Originally posted by normhead I shoot landscape and wildlife, but i don't go to areas where birds in flight are a big thing. Most people don't. It's really annoying that when anyone says "wildlife" people go to birds in flight. It might be cool to ask the OP if he plans to shoot birds in flight before launching into this endless debate which is largely irrelevant to most Pentax shooters.
Because if the answer is no then there's a lot you can do without super AF.
Wildlife | Flickr
Contrary to what some would have you believe, there is a great deal of wildlife that doesn't not involve birds in flight, it's a very small subset for most of us. It's hardly the standard by which 99% of photographers should be judging what camera to buy.
I said that I should have mentioned that for me wildlife involves action, from BIF to running deers or anything that moves.
I assumed he is more into action because if he was shooting static subjects I'm not sure why any camera wouldn't be enough as long as for static subjects you don't need Af-C or Af-S at all (manual focus will do the job anytime for static subjects).
But he said that af from Pentax wasn't as good as he wanted and that's why I wanted to make sure that he thinks very good before investing in Olympus for improved af and lighter gear.
---------- Post added 03-02-20 at 04:47 PM ----------
Originally posted by normhead Because the terrain where I live is heavily wooded, you have to know where to go even to get landscape images, my BiF opportunities are limited to dumps and gravel pits. Not places you want to sit down for a day and enjoy the scenery while waiting for opportunities. I'm guessing less the 1 in 1000 of my photo opportunities involve birds in flight, and much of the time when it has, my Pentax gear has been up to the task.
recommending lens and body purchases on a open forum based on bird in flight capability to average kinds of users strikes me as fiscally irresponsible. And when you consider that most action cameras are 24 MP or less, also detrimental to your landscape shooting. For many of us a K-1 capable of with 4 FPS and 36 MP will give us better images 99.9% of the time than a top of the line, very expensive action camera. The type of person who would get better images on average with an action camera is actually pretty rare. You sacrifice landscape quality to get that performance. For shooters like me, it would harm my photography more than it would help it. After all. many of us are still single frame shooters.
In case you missed the OP comments, he is looking for Olympus for better af, lighter and smaller gear. He also said that he doesn't know if he is going to leave Pentax or adding Olympus also in the mix. If you read my comments, I said a few things that might be interesting if you read carefully:
1. I said that he may also wait for the new Pentax APS-C and see if the af issue he now have will be solved
2. I said that I'm willing to bet that the new Pentax APS-C will outperform Olympus E-M1 Mark III
3. I gave him a few examples of better cameras (in my opinion) that Olympus E-M1 Mark III, starting with Nikon D500 and continuing with Fuji X-T4, Sony A6600 or even Sony A7 III. All of my recommendations/suggestions have arguments that the OP is interested in: light, small, fast af.
I also told him why I wouldn't invest in Canon M6 Mark II which is better in every aspect than E-M1 II, but due to lack of lenses and overall lack of Canon interest in M mount, I would stay away for a while from Canon M mount.
By my part he can buy any camera he wants. I'm offering options that I would like to receive if I would have had a dilemma.