare the K-5 or K-7 to professional cameras that are meant for serious high end use.

That's just not right to expect those cameras to compete with cameras that are made to exceed the range that Pentax is aiming for.

I'm not saying that Canon and Nikon do not make good cameras. Of course they do, for their markets. But Pentax makes darned good cameras for it's market too and it ticks me off when people who are totally into their brand knock another brand simply because it's not theirs.

You won't ever find me sitting there saying that Canon, Nikon, etc simply suck compared to Pentax because it simply isn't true. Most of the big camera manufacturers these days make cameras that almost anyone would have to admit are pretty great. Pentax just happens to be my preference, what I'm more comfortable with, but I could just as easily pick up almost any comparable Nikon or Canon and likely find it just as useful. The key word there though is comparable.

Of course there are going to be some Nikon and Canon cameras that are capable of more than what some Pentaxes can do. They have a greater range of cameras aimed at the pro market, at least for now. But given my needs I could still pick up almost any recent K-series Pentax DSLR and I'd probably get the job done just fine so long as I'm not dangling off a cable on Mt Everest trying to get a shot of fast moving birds at a high altitude for National Geographic or something like....

Buying a camera ultimately comes down to what your needs are as a photographer. One photographer's idea of a pro camera isn't necessarily another's. A K-x or K-r? To me that's like moving up from a Beetle to a nice Porsche compared to using an *ist. A K-5? I might as well be in a finely tuned Lamborghini running in some big race like the Indy 500 comparatively speaking.

Perspective is everything in life. I've found I can often get by with a lot less than I think. Doesn't mean I don't still want more, but sometimes I do have to remind myself that having anything I want just isn't possible all the time.

I sure wish I could afford to drive something a lot more flashy and powerful than I do, but you know the car that I drive gets me there and back just fine and I do fully acknowledge that it's a useful, well made machine for a car in it's class. I can't deny that anymore than I can deny that my *ist is a nice little 6MP DSLR.

Do I still want an upgrade? Of course I do. I need one actually to do what I want to do. Professionally speaking I'm probably going to need a K-x to really get me started, but 2 years down the road when I'm looking to add another working body I'm surely going to be stepping up to a K-5's descendant most likely. If I were a photographer for Sports Illustrated maybe my camera might say Nikon on it, but since I'm not aiming for that a K-5 or it's latter day grandchild will probably more than enough camera for me.

I get the distinct impression on photography forums sometimes that some people want and expect a Lamborghini for the price of a Beetle. IMHO, that's just not very realistic nor is it particularly fair to any camera manufacturer. If you really look at the cameras they are all offering us they're pretty amazing compared to their predecessors. The technology is miles beyond where it was only a few years ago and yet it's almost always criticism and complaints?

Doubters and picky people, I say take a take a long, hard look backwards then at what you've got and be a little grateful why don't you? A decade ago most of us would have killed for a camera like the K-x let alone for one like the K-5! I'm sure that in a decade we'll all look back at these cameras and feel the same way. No doubt the technology on the cameras made then will make the ones we're using now seem like kid's toys by comparison but that doesn't mean that Pentax isn't making some really great cameras NOW because they ARE.

Give them their due that's all I'm saying.....

[jeffreyksl]

well, using the K7 i must say that i never considered it to be slow and i am satisfied with the AF speed...it never fails me when needed

[TaoMaas]

I get the distinct impression on photography forums sometimes that some people want and expect a Lamborghini for the price of a Beetle.

You're wrong. They don't just want a Lamborghini for a Beetle price...they want the Beetle's fuel economy, too.

[orly_andico]

But does this mean you can afford a $2400 camera that is assured to have zippy AF?
What if the K-5 is decently fast enough for you? Is it worth it then?
The K-5 has significantly improved AF performance from previous models, and is the model much anticipated for all the important advances so many Pentax users have been asking for. If you're uncertain, but still contemplative, why not go out and test drive it at your local store?

Well I had $500. So I got a Canon 40D. Older technology, no video, no AF micro-adjustment, but it sure is zippy compared to my K20D. Is the K-5 faster? maybe, I'm not sure. But it's almost 3X the cost, so for me it's irrelevant.

I did try the K-x, and the 40D blows it away (with a ring-ultrasonic lens.. of which I have exactly one).

If I had more $ to throw out, I'd get a bunch of Limiteds, which is the area where I am convinced Pentax cannot be dislodged.

[clockwork247]

Well I had $500. So I got a Canon 40D. Older technology, no video, no AF micro-adjustment, but it sure is zippy compared to my K20D. Is the K-5 faster? maybe, I'm not sure. But it's almost 3X the cost, so for me it's irrelevant.

I did try the K-x, and the 40D blows it away (with a ring-ultrasonic lens.. of which I have exactly one).

If I had more $ to throw out, I'd get a bunch of Limiteds, which is the area where I am convinced Pentax cannot be dislodged.

you're comparing a body motor focus VS len's built in focus system... that's kindda like comparing apple to oranges. AF is fast enough already for most current camera, there's no need to complain.

[Ash]

I did try the K-x, and the 40D blows it away (with a ring-ultrasonic lens.. of which I have exactly one).

If I had more $ to throw out, I'd get a bunch of Limiteds, which is the area where I am convinced Pentax cannot be dislodged.

You're also forgetting the extra cost you'll need to fork out for the eventual expansion of your USM lenses collection.

However, if you're happy with the kit lenses, and you got the 40D with them for $500, then all power to you.

The K-5 is a game-changer for Pentax - not only is it remarkably fast and responsive, but incredibly more versatile with clean images even beyond ISO 12,800. So these aspects are only irrelevant if they don't apply to you, however to many they do.

[richard978]

The K5 is a game changer for Pentax, its an amazing camera and to be honest I dont think the competition comes close. There isn't a Nikon or Canon that comes close.

When you also conisder that this £1100 camera compares to cameras 5 times more expensive.

[HeavyD]

The K5 is a game changer for Pentax, its an amazing camera and to be honest I dont think the competition comes close. There isn't a Nikon or Canon that comes close.

When you also conisder that this £1100 camera compares to cameras 5 times more expensive.

Who cares about bodies, I wanted lenses on par with Canons USM IS. Pentax is a real let down.

[GrinMode]

Who cares about bodies, I wanted lenses on par with Canons USM IS. Pentax is a real let down.

Well IMHO you have two options:

a) wait for Pentax to manufacture those lenses, maybe a long time
b) buy an existing Canon body now for the existing Canon USM IS lenses

[orly_andico]

The guy already has a 40D and some IS lenses.

Although TBH, one of the must-have IS lenses in the Canon lineup is the EF-S 17-55/2.8, it's better than many L lenses. Had a chance to use one and it blows away the 16-45 I have. Of course it was also 3X the price..

[patriotap]

Thanksgiving Football - a set on Flickr

All shot with the K5 DA* 60-250. Thought AF was good, but never tried a Canon so not sure.