[Na Horuk]

Take that sensor and body size, but slap on Pentax ergonomics, buttons, Menu, and K-mount. Bonus points for WR. People would go nuts, and not just Pentaxians.

[Mikesul]

Take that sensor and body size, but slap on Pentax ergonomics, buttons, Menu, and K-mount. Bonus points for WR. People would go nuts, and not just Pentaxians.

I do not know if I would buy a Pentax FF but I would like the option of purchasing the above. I do not want to buy another Sony but if Pentax does not come through this new A7ii becomes somewhat tempting. But if we get this Pentax FF I would not even consider the Sony .

[normhead]

People keep saying this that or the other makes MF focusing quick. Well no, the biggest drawback to MF is you have to use two hands. One to focus, one finger on the shutter release.... there's just no way around that. I use my A-400 and my DA*60-250 with TC for birds. I like the A-400 for magnification.. but it is one heck of a lot easier to just put the DA*60-250 on and crop... to the point I question the experience of those who keep saying this. The simple fact is, if you get a Sony, you're going to have to get a couple native lenses for some purposes. AF has a place in the world, that's why people pay for it. No one in their right mind is going to buy a $2000 body that doesn't have AF. MF to me is like a hobby lens for when you have time to play. If you're serious, and you have to have results AF all the way.

Talking about giving up AF... try it for a while on your K-01 or whatever. See how you like it. DO you really want to live with that? I get out my Vivitar M135, MF and green mode, once or twice a year. And never when I'm expecting to get an image I really want.

[kooks]

MF to me is like a hobby lens for when you have time to play.

I think the same thing.. sometimes if you want to take a shot it have to be fast way to fast.. and MF takes some time, ofcourse with practice it could be better but there are situations where MF is not the way to go.. So i wont even consider using MF unless i have the time and light conditions to do so.. and most of the time i dont have that so... not my choise..

[osv]

the biggest drawback to MF is you have to use two hands.

this is the earth calling norm: most people do hold a camera with two hands

Talking about giving up AF... try it for a while on your K-01 or whatever. See how you like it. DO you really want to live with that? I get out my Vivitar M135, MF and green mode, once or twice a year. And never when I'm expecting to get an image I really want.

k-01 has an lcd rear screen, that has lower resolution than the oled evf in this sony camera.

not the same thing at all, not even close.

manual focusing with magnification, on this sony evf, is more accurate than the autofocus on your k-3.

accuracy is why people use manual focus, not convenience.

[Mikesul]

k-01 has an lcd rear screen, that has lower resolution than the oled evf in this sony camera.

not the same thing at all, not even close.

manual focusing with magnification, on this sony evf, is more accurate than the autofocus on your k-3.

accuracy is why people use manual focus, not convenience.

Exactly. That was my experience on both the nex6 and a6000. Supposedly it is even better on the FFs.

[GateCityRadio]

People keep saying this that or the other makes MF focusing quick. Well no, the biggest drawback to MF is you have to use two hands. One to focus, one finger on the shutter release.... there's just no way around that. I use my A-400 and my DA*60-250 with TC for birds. I like the A-400 for magnification.. but it is one heck of a lot easier to just put the DA*60-250 on and crop... to the point I question the experience of those who keep saying this. The simple fact is, if you get a Sony, you're going to have to get a couple native lenses for some purposes. AF has a place in the world, that's why people pay for it. No one in their right mind is going to buy a $2000 body that doesn't have AF. MF to me is like a hobby lens for when you have time to play. If you're serious, and you have to have results AF all the way.

Talking about giving up AF... try it for a while on your K-01 or whatever. See how you like it. DO you really want to live with that? I get out my Vivitar M135, MF and green mode, once or twice a year. And never when I'm expecting to get an image I really want.

What do you think people did before AF? People practiced and became good at MF and got results....I honestly do not see why anyone would need AF to get results unless you had poor eyesight and had to rely on it for that reason. AF is mainly a convenience and a good photographer doesn't need it to get good results.

and idk about most people...but I use two hands even when I'm using AF.

[gaweidert]

Before auto focus we used the aperture ring and focus depth scale on the lens and many people got really good with it. if you were at a sporting event and realized that everything past 60 feet was in focus at infinity you simply left your lens set for infinity and made your shots. Since you were limited to 36 shots per roll. you did not shoot 800 photos at an event. In 1991 our family took the "great western vacation". We drove 0ver 9,000 miles in 5 weeks. We covered 19 states and a similar number of national parks and monuments. I came back with over 1,100 transparencies. That was a pretty big number in those days,

With manual focus lenses it does slow you down. When I got my first auto everything camera my initial shots were pure garbage. It was simply too easy to bang away without really taking time to actually compose the image and check focus. Today when I have my Tamron 70-200 F2.8 lens on my K5-IIs I probably used manual focus as much as I do auto focus. It is scenario dependent on which I choose to use. I always use two hands with my DSLR's. I have found that wearing a padded bicycle glove on my left hand makes it much easier to cradle the big lenses with their mounts installed. Much more comfortable for me that way. Nothing digging into my hand. To me, using my left hand to focus is just second nature as that it what I did for decades.

