[neokind]

I can afford to get both a Sony mirrorless outfit and a K-1II. But years back I feel I paid way too much for the *istD, even though I waited as I usually do for the price to drop considerably, then used it far too little before getting the much less expensive K-100D, since it offered SR and the IQ was at least the same. So after that mistake, I've been very conservative about jumping on the latest and greatest. I have not even moved from APS-C only to include a full-frame K-1 even though I already have many fine FF lenses, instead getting the KP after a substantial price drop. I am not only very happy with the excellent results I get from it, along with its highly portable slim design, I am still happy with the fine results I get from my beefier but still pretty compact K-5IIs when I desire a larger body with more dedicated controls. Yet it is now 3 models back in "obsolescence". I skipped ver the K-3 series. I essentially have a complete set of APS-C fine lenses that can accomplish nearly everything I can do with my FF lenses on my very fine Pentax 35mm film bodies- my FF shooting background of many years. I have found my KP's low light/higher ISO capabilities push the envelope of the FF advantage closely enough that I now hesitate to consider carrying the extra weight for that little bit extra.

Even though FF mirrorless does allow reduction in camera size, one must still carry a bigger lens to do the same job. Especially when dealing with the tele range. For some this is not an issue, but for my way of doing things it is. As the guy in that video says, it is more important to go out and shoot pictures, as long as your gear serves your needs in a practical way, and you get fine IQ.

I can't argue with you. I do wish that I could have stayed with Pentax, but switching to something else made more sense with my needs. Pentax does a great job at what they do. As many people here say, pound for pound the K1 is the best landscape camera available. But, I don't shoot landscapes. :-/

[totsmuyco]

My answer is, what do you think? It is only you who know what you really want or need. Good luck to your choice.

[zeitlos]

Having shot a while with Sony now, I can definitely say, you don't necessarily make better images (no surprise). But you may take different pictures since the eye-focus makes shooting A LOT more comfortable and easy.
This is the only think I want to see from Pentax: Eye-Af-Focus. Unfortunately this seems to be the only thing they cannot deliver with a DSLR. It was basically THE Reason why I switched...

Sad that they cannot implement it into their cameras (I'm not talking about Liveview).

[mikesbike]

Many of us using Pentax still do that ancient technique called Manual Focus. In fact, many of Pentax AF lenses feature "Quick Shift" where one can override AF instantly for corrective MF.

Eye focus is nothing new. Canon came up with it in some of their more expensive film SLR cameras back in the 1990's. Can be useful, but I haven't seen Canon products touting eye focus for quite some time, so I wonder if they still have it available.

[SirTomster]

It all depends on what you are shooting.

I do nightscapes and landscape 90% of the time. No need for eye focus.

But for those who might do more portraits or wildlife, that might be something to consider.

It all depends on what you are shooting.

[zeitlos]

A lot of people shot portraits

Pentax should not lose them.

[SirTomster]

A lot of people shot portraits

Pentax should not lose them.

I feel that Pentax already has shifted the focus away from that. Pushing the Pixel Shift technology and AstroTracer.

That is to say that it cannot do great portraits. But if you are capturing a lot of motion, something else might be better for you.

If I were a Wedding Photographer, Pentax would not be something I would consider. But I am not a wedding photographer and Pentax meets my needs quite nicely. Now if it could weigh half as much with all the same features.....

[alvaro_garcia]

I feel that Pentax already has shifted the focus away from that. Pushing the Pixel Shift technology and AstroTracer.

That is to say that it cannot do great portraits. But if you are capturing a lot of motion, something else might be better for you.

If I were a Wedding Photographer, Pentax would not be something I would consider. But I am not a wedding photographer and Pentax meets my needs quite nicely. Now if it could weigh half as much with all the same features.....

The best color rendering I've ever seen for skin tones comes from Canon (perfect for weddings and social events -people- in general). However it does not quite match my tastes for other types of photography like landscapes/nature. It's just a bit too warm/brownish.


I do prefer Nikon's color rendering (possibly my favourite). It fits better for landscapes/nature. I think it's the most balanced (neutral) in general.


And then Pentax. Well, I do have a bitter/sweet feeling for Pentax's color rendering. The K-1 is the only full frame camera I do own at the moment (the other ones are APS-C). The tonality in general is a bit too cold for my tastes, not always though. The greens also are a bit pushed up and with too much "chlorophyll" (artificial look) effect sometimes. It's hard to describe. The feeling I get from Pentax is that the images look a bit too cold and "analytical". But not always. Anyways, the dynamic range and transparency (clarity) I get from my K-1 is simply superb and unmatched so far by any of my other APS-C cameras (yes, I know, FF is FF and APS-C is APS-C). Although I have to say that it sometimes happens the opposite: the images I get from Nikon/Canon are a bit too warm and/or too dark without enough dynamic range and clarity especially without enough light (at the sunsets, etc.)


