[Zebooka]

Pentax will introduce new AF system soon.
Named not SAFOX. New name!

[RBellavance]

I don't really care for more AF points (but would not be disappointed if indeed there were more in the future!), but certainly I would like them to be smaller than they actually are.

[esman7]

After reading through, I would agree with the "number of points" argument.

It just seems that we need a re-vamp on the AF and especially in lower-light situations. I haven't used (but would love to) the K7 enough to gauge whether there is a significant difference compared to the K200D.

[snostorm]

I don't really care for more AF points (but would be disappointed if indeed there were more in the future!), but certainly I would like them to be smaller than they actually are.

I certainly agree with the smaller points! as a birder, more discreet points would be most helpful -- but that would really necessitate more points or there would be very significant dead spots in the frame. More points would probably also translate to better AF C accuracy -- so with just a tad more speed, and Pentax's AF performance wouldn't be considered a handicap (though I'm pretty satisfied with the K-7's AF)

-- doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. . .

Scott

[knoxploration]

As long as you are the one buying the custom screen, I don't really have a problem with this.

Nor do I. I'd happily pay the extra for that screen.

This sounds like an apology for Pentax.
How about this, they come out with a camera that has real pro specs (the K7 only really lags on AF performance) and you don't have to buy it.

Well, it's not an apology. I don't see that one's needed - the cameras you're comparing to are a minimum of two thirds more expensive than the K-7. Comparing to cameras in the K-7's price bracket, the Pentax has the exact same number of AF points as the Nikon D90, and two more than the Canon EOS 50D.

If anything, the fact you're comparing the K-7 to cameras that are getting on for double the price shows what a good job Pentax has done.

[PentaxPoke]

I agree with Peter. I don't want or need more AF points. I have never used the "auto select" on any of my Pentax bodies. I still cannot ever imagine a situation where I would want to let the camera decide what I want to focus on.

Me to camera: "I will point it where I want to focus, you just focus as fast as you can! "

[Eruditass]

Often the center focus point is the fastest, there are nikon threads where people with all those focus points only use the center.

Personally I'd like better focus prediction/tracking.


Btw, the advantage of all those focus points in my mind isn't for Auto-select, but for single select. Their focus points and areas are probably much smaller then Pentax's, which are kinda big. If I want to focus on something very specific, I assume I can get it with theirs. On mine, I have to quick-shift.

[Class A]

Pentax will introduce new AF system soon.

How do you know?
In what way will it be different?

I personally prefer the Pentax layout of the AF points to that of some Canon cameras where there a lot of AF points gathered around the central area.

I don't think we need more user selectable AF points, though Wheatfield's suggestion makes a lot of sense.

The advantage of having more AF points could be that tracking could be improved (made to work) and that AF points could get smaller. I'd definitely like to see the latter.

In any event, in the presence of a lot more AF points I think it would be a good idea if there was a mode where you could quickly navigate to strategic AF points by skipping any others that are in between. Otherwise, one would have to press buttons a lot more to get to the right point.

[Wheatfield]

If anything, the fact you're comparing the K-7 to cameras that are getting on for double the price shows what a good job Pentax has done.

I'm sorry you feel that way, it isn't my intention. You said something about adding AF points making the camera run slower. I mentioned that both Nikon and Canon had proven this was not the case.
The price point wasn't something that I felt was relevant to the discussion.
Hence my feeling that mentioning it is an apology.
I'm also not convinced that a 13 point AF would be any slower than an 11 point.

[knoxploration]

I'm sorry you feel that way, it isn't my intention. You said something about adding AF points making the camera run slower. I mentioned that both Nikon and Canon had proven this was not the case.
The price point wasn't something that I felt was relevant to the discussion.
Hence my feeling that mentioning it is an apology.
I'm also not convinced that a 13 point AF would be any slower than an 11 point.

...and I'm not convinced a grand total of two more AF points would be worth the cost of an AF sensor redesign. How much more versatility does two extra points add to the camera?

My main point, though, is that the cameras against which the K-7 is on an even keel have the same number of AF points, or less. To get more AF points in a similarly spec'ed new DSLR, you have to pay ~60% more.

[Wheatfield]

...and I'm not convinced a grand total of two more AF points would be worth the cost of an AF sensor redesign. How much more versatility does two extra points add to the camera?

A heck of a lot if you shoot vertical portraits, which is what I do for the most part. The present AF system is about 10 years old now, and is due for an update.. The AF sensors are too big, and the AF just plain isn't accurate enough with fast lenses such as the DA*55/1.4.

My main point, though, is that the cameras against which the K-7 is on an even keel have the same number of AF points, or less. To get more AF points in a similarly spec'ed new DSLR, you have to pay ~60% more.

Your main point is wrong.
In my neck of the woods, a Nikon D300 is less than 10% more expensive than a Pentax K7, and the new D300s is less than 30% more than a K7.
You might live in a different world where the D300s is half again more money than it is where I am, but then, there is always mail order....

[Glen]

I use only one of the K20's auto focus points. I don't really know why some DSLR's have so many. Now for exposure metering I can see where more is better but for focus points, 11 already seems like a lot. For the auto focus points, make them faster, smaller and maybe completely adjustable (rather than selectable). There is lots of room for improvements but I don't see "more" as the way to go here.

[Wheatfield]

I use only one of the K20's auto focus points. I don't really know why some DSLR's have so many. Now for exposure metering I can see where more is better but for focus points, 11 already seems like a lot. For the auto focus points, make them faster, smaller and maybe completely adjustable (rather than selectable). There is lots of room for improvements but I don't see "more" as the way to go here.

Define completely adjustable for us please.
Now, imagine a scenario where you are shooting vertical portraiture. You want to focus on the near eye, but the outside sensor group isn't a group, it is one sensor located on the center axis of the frame.
So, there are three options: use the end focus point to focus on the eye and put up with a composition that requires cropping, and the commensurate loss of quality that cropping bestows, or use a focus and recompose method which guarantees a loss of spontaneity which is adequate for formal portraiture, but I shoot models which is a different dynamic, or just give up on AF completely and focus manually, in which case why do I have to buy a useless feature in the first place, and could I please have something other than a dinky little APS-C viewfinder to focus with please.

Or, the manufacturer could take the initiative and update their decade old, pre DSLR AF system and make something that is as good as the rest of the camera.

[Glen]

By that comment I was just thinking of what would be interesting in terms of new technology. For those like you that presently find selectable autofocus points useful, wouldn't it be great if they could be moved around the viewfinder at will? I really don't want to get into a tech argument about why that can or can't be done. I just think it is the sort of thing that Pentax would do. As other DSLR companies press for more of this and more of that, it would be just like Pentax to turn them on their heads by making autofocus points movable through a controller like the touch plate on a laptop.

[Class A]

I wholeheartedly agree with Wheatfield that one wants to avoid focus-recompose in a number of situations. Another example is sports when you want to follow some player with continues focus but don't want him in the centre of the image. Also, although the focus error introduced by recomposing is often negligible, sometimes it is not.

For those like you that presently find selectable autofocus points useful, wouldn't it be great if they could be moved around the viewfinder at will?

Currently this works in Live View (slow contrast AF) but to implement it with the viewfinder (phase AF) would be prohibitively expensive, I believe. One would have to move the AF unit around mechanically. The only viable solution I can imagine is to have so many AF points that selecting one of them gets the focus practically where you want it.