[zjacreman]

Everybody's got their priorities, I guess. I just went the opposite way, sold off a D7100 and a suite of nice glass to switch to Pentax. I had the two-ring AF-D 80-200 2.8, an AF-S 35 1.8 DX and 85 1.8, and the Tokina 12-28 F4. I didn't have any complaints as far as IQ goes. Ergonomically, my only beef was that the ISO button on the D7100 is in the stupidest possible place. I just could not train myself to find it without taking the camera away from my eye and looking.

I used a lot of Pentax screwmount kit in college and I had fond memories, so I bought a K-7 on the cheap to see how it did with adapted Takumar and Soviet glass. Turns out, really well - all of those glorious 1960s primes now had VR, the center-point focus assist is solid, and green button metering in manual mode is just brilliant camera UI. With the K-1 and focus peaking there are basically no downsides. And the dynamic range is way better than anything I could afford in Nikonland - I can splurge on a higher-end Pentax body because I'm using old, adapted ebay glass. My core lens suite all together cost about as much as a new AF-S 85 1.8. After a few hours of using the K-7 with an adapted Helios 44, I knew the Nikon stuff was destined for ebay.

I just wrapped up my first studio portrait session with the new kit, using a K-1 and a few m42 primes, and I'm thrilled with how it turned out.

I have a couple of F-series AF zooms that cost so little it didn't hurt to pick them up ($15-30 apiece, taking some lucky gambles on condition based on low-info ebay ads). They don't have edge-to-edge sharpness wide open like high-end modern zooms - there's just not enough glass in them to correct for everything - but they have the old-school pentax look when they're stopped down a bit. The autofocus is fast and accurate enough for catching stuff walking around; these are going to be the core of my travel kit. I only use the center point; the AF point spread on the K-1 is in fact quite poor. It also probably doesn't track as well for sports or distant wildlife as the latest bodies from the competition, but it doesn't seem any worse than the D7100. The F lenses are slower than the Nikon stuff I was using, but weight savings, SR, and the K-1's improved high-ISO performance more than make up for it. I don't feel like I'm worse off in that department for having switched. It's just a different set of compromises.

So yeah - for what I shoot, the Pentax is an awesome value. I've got a top-of-the-line FF DSLR and a mountain of primo vintage glass for less than the cost of my mostly-refurbished Nikon crop sensor kit, and every new Pentax body actually upgrades all of the old glass with better SR. And I'm off the Nikon glass upgrade consumption escalator. A Super Takumar or a Helios is never obsolete.

[SpecialK]

Why do people who have jumped ship keep coming back to PF anyway?

I enter weekly contests. I post occasional generic comments, critique and suggestions.

I could hang out at Fred Miranda as one of a million posters, where my recent post can be 3 pages back by the next day. I "know" some people here, no one there. I suppose I could loiter at Pentax --> Canon Forums, but I don't think about it much except for posting photos (but they have an awkward subject organization).

[bm75]

So yeah - for what I shoot, the Pentax is an awesome value. I've got a top-of-the-line FF DSLR and a mountain of primo vintage glass for less than the cost of my mostly-refurbished Nikon crop sensor kit, and every new Pentax body actually upgrades all of the old glass with better SR. And I'm off the Nikon glass upgrade consumption escalator. A Super Takumar or a Helios is never obsolete.

+1 . In fact this is why I keep all my Pentax legacy manual lenses and planned to use it on k1.

[awscreo]

I switched from mft to Pentax, and so far have been quite happy. Managed to build my kit pretty fast, and can cover most of standard focal lengths. Must admit, I don't have much experience with af on other ff dslrs, we mostly used our d800 with a manual focus for our work and I didn't use it outside of the studio, but my mft em-1 ag felt much more reliable and faster than my K-1. Can be frustrating but overall I'm happy with a big increase of Iq for the field I'm mostly into - landscapes, where af isn't as important.

I do wish Pentax covered some of the much needed bases quicker. I'd be soooo happy with a DFA 28-105 level quality ultra wide zoom, like 15-30 f4-5.6 or something similar. I'd buy that in an instant, and would save up for the upcoming wide angle fast aperture lens on the road map for astro stuff. I'd be happy to have a slower telephoto zoom as well, 70-300 f4? So I don't have to lug around my 70-200 2.8 on road trips etc. With canikon you have all of that covered with multiple offerings. I'm hoping at least the slower zoom to show up at some point in next year or two, but doesn't seem like it would.

---

Last edited by awscreo; 10-22-2017 at 11:42 AM.

[starbase218]

Ok, the topic has moved on a bit, but I'd still like to respond.

I don't know. I have often wondered that too. I did chuckle at the notion that a change of gear could free one to become truly good at the craft. When upgrade or brand change discussions come around, I often ask people where their "pain" or "rub" points are and whether the "pain" is bad enough to justify a change. It is as simple as that.

