[mee]

The factor that usually is ignored with regard to auto focus is the lens. As long as Canon is issuing their entry level cameras with slow kit lenses, the auto focus will be limited by the lenses, even if the algorithms and number of points are adequate.

Anyway, I suppose this has more to do with tracking then with any thing else. It may help a few folks who are shooting their kid's soccer games, but even there, they will probably be using slow 70-300 variable aperture lenses, which once again, aren't going to be able to keep up with action, even if the camera body can.

Their STM 18-55 seems nice. And with the new bodies they just announced yesterday, they upgraded it to a II model. As quiet as SDM without the failure issues... but slightly quicker than SDM.

You're more of a landscape bubba (like myself). Your world is much different than those of the entry level canon buyer. They are going for just that.. kids events, photographing (moving) kids, and portrait work. Also walkaround.. (zoo, park, maybe museum)

You really don't even need autofocus for landscape work. For tracking a moving kid, unless you have world class skills, you need autofocus with a decent tracking system.

Canon knows exactly their market and they sell for that market. That hasn't (over the past 8 years or so at least) been Pentax's market.

[DeadJohn]

entry level canon has a better af system than the pentax flagship now...

The entry level Canon might also have a faster burst rate than the Pentax flagship. The K-1 is designed for landscapes rather than sports photography so it doesn't matter. Yes, you can shoot sports with a K-1, but that's not where the camera excels.

I wonder if Canon forums have a thread "$2k Pentax K-1 has more megapixels than $6k Canon 1DX Mark 2 flagship", and completely dismiss Canon's 14fps.

[Rondec]

Their STM 18-55 seems nice. And with the new bodies they just announced yesterday, they upgraded it to a II model. As quiet as SDM without the failure issues... but slightly quicker than SDM.

You're more of a landscape bubba (like myself). Your world is much different than those of the entry level canon buyer. They are going for just that.. kids events, photographing (moving) kids, and portrait work. Also walkaround.. (zoo, park, maybe museum)

You really don't even need autofocus for landscape work. For tracking a moving kid, unless you have world class skills, you need autofocus with a decent tracking system.

Canon knows exactly their market and they sell for that market. That hasn't (over the past 8 years or so at least) been Pentax's market.

Pentax has had incremental improvements in their auto focus over time. I take a lot of photos of my kids and with the newer DFA zooms, I have had no trouble tracking with a K-1. I wouldn't shoot the Olympics with a K-1, but that would be for multiple reasons, including the slower frame rate you see with high megapixel full frame sensors (and the fact that I am not a sports photographer).

This shouldn't really turn into a Canon versus Pentax discussion. As long as there continue to be iterative improvements from body to body, I think we are in good shape.

Tracking auto focus is actually usable at this point, which is more than I could say back in the K10 and K20 days.

[stevebrot]

For all PDAF cameras I'm aware of , the center points are the most sensitive and the most accurate.

No, not all. Most consumer-grade bodies completely lack f/2.8 focus sensitivity on any of their AF points. This is true even for recent-model Pentax.


Steve

[stevebrot]

Ricoh probably won't even notice

Yes! To Ricoh, Canon is "That other copier company"


Steve

[CarlJF]

It seems that canon out an 80d af system into their t7i. I wonder how will ricoh respond.

Doesn't mean much. The T7i, like the other Rebels, doesn't allow microfocus adjustments. So, unless you're lucky enough that all your lenses don't require any adjustments, it simply means the T7i will reliably and reproducibly get you pictures with some back/front focus. Hopefully for Canon, the solution to this problem is to rapidly ditch the T7i and then buy a 80D... Which some see as an advantage over a camera allowing you to do this simple adjustement in the first place instead of having to buy a higher end body...

[beholder3]

The T7i, like the other Rebels, doesn't allow microfocus adjustments. So, unless you're lucky enough that all your lenses don't require any adjustments, it simply means the T7i will reliably and reproducibly get you pictures with some back/front focus.

Good point. Especially fun when buying used lenses.

When googleing that topic I stumbled across the fact that Nikon D750 can only store data for 12 lenses (when every toothbruch seems to have storage in the gigabytes today): Af Fine-tune - Nikon D750 User Manual [Page 417]. So if you have more than 12 lenses which you do fine tune, out of luck.

Then there seems to be the part with third party lenses: D810 AF Fine-tuning of multiple lenses.: Nikon FX SLR (DF, D1-D5, D600-D800) Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
So you need to pray that the two Tamrons never require different adjustments or you're screwed as the author in that thread.

[reh321]

....
I wonder if Canon forums have a thread "$2k Pentax K-1 has more megapixels than $6k Canon 1DX Mark 2 flagship", and completely dismiss Canon's 14fps.

More likely "Newest Canon still doesn't have WR, and Pentax has been doing WR almost forever"

[normhead]

The entry level Canon might also have a faster burst rate than the Pentax flagship

Ya, right.

When was the last time Pentax made a camera with a frame rate of 4 FPS? You underestimate Canon's ability to crank out overpriced cheap crap. However cheap Pentax makes their entry level cameras, Canon makes a camera twice as cheap. Cheap construction, cheap features, cheap performance.

Saying any Pentax is comparable to any Canon entry level system is just a huge insult to Pentax.