[Zav]

What do you think people did before AF? People practiced and became good at MF and got results....I honestly do not see why anyone would need AF to get results unless you had poor eyesight and had to rely on it for that reason. AF is mainly a convenience and a good photographer doesn't need it to get good results.

and idk about most people...but I use two hands even when I'm using AF.

I am going to be a tad of an agitator here. Take this with a pinch of salt.
If we follow your logic, why do we need digital? Just be good at film and process your film at home. Digital is just a convenience.
And why do we need 35mm? Just be good at MF/LF. 35mm is just a convenience.
You can't argue that good photographer used (and still use) film medium to large format to get good results but it's not really convenient to capture the decisive moment of my auntie blowing the candles of her birthday cake and share it on Facebook.

And yes, I regularly use a MX and lots of manual focus lenses.

[drypenn]

The only reason why I never gave the A7 any thought is the fact that it is Sony.

I don't know whether I'm just unlucky, but I find Sony products big in features, but very low in quality. I have had 3 Sony mobile phones, two died right after the warranty expired, and the third one developed an LCD problem after crossing the second year. All three of them had lackadaisical build. I've had a PS 1 and PS 2 in the 90s, and swore never again with another Sony console. Three TVs with all tubes going south after around 2 to 3 years (in contrast, I still have a running 20 year old Sharp TV, and a 15 year old Panasonic).

I almost forgot, I've had Vaio laptop that lasted only for 2 years. Now, my Apple has been with me since 2011, and my Thinkpad, since 2007.

I've tried to really like Sony, because I like how they design their products cosmetically, but I've given up.

In summary, in my experience, Sony products are great while they're still working.

So, another Sony? No, thanks.

[gmans]

The title in this post is misleading, I have not seen any comparisons of a K3 to the A7 whatever, good on the OP for the K3 purchase. But my point is the post is blah blah A7 whatever and I wasted 10 minutes of my time reading the blah. I am guilty as the next person for the attention headline, would have liked to read a comparative between the two cameras.

PS; also not the I wish pentax had the I wish I wish.

Ps Ps; I should have known better by now, I have been here long enough, it is my fault for sticking my nose in to a post with FF mentioned some where.

Cheers

[stevebrot]

What, like the humble K-50, Winder?

Or the humble K-3? Actually, I think the reference was to an eye-level EVF with those capabilities.


Steve

[clackers]

Or the humble K-3? Actually, I think the reference was to an eye-level EVF with those capabilities.


Steve

I'm sure it was, Steve, but I just wanted to remind him that focus peaking is not restricted to EVFs. In fact, I like the most recent Pentax implementation - flashing red - better than that of my Sony NEX-7.

[Rondec]

What do you think people did before AF? People practiced and became good at MF and got results....I honestly do not see why anyone would need AF to get results unless you had poor eyesight and had to rely on it for that reason. AF is mainly a convenience and a good photographer doesn't need it to get good results.

and idk about most people...but I use two hands even when I'm using AF.

I shoot only auto focus lenses and I rely heavily on it. Is it a crutch? Sure. Have a tried manual focusing use different techniques and different cameras (including EVFs)? Yes. And it still feels uncomfortable and too slow for me to keep up with my kids, particularly my three year old who will only hold still for 2.3 seconds at a time.

Railing against those who rely on auto focus just sounds curmudgeonly. "You kids don't know how good you have it these days. Back when I was shooting auto racing, we had manual focus, maximum of 400 speed film..."

Oh well. The whole point is to get photos, isn't it? And if someone uses auto focus lenses and gets decent photos, it probably isn't a big deal.

[Na Horuk]

Even when i use AF lenses, I usually use the QS to fine tune the focus. When it comes to critical focus, I rarely trust AF, at least with delicate subjects or contrasty backgrounds. I wish more lenses had QS, because to me, that is the best of both worlds. But I don't mind using MF lenses, I have a few. Focus peaking, with a couple improvements, can really make these lenses viable again. To me, the priorities are image quality and size of camera. AF.. I will have a hard time trusting AF anyway.