It's not so much the change itself. I just thought I needed permission. I was not my own best friend. And that was a state of mind that I also exhibited in other areas, which caused me to not develop myself as a person or a photographer. I thought that would be clear from reading between the lines in my posts, but maybe I was wrong.

But I'm unsure if I want to write about this personal stuff even further. I'm feeling pretty exposed in what appears to be a less-than-friendly environment. Maybe my own contributions in the past have helped to create that environment, but still. I also get the sense that some people feel victimised. Or at the very least they selectively read my posts. Nowhere did I say or imply that people here are fools for using Pentax. In fact I've said everyone should choose whatever they want. And if Pentax feels good to you, use Pentax. So how they reach that conclusion is beyond me. Reading it really drained the energy out of me, and in the end I really wish them the best of luck in their lives, because I don't want to talk about photography with them anymore, as that will apparently lead to this negative tone. If a person is not interested in my opinion, he or she can ignore it. Fine with me. I simply responded to the request in the first post.

For some, part of the pain is the realization that they bought into a system or gear that was ill-suited to how they developed in choice of subject or style. That is tragic in a way. The strange part is how some insist on proclaiming loudly that they blame the product for not anticipating their growth. The inference is that they were not too smart with their money.

I hope I have clarified this by now.

I have a pair of long-term friends who have made a living with their cameras since the early 1980s doing hard-core wildlife. Their choice of gear has shifted over the years, but I don't know that I have ever heard them bad-mouth their previous choices. IIRC, Art Wolfe (celebrated wildlife photographer) started with Olympus, made his name with Nikon, and now uses and promotes Canon (Canon-sponsored for both video and still). I suspect he could probably go back to his OM-1 and still do credible work.

I assume those photographer friends made those choices probably because they wanted to. The same goes for me.

I have also stated before that I have gotten results I was happy with out of my Pentax gear. When I write that I have more faith in Nikon than in Pentax, I'm not saying Pentax is bad or no-one should have faith in Pentax. I simply try to explain what has led me to this choice, as apparently people would like to know (they responded to my original post, after all). I think it is important to be confident about your equipment, right? I'm not saying Pentax is not worthy of that confidence. I'm not even saying that Pentax can't get me the shots I'm getting with Nikon. I'm simply saying that I have more confidence in Nikon gear. Nothing more, nothing less. That is how it is for me.

Whether or not that's of interest to you is a different matter. But I'm not responding to monochrome or Rondec but to the person who started this thread.

But while I'm writing this post, I realise I'm already anticipating more replies like "the rant continues", "even more of his useless opinion", "he likes his own voice", etc. If it happens, it is not on me. All I'm doing is trying to explain why I feel the way I feel. Not because my own opinion is more important than that of others (of course it isn't), but because I care about what other people think of me. Even monochrome or Rondec. Most people would consider this a flattering thing. It was always because of this. But I get stomped on. At least that's how it feels. And all for some stupid brand. If that's what it means to be a Pentaxian, I'm glad I'm out.

I can't help if people misinterpret my posts and feel victimised. Sorry, but that is also not on me. I truly wish everyone here the best of luck in their lives. For some people, I feel that is all I can say to them at this point.

Maybe it's my English. I hope it is, because then it's not you or me.

I'm putting myself in the most vulnerable position here I can think of. All I ask is that people don't stomp on me. I didn't have to post this. But like I said, I care about what other people think of me. Maybe too much. But again, that's a flattering thing about all of you (and some people in particular; you know who you are). And that's probably also why I'm still here. Even after having been away for 4,5 months. So decide what to do.

[mikesbike]

Since different systems offer different advantages, there's nothing wrong with having some of each. The need for a faster, longer tele and better AF tracking for moving subjects, for instance. It is basically about specific needs. Some people might go for an advanced Nikon setup for certain needs, but then also might obtain a Pentax KP with some Limited primes for the compactness combined with fine image quality, that can serve this kind of need.

If starbase 218 finds his Nikon equipment fits his needs best- fine. This is why we have a choice between brands and what they offer. I would not be as happy with his setup as with my own. I'm not doing burst shooting with needed AF tracking, although I do occasionally shoot indoor roller-hockey, for which my very good-performing Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 EX DG is perfect on my K-5 IIs. I get a high percentage of keepers, with virtually no outtakes due to mis-focus. This lens is also a FF design, good for 35mm film, for which I originally bought it, or for a possible forthcoming FF Pentax DSLR.

