K1 II and Best cameras for landscape photography in 2021 article

PentUp wrote:

egk4260 wrote:

Phil A Martin wrote:

egk4260 wrote:

Phil A Martin wrote:

DuncanM1 wrote:.........

And noting the weakness of Nikon AF and dismissing it as not relevant to landscape, whilst downgrading Pentax because of the AF? There is no logical explanation for this..........

As I read it your perceptions seem to differ with what they actually stated:

K1-III: "Limited AF point coverage, Unreliable AF tracking"

"The camera's 33 autofocus points are concentrated toward the center of the frame, and is looking limited by modern standards. Likewise AF tracking lags behind the competition in terms of reliability. The K-1 II can focus in very low light, down to -3EV, but AF points barely light up making it difficult to know what you’re focusing on."

Z7: "Autofocus interface a bit clunky"

"Autofocus performance is generally good, and face/eye AF continues to be improved with firmware updates. The interface isn't as refined as it could be, and you'll have to decide whether to use subject tracking, face detection or a simpler AF area mode, which is automatic on some of its rivals. The results tend to be very good, though."

As I said, I've never had any issues with AF for landscape photography, with any Pentax camera going all the way back to the MZ5n.

I guess you are correct in regards to still focus for landscapes. But, kudos for an exceptionally artful dodge of actually responding to my post. Politics are certainly an option if the photography thing does not work out for you.:-) I narrowed the scope of my query by editing the text. Hope you have been able to enjoy your new camera.

I think that you may be (perhaps deliberately) missing the point of this thread entirely. The group of cameras under discussion are being compared in regards to landscape photography, a subject in which autofocus generally, and AF-Tracking, face/eye AF and subject tracking specifically are somewhat irrelevant.

Exactly