[Arpe]

You forgot (4): it's fast enough for most situations...

Exactly. Unfortunately I've been taking a lot of sports recently, apart from that it's wonderful, even then it's stil pretty good at sport.

Here's where you are mistaken. We all have a choice in what cameras we shoot. I could easily decide to switch to Canon, Nikon, Olympus, or Sony if Pentax wasn't cutting it for me.

I can easily decide that too, it's just that I can't afford to do it!!

[*isteve]

Here's where you are mistaken. We all have a choice in what cameras we shoot. I could easily decide to switch to Canon, Nikon, Olympus, or Sony if Pentax wasn't cutting it for me. However, I love Pentax. I feel that they get it by making cameras that think like photographers do. I don't think it is lost on my readers that, while I may point out flaws, I still choose to shoot Pentax.

This discussion has pointed out a number of counterpoints and has offered up numerous solutions for making the most out of Pentax cameras and lenses. Without this type of healthy and passionate debate camera shoppers would likely never be exposed to these great cameras and all that they can do (and the great people who own them).

This is grass-roots marketing at its best. Being honest and open about the products' features, benefits and short comings works much better at building brand loyalty than plastering glossy photos in magazines of the kinds of pictures one can take with (insert camera model here) or parading pop culture semi-icons on TV using said product.

No, I don't work for Pentax. Though, if they're listening I'm open to talk

I'm sure you dont work for Pentax. They know already.

Did you actually read the rest of my post? No, probably not.

Its a shame you managed to put someone off buying the Pentax 16-50. Its one of the sharpest normal zoom lenses I have ever used and it won Amateur Photographer magazines zoom lens of the year this year. I use it a lot in the studio and its low light focusing is excellent.

Yes it has some faults. Its not a point and shoot lens. But really, wide open corner performance at 16mm is not really something that matters all that much in day to day shooting and no APSC lens performs well at F22 - diffraction would soften the image horribly - nor is it necessary.

Now if you want anyone to take your gear reviews seriously, then the only advice I can give is at least try and sound a little more balanced. To me you just sound like someone who wishes they still had a Canon 5D and doesn't really have a lot of real world photography experience.

[jsherman999]

Mike.P is right in that it is a worn out overly-discussed topic. He's also right about how we don't like to transfer to some other web page to read your comments elsewhere. We'd rather that you simply summarize here what you said in your blog.

But I understand your frustration with the Pentax AF vs. Canon. I have both Canon and Pentax systems. I was just shooting a wedding a week ago and had both my Canon and Pentax hanging from my neck. I kept trying to use the Pentax for many shots but was frustrated at how long it took to lock a focus. I missed important shots. So I would pick up my Canon and was able to fire off quick successive shots time and again.

Having said that, as I reviewed my photos later, I would say that overall, my Pentax shots were better quality. Lighting just looked better than the Canon's. I used external flash with both cameras and I think Pentax's flash system performed better. So there's pros and cons to both systems.

One more point.... just because Pentax AF isn't as fast as Canon or Nikon, that doesn't mean it is poor, it just means that RELATIVE to Canon or Nikon it isn't as fast. I have still taken thousands and thousands of excellent photos with my pentax.

When I'm shooting with both my Nikon D90 and Pentax K20D, I think to myself - hm. Which do I want today - blown highlights, or a possible missed shot?
When the K20D hits, it brings me better IQ than the D90 80% of the time.

Every maker has it's flaws, AF speed is Pentax's, and it is something they can and probably will remedy in the next body. Can't wait.


.

[cpopham]

Its a shame you managed to put someone off buying the Pentax 16-50. Its one of the sharpest normal zoom lenses I have ever used and it won Amateur Photographer magazines zoom lens of the year this year. I use it a lot in the studio and its low light focusing is excellent.

I'm definitely with you on this particular point steve.

[-=JoN=-]

......... I'm guessing the D3, being a much newer camera than mine, has similar options for configuration.

My D700 does the same thing..and it has the same AF system as the D3's..just to answer your curiosity

[lol101]

Oh hell, I tried to stay out of this discussion, but now I have to step in.

I keep seeing this "Pentax has better accuracy" thing bandied about, but having owned two Pentax bodies and 4 Canon bodies I can say this: it really does not matter if they do. Canon's AF approach is to get it "close enough", which on paper definitely looks worse, but in the real world works just fine. My Canon shots show proper, sharp focus when viewed at 100%. And they get there a hell of a lot faster than the Pentax bodies.

So far I've seen the Pentax AF discussions devolve into

1) You should just manual focus like a REAL photographer

2) Pentax is more accurate

3) The head-in-the-sand approach, Pentax is as good as everything else

Honestly, having used GX-1S, K20D, two 10D bodies, a 300D and a 1Ds Mark II, I can say from EXPERIENCE (rather than reading reviews) that Canon's AF smokes the Pentax one in every way possible. The accuracy thing is a complete and utter non-issue for any shooting I've done.

True... but of course it doesn't really matter because:

4) Pentax's AF is good enough for what people who like it want to do with it.

It's all a question of what one finds acceptable or good enough.

As long as it doesn't become an obstacle to one's photography, everything goes.