By the way, it took about 90 seconds to check that, and that's not funny.

Accuracy people.

[biz-engineer]

The fair reaction would be to say the K5 has an autofocus that is "98 autofocus points ready" (which is actually a fact, because there are virtually no limits to the number of non-cross type AF points you can define in software using the exact same module; it just doesnt change/improve anything beyond spec sheet).

Honestly, that's what Pentax should have done on entry level cameras, i.e use the same module and divide actual AF points into smaller points in the view finder illumination. I know that's cheating, but so many buyer of entry level camera actually never use any kind of advanced af, but the number of af point is an easy number to put in a comparison table for use by the lambda salesman. More points always sound better for the hesitating customer. 399 (CD)AF points that's impressive.

---------- Post added 15-02-17 at 20:10 ----------

You underestimate Canon's ability to crank out overpriced cheap crap.

That a key part of their strategy to grab as much market share as possible. When you start photography and you have no clue about interchangeable lens camera, it's so tempting to get a Canon or Nikon, then you're hooked, you realize the lens is crap, you buy a better lens for the body and you realize the body is crap, you buy a better body for the lens, up to the next model to the next model to the next model.

[normhead]

Honestly, that's what Pentax should have done on entry level cameras, i.e use the same module and divide actual AF points into smaller points in the view finder illumination. I know that's cheating, but so many buyer of entry level camera actually never use any kind of advanced af, but the number of af point is an easy number to put in a comparison table for use by the lambda salesman. More points always sound better for the hesitating customer. 399 (CD)AF points that's impressive.

---------- Post added 15-02-17 at 20:10 ----------


That a key part of their strategy to grab as much market share as possible. When you start photography and you have no clue about interchangeable lens camera, it's so tempting to get a Canon or Nikon, then you're hooked, you realize the lens is crap, you buy a better lens for the body and you realize the body is crap, you buy a better body for the lens, up to the next model to the next model to the next model.

It didn't work on my daughter. She bought a cheap Canon DSLR second hand, and never bought anything for it.

Canon never made a cent off of her.

[surfar]

It didn't work on my daughter

Mine bought a new twin lens kit Canon DSLR....touchscreen that flips out(around 5 years ago)....


So birthdays and Xmas she gets a lens, so Canon are making $$$$ out of me!


But I supplement the lens presents with cams that I discard( I haven't given her a Pentax yet!).

[madphys]

Uber AF, WR, SR etc etc...must have, if not, then it is the end of the world.
I have a suggestion - maybe what we really need is the "HP" wand? Hokus Pokus - make me some great shots, make me famous, get me laid... How about such feature, ehh?

[mee]

Pentax has had incremental improvements in their auto focus over time.

So has Canon the entire time... All manufacturers have really. Just that Canikon have been at a higher level as far as tracking goes.. Pentax went for low light first and now seems to be looking at tracking more seriously...

I take a lot of photos of my kids and with the newer DFA zooms, I have had no trouble tracking with a K-1. I wouldn't shoot the Olympics with a K-1, but that would be for multiple reasons, including the slower frame rate you see with high megapixel full frame sensors (and the fact that I am not a sports photographer).

This shouldn't really turn into a Canon versus Pentax discussion. As long as there continue to be iterative improvements from body to body, I think we are in good shape.

Tracking auto focus is actually usable at this point, which is more than I could say back in the K10 and K20 days.

Yes. I think as soon as we stop seeing iterative improvements means there are no improvements worth the cost of development or the company has folded. Pentax isn't close to either imo.

I also think we can admit to ourselves two things:

1) The current Canon (and Nikon for that matter) AF systems are superior to Pentax's current AF system
2) The Pentax AF system is good enough for most of our work

---------- Post added 02-15-17 at 05:42 PM ----------

Ya, right.

When was the last time Pentax made a camera with a frame rate of 4 FPS? You underestimate Canon's ability to crank out overpriced cheap crap. However cheap Pentax makes their entry level cameras, Canon makes a camera twice as cheap. Cheap construction, cheap features, cheap performance.

Saying any Pentax is comparable to any Canon entry level system is just a huge insult to Pentax.

By the way, it took about 90 seconds to check that, and that's not funny.

Accuracy people.

SL1 is 4 years old. Size wise, it more closely resembles the K-S1 from Pentax. That had a 5 fps burst but also came out a year later.

K-S1 is a better camera though. But that shouldn't be surprising to anyone here, since Pentax has historically offered more for the money (including the lower end).

One thing that isn't apparent in spec sheets and online discussion is just how much better Pentax OVFs are on the entry level bodies compared to Canikon competitors. It isn't even close.

[DeadJohn]

Ya, right.

When was the last time Pentax made a camera with a frame rate of 4 FPS? You underestimate Canon's ability to crank out overpriced cheap crap. However cheap Pentax makes their entry level cameras, Canon makes a camera twice as cheap. Cheap construction, cheap features, cheap performance.

Saying any Pentax is comparable to any Canon entry level system is just a huge insult to Pentax.

By the way, it took about 90 seconds to check that, and that's not funny.

Accuracy people.

You completely missed the context of my post. I wasn't complaining about Pentax. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of the thread title comparing the K-1 based on only a single part of the overall specification.