I would not share his preference for Nikon's 70-200mm f/4 VR over my DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 WR due to my preference for greater range at the wider end, my need for f/2.8 vs f/4, and the comparative compactness for an f/2.8 tele zoom. I often do use this lens for lower light conditions. It is compact enough to be a good companion to my DA 20-40mm f/2.8-4 WR Limited on my KP or to my Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 EX DG. For 200mm, in addition to slower but still very good zoom lenses, I have my DA* 200mm f/2.8 WR which I have used many times for lower light situations with fine success.

I don't have an 85mm f/1.8, but I do love my FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited. It is expensive, but it is beautifully made. Its rendering is excellent, and its very unique compactness makes for easy carrying and is very unobtrusive when going for candid shots while trying not to draw attention. The DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 does not draw my interest in serving the FL I need. It is not among my favorite Pentax lenses. My other zoom lenses and my prime lenses, including some very fine Limiteds, do everything I am looking for and more. My needs are met, and that is all that matters to me.

[stevebrot]

I hope I have clarified this by now.

Got it...


Steve

[The Squirrel Mafia]

For me, it's only shortcoming is the Autofocus (Recently shot a few shots with the 5d4 and the Auto Focus speed is not even close). Everything else is just fantastic and more than I will ever need. The IQ is sublime, The UI unparalleled, The Weather Sealing incredible, The In Body stabilization works like a charm and above all, it just feels right in my hands.

I feel the same way. I love everything about Pentax, but AF performance is my only gripe. For static subjects, it works fine. However, once you try to shoot some moving subjects, it starts to get frustrating. I'm hoping that the K-3II replacement improves upon that. The KP is heading in the right AF direction, but it's still not quite there.

[totsmuyco]

I have no objections on the image quality of Pentax APSC cameras basing on the samples of the K-70 and the KP. If Ricoh will continue to develop new bodies and lenses with better AF it will attract new Pentax users. However, the value for money advantage of Pentax no longer applies to us here. The D7200 is cheaper than the K-3II. Nikon and Canon consumer lenses are also cheaper than Pentax. I wish they'd do something about pricing. The problem is, we only have one authorized distributor in this country. Probably they're the only one who accepted to carry Pentax. Who knows?

[jeryst]

This may be a stupid question, but here goes. The main gripe I see about Pentax
vs Canons and Nikons, (ignoring lenses), is the auto focus. So why doesnt Pentax
just step up to the plate and come out with the best autofocus? They seem to come
out with so many awesome other features that I just dont understand the AF issue.
Is it because they dont have the technology, or because it would make the bodies
too expensive, or some other reason? I mean really, why does Pentax AF suck when
compared to those other systems?

[bm75]

I mean really, why does Pentax AF suck when compared to those other systems?

Pentax doesn't suck . Its AF is sufficient but not pro ( say, sports) grade. But SR is a huge advantage (nikon and Canon being involved in long teles developed VR/IS in lenses) . It's a matter of choice and opportunity: for stills/studio/outdoor K1 is the ultimate camera , better than d800 series (SR in camera, real WR ); for sports it's not. K3/KP are very good cameras. Depending on your use, Pentax gear could represent all that you need with top quality.

[jeryst]

Pentax doesn't suck . Its AF is sufficient but not pro ( say, sports) grade. But SR is a huge advantage (nikon and Canon being involved in long teles developed VR/IS in lenses) . It's a matter of choice and opportunity: for stills/studio/outdoor K1 is the ultimate camera , better than d800 series (SR in camera, real WR ); for sports it's not. K3/KP are very good cameras. Depending on your use, Pentax gear could represent all that you need with top quality.

I've been a lifelong Pentax owner and I am very happy with the equipment I have and
can afford. I've been shooting with a K20D since it came out, and just recently (yesterday)
received a K-5iis that I bought from a forum member that I cant wait to try out, so I am
not insulting Pentax in any way. I shoot for my enjoyment, not for anyone elses, or for money,
and Pentax has always given me great value for the money.

The biggest negative I read about Pentax vs the other guys, is that Pentax AF sucks in
comparison (Their words, not mine), so back to my original question: Why doesnt Pentax
do something about the issue and make a better AF? Surely, if this became a non-issue,
the Canikon users would lose a huge arguement against Pentax, and we would enjoy a much
higher standing in the photographic community. That would directly translate into sales
for Pentax as well. So again, why doesnt Pentax, with their upstanding record of providing
ingenious new features at a reasonable price, blow the others away in the AF department?

[bm75]

received a K-5iis that I bought from a forum member that I cant wait to try out, so I am not insulting Pentax in any way.

I'm not saying you are insultining Pentax, just quoted your words

The biggest negative I read about Pentax vs the other guys, is that Pentax AF sucks in comparison (Their words, not mine), so back to my original question: Why doesnt Pentax do something about the issue and make a better AF?

