Please help me think through a possible system change. (cross post) Thanks!

robgendreau wrote:

yoyoma007 wrote:

bob5050 wrote:

yoyoma007 wrote:

It's not that I crop so much. That's a nice advantage, but I tend to take my time and compose so that I do very little cropping.

That statement contrasts for me to the need for state-of-the-art AF, which I tend to see as a more 'run-and-gun' requirement. Sounds like you might be doing different types of photography? For example, slow, possibly manually tweaked focus for portraiture, but needing near instant AF for sports or wedding/party candids. Multiple conflicting requirements aren't unusual, but you need to think about what proportions are so you can be comfortable with where to accept any necessary compromises.

I wouldn't mind buying new lenses, like the amazing Pentax HD 85mm because I love portraiture, but I just have no idea what Pentax has in mind for the future.

Speaking now as a retired software developer: nothing is a worse mistake than buying the future (aka vaporware). Assume any system you would buy will be off-the-market in a year. The only thing that can matter is what's currently on the shelf; the rest is expensive speculation.

Thanks, that's a good way to look at it. It's easy to fall into the same future trap with tech of any kind. I've found myself doing the same thing with PC hardware as well at times.

As to the auto-focus question, the concern for me is mainly missing kids or pets etc. in portraiture. Potentially causing unnecessary frustration. Perhaps I'm over thinking that? As is likely obvious at this point in the conversation, I do tend to overthink everything and can get a little paralyzed about decisions. I'm very detail oriented and like to be very informed, but those traits can get a little out of control.

At this time the auto-focus doesn't matter much for sports. I sometimes shoot my kids soccer games (little kids) but that's not something I'm looking to do professionally, just for fun sometimes. I also don't shoot birds. When I shoot nature, it's most likely landscapes, flowers, sometimes macro of insects.

As onerous as this conversation may have become for those responding, I still really appreciate the feedback. It helps me clear my head a bit, and now I'm wondering if I've just worried too much about auto focus. It's easy to get caught up in that mirror-less hype, because it seems to be what every review harps on.

Maybe it's because I came from film, but I remain pretty happy with even the most basic AF. And I'm a klutz. But I can still get lots of action just by using the same tricks as then, like having a wide DOF. I do wish my Pentax had that neat scale like the GRs for zone focusing; it's another way to nail it with C-AF.

And Pentax has catch in focus. Even some of the other high zoot cameras don't have that. I use it for action, for catching an animal when it moves into a spot. And I use it for macros where the slightest movement throws focus off. So even though I have an R6, sometimes to get proper focus I prefer my K-1ii.

And Pentax even has an AF adapter for non-AF lenses. It's basically a 1.7 TC with the ability to use AF on say a 200mm Pentax manual lens. I don't think I can do that with any other current camera.

Thanks for the heads up there. I will learn catch in focus, I haven't tried that yet. I was young in the film days, so most of my film experience was only with point and shoot cameras, so I don't know all of the film era focusing tricks, but perhaps I should learn. I've been trying to find a good condition k1000 for awhile to use a vintage lens I picked up.