Originally posted by vrphoto as in SERIOUSLY BETTER AF (the only thing that will cause the moths to fly from my wallet)
Quantifying this would be more helpful than shouting, seriously. Faster, or more accurate, or both? I suspect the answer would be "both" by many calling for it, but what do people actually want with this? How important is low-light performance?
I keep hearing people saying they want more AF points, smaller AF points, faster drives and so on. Usually, people saying this will point to Nikon (less often Canon) as the benchmark. On the other hand, I also see people giving up those systems and coming to Pentax and still others pointing out that the competitor systems are faster but not necessarily more accurate. What confounds me is that I don't see the need that others see, personally, although I acknowledge that others may have situations where they genuinely need a different system.
What we could use are some more objective, scientific testing that establishes useful benchmarks, and less loose talk. I imagine some of the former is available, and I'd like to see it.