[Mallee Boy]

Hi all

I had a Pentax a few moons ago but drifted away to the olympus m43. However, my daughter is getting to the age where she is moving around a lot and starting to appear in school events and I'm not really satisfied with the results of the m43 (though when I nail it it's great) and to be honest, I'd rather use a DSLR.

Anyway, I'd like to go back to a DSLR and Pentax is my first call (K-3ii with 16-85mm and later the new 50-300mm) but I'm concerned about the focus tracking and for this I keep getting distracted to the Nikon D750, though I think with the extra "perceived reach" of the apsc I'm better off.

Could someone with a small child under such circumstances reassure me the k-3ii is going to, allowing for reasonble user ability, to get the results I want or tell me it's not up to the job. I've been going around in circles so long my head hurts.

Thanks!

My 20 cents worth. I own K3 & Nikon D800. K3 with the Sigma f2.8 70 - 200 is a pretty good combination, I would be a little concerned about the DA 50-135 focus speed.
The D800 was originally used with a Tamron f2.8 70-200 and was very good. However, sold the Tamron and replaced it with the Tokina 80-400 f4.5-5.6...and the difference is notable. I am having to concentrate more on technique to get the same results.
I have used the DA 55-300 and it was impressive.

Good luck.

[Nicolas06]

If you go the Pentax K3/K3-II route you'll still need a great efficiant AF lens. The minimum would be a sigma 70-200, the best a DFA70-200. So quite expensive. But if you avoid the slow SDM lenses it should be ok.

I know several people that were not satisfied with the K3 and that switched to a Nikon. (D7200 at the time, similar price to K3). It really improved their possibilities for AF, as per their reports. The keeper rate in many condition was significantly greater. The stupid but significant example of the dog show it and while it is stupid there already in this thead interresting/similar example like the jump of an athlete gowing toward the photographer. Taken with Pentax, but that still show the use case quite exist. Whatever we can say as Pentax owners, for me that's significant if people that switched got a better experience with their Nikon for action shoots.

So if you want something really solid and you have the money, I would go directly to that D750 you were thinking of + a set of Nikon zooms if money is no issue. Second best would be D750 + sigma zooms.

FF because you need the iso performance in bad light.
Nikon because they are the best at it.

You could go K1 + DFA, that going to be the same price. The K1 will be noticably better for sharpness (not often that relevant), so wildlife if you crop, you'll appreciate the shake reduction and so on. But the AF would not be on the same level to me.

K3 itself is great and does many things well. For most use you don't need more. But for great AF performance there not any great Pentax APSC lenses only the FF DFA that cost the same as any other manufacturer FF lenses.(a lot). Sigma would be a second choice but that only used theses day apparently and the latest model are not available in Pentax. So Nikon again would be a better choice even if it is just D7200 + sigma zooms.

I know that some hate what I explained, but except if you have other reason to go for Pentax I would go the Nikon way. Take the best gear for the job. Sure you could do it with film and MF lenses, but that would require lot of training and you would not have a high keeper rate. Knowing you gear better is fine, and all but what count ultimately is the result. Theses stuff are just gear anyway so there no issue.

Why then go Pentax? Well you go for other reason. The build quality of the body. Really great stuff. You go for the small and wonderfull limited lenses with unique rendering and incredible flare resistance. Thoses FA limited are a joy to use. You get shake reduction on all lenses. There fun stuff on the latest model like astrotracer of pixel shift if you are into that kind of stuff too. There the cheap WR bodies and lenses that nobody else has. The K1 give you everything and more than the D810 provide for half the price... Except of course AF performance that is great with K1, but not at the same level. So there a lot to love in Pentax. But you should know why you buy it, like any other brand.

I would not advise Nikon to somebody that want a set of small/light primes or cheap WR or a cheap but capable FF. The K1, for thoses after an FF body I would advise to all except people that do lot of action/sport stuff and that need ultimate AF performance. It main downside is the lack of third party FF lenses at affordable price. Sigma and Tamron.

[biz-engineer]

Whatever we can say as Pentax owners, for me that's significant if people that switched got a better experience with their Nikon for action shoots.

I had the opposite experience. My friend has a 7D and 5DIII and he purchased a Tamron 150-600. So, I asked him if he was happy about it... and he said "hummm hummm" . So, I borrowed the 7D and Tamy 150-600 from him, used it over a week end. First, the AF speed of the 7D+Tamy slows down when zooming in, and at 600mm it is VERY slow to the point that you can forget about tracking. Second, the 7D AF servo can't lock on a target (stops working) with the Tamy wide open aperture gets down to smaller than f5.6. I googled this issue and they are loads of Tamron150-600 having this issue. So, I returned it, and decided to purchase a DFA150-450... My experience is that the K3 DFA150-450 easily beats the 7D+Tamy. Your generalization linking brand name and AF perf is 50% wrong. Too bad for Pentax that people just dump their general subjective opinion on Pentax forum, while no having used a single time the equipment they are commenting on.