At the end I stopped using Canon and I now only use my compact Nikon Coolpix A (APS-C) which delivers impressive images most of the time AND of course my Pentax K-1 (FF) that gives me the extra dynamic range and clarity I like and want from most situations. I always carry both and take the same pictures with both of them (unless in hurry, so I use only one).


Now, I wonder how much would I like a Nikon FF like the D850...

[Rondec]

A lot of people shot portraits

Pentax should not lose them.

Pentax also has a lot of users who value having an optical viewfinder and wouldn't want to lose those either.

I shoot a lot of portraits of my kids with my K-1 and K-1 II cameras with wide apertures and honestly I don't have difficulty achieving good eye focus. If you are struggling, there is always live view (not a problem to use for portraits where hopefully folks aren't dashing around), but the focus points are small enough that you should be able to drop one on your subject's eye without problem.

[zapp]

Many of us using Pentax still do that ancient technique called Manual Focus. In fact, many of Pentax AF lenses feature "Quick Shift" where one can override AF instantly for corrective MF.

Eye focus is nothing new. Canon came up with it in some of their more expensive film SLR cameras back in the 1990's. Can be useful, but I haven't seen Canon products touting eye focus for quite some time, so I wonder if they still have it available.

Canon tracked the photographers eye to define where to focus. Mirrorless checks the eye of the model to be in focus.

With current dslrs you have almost no chance to manually focus correctly and fast with large aperture. Hybrid af system with eye af and dslr finder would be the next great thing. It will appear in 2020, my bet. Same for ibis in non-Pentax dslrs.

[gatorguy]

A lot of people shot portraits

Pentax should not lose them.

I do a LOT of portrait work now, including some paid (YEA!!), and 100% on Pentax other than one shoot recently using a borrowed Canon that I prefer not to discuss. LOL. Heck portraiture doesn't even need auto eyefocus. You generally aren't in a hurry and have time to compose and focus your shot. Had you said Eye-focus was a great feature for sports/action I might have agreed. Portraits? Entirely unnecessary IMO, simply a convenience at best.

FWIW when doing fun model sessions alongside a couple of A7RIII's, one A7, and now one guy with a IV I nail spot-on focus just about as often as they do, and yeah we do compare images. I sometimes need those extra shots just to keep up with the compelling shots they turn out. The guys and two girls I shoot with regularly are all pretty darn good, and we play off each other. Great group of great photographers with years of talent between them. Some shoot Canon, some shoot Sony, one shoots Fuji and two shoot Nikon as I recall. I'm the only one shooting Pentax, and I fly that flag proudly.

Big plus: In general I can focus (on the eye), recompose and get off a couple of shots in less time than the Sony guys spend getting just one. Technique matters more than the camera body.

Not having "eye-focus" as a specific feature is an excuse IMHO unless your vision is so bad that the diopter can't correct it, and yeah two of the Sony shooters claim it's all due to their vision problems. Older eyes...

[stevebrot]

I do a LOT of portrait work now, including some paid (YEA!!), and 100% on Pentax other than one shoot recently using a borrowed Canon that I prefer not to discuss. LOL. Heck portraiture doesn't even need auto eyefocus. You generally aren't in a hurry and have time to compose and focus your shot. Had you said Eye-focus was a great feature for sports/action I might have agreed. Portraits? Entirely unnecessary IMO, simply a convenience at best.

Yep...the emphasis (obsession?) with having plane of focus be on an eye (whichever one the camera deems best) has surprised me since the topic first came up on these forums. Truth is that pro portrait photogs have been doing without that luxury for over 150 years. It ain't that hard to do with manual focus or with focus/recompose.

For those who truly wish to have eye-focus on their Pentax dSLR, face detection in live view will nail eye focus quite reliably, if that is what one must have.

BTW... Does anyone know why this thread was made zombie after a peaceful rest of over a year?


Steve

(...can think of several A7-series features that are very attractive to me as a photographer, eye-focus not being one of them...)

[Wasp]

With current dslrs you have almost no chance to manually focus correctly and fast with large aperture.

Modern focusing screens - designed to work with f/5.6 kit lenses - is a big part of a problem, me thinks. The lack of official Pentax focusing screens with old school focus aids - like we had in the film era - does not help either.

[stevebrot]

Modern focusing screens - designed to work with f/5.6 kit lenses

The tuning is closer to f/4, but your comment is on point. Some users on this site have found the K-1's screen easier to work with; not being an owner, I can't confirm.


Steve

(...still happy with a KatzEye on the K-3...)

[gatorguy]

The tuning is closer to f/4, but your comment is on point. Some users on this site have found the K-1's screen easier to work with; not being an owner, I can't confirm.


Steve

(...still happy with a KatzEye on the K-3...)

Yeah, I thought the focusing screen on the K-1 was quite good, far better than the current Pentax crop models. I'm also a big believer in the Katzeye focusing screens just as you are. It makes a major difference with manual focusing. I currently own three of them, and all three in use.