I found the K10 seriously lacking in the AF accuracy department and confirmed that by comparing to 30D/5D, tried the K20D and found a clear improvement but still found it less accurate on a side-by-side basis especially in low light and with wide aperture lenses which is what I use a lot.

I am pretty sure someone working in studio or favouring landscapes would have come to the opposite conclusions given the same cameras.

I am also pretty sure the next Pentax will be better and might cross the threshold where it is good enough FOR ME. Of course, Canon's AF will also have progressed on their next cameras but, again, once my particular threshold will be crossed, it won't matter anymore what other are doing.


In the meantime, I am using my Pentax FF gear with M42 lenses...no more AF problems for me!!

[kenyee]

I am pretty sure someone working in studio or favouring landscapes would have come to the opposite conclusions given the same cameras.

With studio, not necessarily...I've had focus slow down annoyingly when doing low light (modeling lights set low) big aperture shots. Which reminds me, I should look at getting a focus assist flash...

[user440]

Of course it's possible. What do you think sports photographers have been doing for the last century or so before AF was invented?

Granted, it can be convenient, just like autoexposure, but certainly not necessary.

Using your logic, I can travel by horse and buggy across town too. I get from point A to point B, so why is a car necessary?

Come on, we're talking about an AF system not quantum physics. Last check of the calendar indicated it was 2009.

[OregonJim]

Using your logic, I can travel by horse and buggy across town too. I get from point A to point B, so why is a car necessary?

Come on, we're talking about an AF system not quantum physics. Last check of the calendar indicated it was 2009.

You could also walk or ride a bicycle, but what does that have to do with photography?

The end product is still a photograph, just like it was long before you or I were born. Just look at some of the galleries here, with action photos shot with manual lenses (in 2009 no less), and you'll see that AF is not nearly as important as some make it out to be.

[kenyee]

FYI, found an interesting focus assist light on the strobist forum...it's a headlight:
LED Focus Assist Lamp on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Makes you wonder why a Nikon user would need it, eh?

[daleroy]

I'm changing systems because Pentax AF isn't good enough for me. Whilst many members on here jump up and down if you so much as say a bad thing about Pentax, it's AF is quite frankly not up to scratch compared to Canon and Nikon. All suggestions of Manual Focus/Catch in focus etc are simple realising that the AF isn't good enough. For anyone who thinks it nail perfect focus and the other systems don't, that too isn't true. A Canon 40D will acquire focus faster and have just the same amount of in focus shots as a K20D (personal experience).

Of course, if AF speed isn't the only thing to look at in a camera system, but for me, it's a limiting and annoying factor. I've got no doubt my Nikon D700 will sort this annoying issue for me out. On the negative, lens are way more expensive, but the 24-70 and 70-200 combo is drool worthy.

A camera is a tool, if a particular brand doesn't fit your needs, switch. I don't really understand brand loyalty.

[OregonJim]

I'm changing systems because Pentax AF isn't good enough for me. Whilst many members on here jump up and down if you so much as say a bad thing about Pentax, it's AF is quite frankly not up to scratch compared to Canon and Nikon.

Totally agree.

All suggestions of Manual Focus/Catch in focus etc are simple realising that the AF isn't good enough. For anyone who thinks it nail perfect focus and the other systems don't, that too isn't true. A Canon 40D will acquire focus faster and have just the same amount of in focus shots as a K20D (personal experience).

Not everyone cares about AF, not everyone uses AF even in the Canikon world.

Of course, if AF speed isn't the only thing to look at in a camera system, but for me, it's a limiting and annoying factor. I've got no doubt my Nikon D700 will sort this annoying issue for me out. On the negative, lens are way more expensive, but the 24-70 and 70-200 combo is drool worthy.

Hope you're happy with your D700. I have a D50 and a D80, the AF is nothing to write home about, and I rarely use it anyway.

A camera is a tool, if a particular brand doesn't fit your needs, switch. I don't really understand brand loyalty.

Neither do I. I just happen to like Pentax products and philosophy better than any of the others.

[kenyee]

my Nikon D700 will sort this annoying issue for me out

I was surprised a few folks on DPR said they run AF-ON mode with it, but yes, it's amazing how quickly it focuses (I've tried friends' D300/D700/D200). Best wishes with it. I'm sure you'll enjoy it...just grab the 24-70 (you can count zits and check skin pores with it from the wedding photos I've seen), 14-24, 70-200 and you're all set for a system I doubt you'll ever outgrow...

[Robert S Donovan]

you can count zits and check skin pores with it from the wedding photos I've seen

Wonderful

[rparmar]

Sorry what is this AF everyone is talking about? Audio Frequency? Asinine Fellow? Argumentative Freak?

Are you saying you can get a camera to focus for you? Will it also check to see if my subjects are smiling? And have their eyes open? And are thinking happy thoughts? Will it take video? Do the dishes? Automatically read my mind and apply the correct filter? Frame properly? Move me closer when I want a tighter crop?

Because otherwise I'm switching to Canon or Nikon or Leica. So I can spend 5-20 times as much money and take photos that are more or less the same as what I do now.

With my K20D and K50/1.2. Must be broken though, since I can't get it to auto-focus.