---------- Post added 29-06-16 at 13:10 ----------

I know that some hate what I explained, but except if you have other reason to go for Pentax I would go the Nikon way.

What we hate is the "bla bla bla" for the sake of it, based on nothing real. The best is to try, sometimes it is different from what we read.

[Nicolas06]

I had the opposite experience. My friend has a 7D and 5DIII and he purchased a Tamron 150-600. So, I asked him if he was happy about it... and he said "hummm hummm" . So, I borrowed the 7D and Tamy 150-600 from him, used it over a week end. First, the AF speed of the 7D+Tamy slows down when zooming in, and at 600mm it is VERY slow to the point that you can forget about tracking. Second, the 7D AF servo can't lock on a target (stops working) with the Tamy wide open aperture gets down to smaller than f5.6. I googled this issue and they are loads of Tamron150-600 having this issue. So, I returned it, and decided to purchase a DFA150-450... My experience is that the K3 DFA150-450 easily beats the 7D+Tamy. Your generalization linking brand name and AF perf is 50% wrong. Too bad for Pentax that people just dump their general subjective opinion on Pentax forum, while no having used a single time the equipment they are commenting.on

I took care to give actual camera references Nikon D7200 and I think D750 too. I didn't speak of Canon 7D or 5D markIII. I also took care to explain that depending of the lens the experience was quite different. That while Pentax offering was not so great overall for AF with SDM and all but that the new (expensive) DFA were good. and that the sigma 70-200 was better than a Pentax SDM but not as good as a Pentax DFA or Nikon pro lenses.

So for me your point address something different that Canon 7D 5D markIII + 150-600 of tamron isn't that great. The experience is not oposite. It is just another experience with different gear.

[aleonx3]

I took care to give actual camera references Nikon D7200 and I think D750 too. I didn't speak of Canon 7D or 5D markIII. I also took care to explain that depending of the lens the experience was quite different. That while Pentax offering was not so great overall for AF with SDM and all but that the new (expensive) DFA were good. and that the sigma 70-200 was better than a Pentax SDM but not as good as a Pentax DFA or Nikon pro lenses.

So for me your point address something different that Canon 7D 5D markIII + 150-600 of tamron isn't that great. The experience is not oposite. It is just another experience with different gear.

Just curious, have you owned/used SDM lenses before and had bad experiences in slow AF or just offering generalised opinion? I do have the DA 16-50/50-135 lenses, it is not what you have described.. granted that it may be slower than its competitors, but the focus accuracy is up there even at wide-open aperture.

[micromacro]

For example dogs running straight at you. However during the course of the discussion I discovered i really don't care much for photos of dogs running straight at me, and that the reason I have so few images of them running straight at me is, I delete them, in focus or out of focus doesn't matter. I'm not sure children, that are really not that fast moving would be a problem for a K-3.

I've tried to shot anything running, or even walking straight to me with K200D, K5iis, K-1 with no luck. Mission impossible. Cats, kids, birds... Always late, focusing somewhere on the back. Straight away from me - yes, it's easy.
I've tried pretty hard, and never got at least one single perfect picture. So I gave up, and not really unhappy about it.

[volley]

If you go the Pentax K3/K3-II route you'll still need a great efficiant AF lens. The minimum would be a sigma 70-200, the best a DFA70-200. So quite expensive. But if you avoid the slow SDM lenses it should be ok.

I'm not question ing that several Nikon and Cannon cameras have superior AF technology compared to Pentax. But I am not sure if simplifications are helpful ...
The examples I've posted in post #14 were all taken with the "slow SDM" DA* 4/60-250 ...

[normhead]

I'm not question ing that several Nikon and Cannon cameras have superior AF technology compared to Pentax. But I am not sure if simplifications are helpful ...
The examples I've posted in post #14 were all taken with the "slow SDM" DA* 4/60-250 ...

Or to put it another way, all paper comparisons are nonsense. They don't tell you what the specs mean. Of the people I shoot with a good number love the sound of my K-3 in burst mode. But when the guys with the 1Dx's open up, you know the difference between 8 FPS and 14 FPS. You can here it in your head. Honestly, if you're just reading spec sheets, I wouldn't believe a thing.

You go out with two cameras and shoot side by side and compare.

One of the reasons, the Camera store Pentax K-1 videos are so good, and everyone else's K-1 reviews suck so bad is, the Camera Store brings in pro who shoots Pentax. He knows how to get the most out of Pentax gear and what it takes to meet his needs. He doesn't recite a bunch of made up nonsense that just happens to have wandered into his undisciplined brain while comparing spec. sheets etc. He, knows, "how go I make this camera work?' That's what you need to know "How do I male this work for me?" Whether or not it has a USB 2 or USB 3 is honestly about the most idiotic thing to have a brain cramp over you can imagine. The problem with guys like Tony Northrup is, he doesn't use Pentax gear, and unlike the pros the Camera store brings in, Pentax doesn't fit his working profile. So why would you listen to a guy who doesn't like the camera? He knows nothing about it's excellence, and if a Pentax is the absolute best at something, he doesn't care. He's shill.


