The AF in the K-5 was terrible. Plain and simple. The k-7 was even more reliable. It might have been slightly (not really though) slower but when it locked you had a good lock. The K-5 IIs and K-3 are much, much more reliable. The K-3 is the best focusing camera I have ever used on static subjects. Even in almost total darkness it will lock on to nearly anything. The K-1 is supposed to be even better. Don't worry.
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Gonz <rgonzoma...@gmail.com> wrote: > Question: How is the K-1 autofocus, as compared to say, a K-5? I was > looking through a batch of pictures I took recently at a family > gathering and was appalled by the autofocus performance. Many of the > shots were off, lost forever. So bad that I started looking at other > systems like Nikon D500, etc, which reviewers say is on par with their > flagship D5. > > I just don't want to invest in a 2K camera if they haven't at least > made this essential (to my tired old eyes) part work much better. No > matter that I have $$$$ tied up in so many Pentax lenses. > > > -- > -- Reduce your Government Footprint > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