I tried NIkon and trust me, quality of APSC is like Pentax ( Pentax is better, overall considering). AF: Nikon d300/d7100 51 points AF is ok for tracking and works well in full auto. But if you're making a portrait with f1.4 lenses , Nikon is not that much better than Pentax. It goes down to -2 EV (k3 goes down to -3 EV). If you want a real not- of-this-world performance in the AF performance you need a D5 or a D500 (d5=2 K1 in price). Other that that, NIkon AF performance is something comparable, I.e , to a Fujifilm xt2. To answer your question: look at Nikon : every iteration of their AF modules is a little step up. I suppose that building up a very good AF module for Pentax is perfectly possible, but perhaps it's not Pentax interest. Pentax has its strenghts and the effort in making a striking new AF is not convenient. They prefer the development of other features.

---------- Post added 11-11-17 at 07:49 PM ----------

And , speaking of Nikon Vs Pentax (Pentax value ): my d300 hd full magnesium body. I called it "The brick". My k5 had full macgnesium body but was much lighter and compact. My d7100 has not full magnesium body and for sure the screws of the lens mount are forced into polycarbonate (not the best idea if you're going to use some neavy lens). Nikon UI is HORRIBLE , esp. the banks menu of the so called "pro" bodies, that lack the User modes allowing for instant switch of all the set up. SR : I MISS SR...... in-lens VR is not the same.
PENTAX IS GOOD, but depending on your country and the circumstances you would be forced to couple it with other brand gear. In Italy ther's no market for Pentax in phisical stores...This is the biggest drawback for me as I need to upgrade my lenses or my camera . Nikon has a much stronger market.

[Rondec]

I've been a lifelong Pentax owner and I am very happy with the equipment I have and
can afford. I've been shooting with a K20D since it came out, and just recently (yesterday)
received a K-5iis that I bought from a forum member that I cant wait to try out, so I am
not insulting Pentax in any way. I shoot for my enjoyment, not for anyone elses, or for money,
and Pentax has always given me great value for the money.

The biggest negative I read about Pentax vs the other guys, is that Pentax AF sucks in
comparison (Their words, not mine), so back to my original question: Why doesnt Pentax
do something about the issue and make a better AF? Surely, if this became a non-issue,
the Canikon users would lose a huge arguement against Pentax, and we would enjoy a much
higher standing in the photographic community. That would directly translate into sales
for Pentax as well. So again, why doesnt Pentax, with their upstanding record of providing
ingenious new features at a reasonable price, blow the others away in the AF department?

Pentax's auto focus is not as bad as people make it out to be. First of all, when people say AF is bad, they generally mean specifically tracking auto focus. AF-S is pretty solid. Second, auto focus is very lens dependent. Many of the people complaining are using older SDM lenses or screw driven lenses. There is probably minimal improvement that can be done with those. Newer DC motor driven lenses are considerably faster and track quite while in my experience. Supposedly the DFA 50 f1.4 is going to have a ring motor which should be even faster.

It still amazes me how folks who use older gear complain about auto focus as though it hasn't changed over time. The K-1 is a lot better than the K5 or even the K3, particularly when combined with a lens like the DFA 70-200.

[KiloHotelphoto]

Is it because they dont have the technology, or because it would make the bodies
too expensive, or some other reason?

Just my opinion but I think the cost of R&D to get to the levels of others would push the price of bodies up. They don't sell the numbers like Canon and Sony so they would have to spread the cost out over a smaller unit number increasing cost of the bodies up to Sony Canon level so they lose their value price point. Then if they did improve the tracking they don't have the greatest lens selection for sports and fast moving wildlife so if the body is the same price level you will go with the brand with the better lens selection. These are just my opinions but I think that is why Pentax doesn't Improve the tracking auto focus ability. They are sticking with landscape, portrait, product photography and the lenses they have released for the K1 show that.

Pentax's auto focus is not as bad as people make it out to be. First of all, when people say AF is bad, they generally mean specifically tracking auto focus. AF-S is pretty solid. Second, auto focus is very lens dependent. Many of the people complaining are using older SDM lenses or screw driven lenses. There is probably minimal improvement that can be done with those. Newer DC motor driven lenses are considerably faster and track quite while in my experience. Supposedly the DFA 50 f1.4 is going to have a ring motor which should be even faster.

It still amazes me how folks who use older gear complain about auto focus as though it hasn't changed over time. The K-1 is a lot better than the K5 or even the K3, particularly when combined with a lens like the DFA 70-200.

I complained about the tracking and speed of auto focus of my K1 and DA560 so I switched to Canon. The lens I bought was older than the DA560 and the body I bought was older than the K1 and they out perform the newer Pentax designs in autofocusing. Until I used them back to back I never really knew how behind Pentax was in that department, I read the threads before but had never used a Canon so I couldn't really relate to the performance.