You are fools to listen to such crap. If you want to decide if you want a camera or not, spend some time with someone proficient at using it. You can watch them and decide "I like what , he does, his workflow, and his results:, or not. Some piece of toilet paper who doesn't know the camera and likes something else but for some reason feels obligated to comment on it, forget those clowns, they are worthless.

It's about time people started getting a slap upside the head just for posting this kind of non-sense.

I demand a "slap upside the head" command.

[bertwert]

K-3 and 31 ltd. - $2.5 CAD

Where do I find a K-3 and 31 Ltd for two dollars fifty please?

[Imp]

if a Pentax is the absolute best at something, he doesn't care. He's shill.

Tony Northrup - "best landscape camera of all time"

[normhead]

Tony Northrup - "best landscape camera of all time"

You only have one chance to make a first impression. I don't read or follow Tony anymore. I gave him 20 minutes of my life and he wasted it. So, I'm trashing him on reputation, a reputation he earned.

And even if he said the K-1 was the best landscape camera, I'd give that distinction to the 645z, I'm still not in agreement. He still knows nada in my book.

But I'll give him another look, if he comes on bended knee begging on my doorstep, and asks nicely.

[Nicolas06]

Just curious, have you owned/used SDM lenses before and had bad experiences in slow AF or just offering generalised opinion? I do have the DA 16-50/50-135 lenses, it is not what you have described.. granted that it may be slower than its competitors, but the focus accuracy is up there even at wide-open aperture.

17-70, 50-135 with both K5 and K3. 50-135 AF was barely usable in low light with K5 and off center AF was not accurate with K5. Wit K3 the AFS of 50-135 work well, but it doesn't make it a great AFC solution for action/sports.

[Nicolas06]

I'm not question ing that several Nikon and Cannon cameras have superior AF technology compared to Pentax. But I am not sure if simplifications are helpful ...
The examples I've posted in post #14 were all taken with the "slow SDM" DA* 4/60-250 ...

Yeah but you must understand that one can take stuning action shots with an MF lens you know. All of this stuff is about keeper rate, efficiancy in more situations and being easier on the photographer.

I am 100% sure that with the proper training and expertise the current m4/3 gear the OP has can do the job. But this may need lot of training and also quite some technique. Maybe not all photographer can do it. I certainly can't with MF.

I have no idea how the OMD EM5ii fare for AF in practice but at least from reviewers it is no slouch. And an f/2.8 lens on m4/3 is f/4 on APSC, f/5.6 on FF, that's no even that shallow, so not the hardest situation. Still it didn't work out for him.

At that point the OP could very well take a K3 then in one year a K1 and then finally a D750. At least if he take the best to start with, maybe a D500 to be confident, or at least d D750 or D7200, he will be sure there nothing better and so that all the remaining work is on his side if this is not enough. I can't honestly say K3 is the best for somebody that ask me ultimate AF.

K3 is perfect for AFS, basic for AFC. There basic tracking, but there no anticipation at were the subject will when the photo will be taken. The delay between when AF can't work anymore (the mirror start to open) and when the photo is taken means that a fast subject like somebody that do a sprint or a dog may have moved 1 meter. For faster subjects, that may be more. If the dof is too thin, that quite problematic. For a subject that is quite near, you may have only 30-50cm dof. Even the 60-250 is not the best at AF, I think there an actual review there done by Pentax forum and the Nikon got FAR better results. And the 55-300 has similar performance while screw drive.

To me this is to be also considered toward the importance of the type of shoots thar require it. For me K3 + ltds are a better compromize because I value more size/weight than ultimate AF performance. AF is good enough for me for most use case. I don't think that even if I manage to take the shoot, bad light will bring me photos that I'll want to keep for years or to frame. I feel that if I have no need for hundred of keepers all slightly different so even if in some quite difficult situation I have just a few pictures, that enough. I think you don't need more than a K3 in most situation but some people want/need the best. We are all different. So if somebody ask me for it, I try to propose what I think is best, not what I have just because it is good enough for me while I have different requirements.

[Imp]

I gave him 20 minutes of my life and he wasted it

which twenty minutes were those?

[normhead]

which twenty minutes were those?

I missed out on buying the lottery ticket that would have won me millions.

I don't have a 645z or K-1 because of him.

Honest, those twenty minutes were really important.

He friggin ruined my life.

I should sue.

Which reminds me of a really funny joke I should go share in the joke thread, I should go.