I think Pentax's autofocus systems do a good job. I had occasion to compare a PZ-1 to a Minolta 700si, both discontinued cameras but from similiar years I think. This was at a wedding reception with dim lighting. I had my Minolta 700si there as my main camera with a dedicated flash that supported AF assist. I noted it was just hunting too much on the autofocus. I wasn't getting the shots. I went out to the car to retrieve my PZ-1 and to my dismay I found I'd forgotten the dedicated flash for it. I brought it in anyways and proceeded to try with the on camera flash. Even with out the assistance of a dedicated flash AF assist unit the PZ-1 outperformed the Minolta in the Autofocus catagorie. The Pentax AF under such conditions just sort of nudges it into place carefully taking a sec but does get the lock. The Minolta still tries to find the lock going at full bore autofocus speeds. There was no question as it wasn't even close, the Pentax was not just a little, but way superior under the conditions I found myself in and I did get the shots. The bad part was if the AF hadn't handled it, I find the PZ-1 viewfinder a bit dark for manual focusing in lowlight conditions. The darker viewfinders can be an asset though when in bright sunlight or sunset/sunrise photos though.
I realise the previous comments were about Canon, but the Minoltas have placed fairly decent in the AF race. You might find this link interesting <http://w3.one.net/~georgek/pentax/cameras/c35g0001.html> > >Not as good autofocus. > > A strange statement. The swedish magazine FOTO has found, ever since the > launch of the MZ-5 in 1996, that Pentax leads the pack in terms of AF speed > and sensitivity. Canon has bad low light sensitivity, and are quite slow. > Nikon has never been a sucess story with it's AF in the low-end market. > Minolta used to be as slow as Canon, but with the Dynax 5 - they changed > this so they're not market leader in terms of AF speed. > >
