LightBug... buzzzzz... wrong answer. The basic platform of that 24MP sensor is indeed constructed by Sony... BUT... the advanced processor and algorythm configurations programmed into the Nikon sensor results in superior sensor performance to Pentax's offering. Check DXOMark.com for the decidedly different results between both these camera sensors. (see D7200 VS K3Mark2/same sensor as K70)

The information provided on that 'bought and paid for by Pentax' forum you listed is NOT an unbiased accounting of the K70's TRUE sensor performance. In fact, there is no actual k70 sensor performance figures listed there AT ALL. Do you actually have a comparison between the 2 cameras I mentioned? That's the comparison you should have listed... ;)

Studio comparison scenes?... yeah right... that's an accurate comparison... LOL! Thank God there's reputable websites like DXOMark who base their sensor evaluations on 'real world testing figures' instead of what some near-sighted bug says who really can't see the light... LOL

@starbase218, yep, i know... couldnt be bothered to write the write down the whole body spec at the time :)

Sorry bud I disagree with you. Even in the review was mentioned that high ISO performance seems to be result of RAW processing. Sure most of us do processed their files, but I prefer to choose noise reduction methods by myself.
So I will stick with what my "old" eyes see and I see more details within D5500.

g80 has dual wheel control and with the better dual stabilisation it overcomes the about one stop ISO. I could add more and faster prime lenses. as a plus in the more traditional "fields of view" (24, 28, 35, 40, 50, 85mm equiv. but one can also find 30, 38, 60, 90, etc.less traditional ones). As said, I won't comment about the video side ;-)

Its very funny - mirrorless cameras like panasonic etc, created for make self price cheaper then DSLR... But now we have stupid situation at market: retail prices of mirrorless are higher then real DSLRs, including the middle range DSLRs. Its happen becasue of some people want just small size camera for everyday use, and that kind of people are millions, real photographers in the world are less then 2%. The the market share of DSLR is also about 2-5%. K-70 is cost same as Panasonic GF9!!! Its just funny!

That's an interesting observation, and as you say, kind of funny. The K-70 with its larger sensor has image quality far better than m43, and probably has just as many features, if not more, but it's cheaper than many m43 cameras.

Honestly, you need to factor in native lenses before claiming a winner.

Right. Most people use Canon cameras for lenses! Nikon still now has not many really high quality lenses. Pentax too. Also all thirs party lenses at first ciming for Canon. See how many superzooms are on market, but before Tamron created 16-300 PZD, just Canon 18-200 has real fast AF speed, all others was way behind. Best superzoom lens - Nikon 18-300/3.5-5.6 has one of the slowest AF speed on market. Also, for example, in the very expensive pro lens Nikon 58/1.4 you can find AF motor from... 18-55 kit lens... Then people who want shoot with normal speed have just one choise - use Canon...

Absolutely not. I use many systems - Canon, Nikon, Pentax... But most I like Nikon and in my life had even all NIkon cameras... But still now Nikon put really high speed silent wave AF motors just in high expensive lenses, but Canon include them in many mid range and even in cheap lenses. Look please to Canon 55-250 and after try to use Nikon 50-200 or 50-300 and you will understand what about I talk. Use please NIkon 18-105 or 18-140 and after use the same price Canon 18-135 STM or 18-135 USM and you will udnerstand what about I talk. Last year even Pentax created cheap and great 55-300 PLM, but where is a Nikon 55-300 with such fast AF speed? Its easy to say "fanboy", but hard to explain why in stupid expensive 58/1.4 Nikon put the af motor from 18-55 kit lens? Same AF motor is also in new 50/1.4G and see how slow it working, slower then 50/1.8G. Canon also have weakness - where is a new version of 18-200 with real fast AF motor? Tamron 16-300 beats all of them - Canon and Nikon.

No, just no. There is some truth in your post, but you have to dig very deep to find it.

Deliverator I love your type. anyone dares to disagree with you and they are instantly a fanboy or a jackoff because your "always right"

That is very true Deliverator. But I have to say personally the 24-70 non VR from Nikon I am very disappointed with the sharpness, maybe I got a lemon lens who knows but overall I am not happy with it.

Many Pentax users argue that their brand typically has more features than other cameras. E.g. pixel shift resolution, the on-demand AA-filter and horizon correction. I wonder though, how many users actually use these functions in day to day photography. I'd argue that AF is a core photographic function, whereas pixel shift, on-demand AA filter, horizon correction etc. are just extras most users would be perfectly happy to live without. Also because you have to remember to use these functions, which - to me at least - means you are more busy with the camera, than with things like composition, angle of view, etc that actually get you a better photo.

Personally, I've come to think that maybe the Pentax K-5 II(s) is be the best Pentax camera so far. It doesn't have so many functions, it doesn't have tracking AF (but that is hardly usable on the K-3), but it is solid and small. Even the K-3 is already bigger. Combine a K-5 II(s) with some Limiteds and you have a nice setup.

"The best way of having Pentax improve its AF is to buy their higher-end cameras and lenses ;-)
I'm doing my part."

Sorry, but Pentax is not a charity. I see no reason to help them improve their AF when I could also buy something else that already has better AF (and is also advancing even further, let's not forget that). If they want to be relevant, they have to do it themselves.

I don't want to have to buy the latest camera to get acceptable tracking. A K-1 is also fullframe, which I don't need or want.

Also, the new D FA lenses have faster motors, but they're still slower than ring-type ultrasonics in Canon/Nikon lenses.

The 86k pixel light metering sensor sounds far more impressive than the 2016 pixel sensor in the D7200. But I don't care how many pixels the sensor has. I care about what it gets me. If a camera can track well with a 1-pixel sensor, that's perfectly fine as well.

Actually, the 55-300 PLM being so good for tracking sounds like a familiar story for Pentax. Screwdrive lenses like the old 55-300 were actually better than SDM lenses for tracking as well. It seems history repeats itself: if you want good tracking performance, don't get the most expensive lenses. Which means you'll have to decide on a tradeoff: image quality and low-light capability versus tracking performance. If you want both, maybe look elsewhere?

Why do I get the feeling that you're both complaining that Pentax is not advanced enough, and against any advancement?

There are two sides to my statement. In no particular order:

1. "Pentax" (actually, Ricoh Imaging) is not a charity but a business; they're not a volunteer organization either. So they need us to buy their products.
If you decide to spend your money elsewhere, that's fine; but then, don't complain that "Pentax" didn't do this or that. Or the classic "I want performance similar to X but at 1/4 of the price". It doesn't work like this.

2. Using old lenses can hinder the AF performance, even on a K-1.
If you only used old lenses with slow/imprecise AF, you don't know the full capabilities of the Pentax' most advanced AF. This is just something to be aware of.

And, of course, there are more aspects to a camera buying decision than its AF. The K-1 is an amazing photographic tool, despite not beating everything else at everything. The K-70 looks nice, too.

The 55-300 PLM RE is no screw drive lens; it has a brand new in-lens AF system, suitable for lenses with light focusing elements/groups. The same AF system might be used in future lenses.
By the way, were you able to try it?

Screw drive lenses are IMHO worse, not better - because they're inherently imprecise.

"Why do I get the feeling that you're both complaining that Pentax is not advanced enough, and against any advancement?"

I don't know. Only you can answer that (no pun intended).

""Pentax" (actually, Ricoh Imaging) is not a charity but a business; they're not a volunteer organization either. So they need us to buy their products."

I don't care about what they or anyone else need me to do. What I do, I determine for myself.

"If you decide to spend your money elsewhere, that's fine; but then, don't complain that "Pentax" didn't do this or that. Or the classic "I want performance similar to X but at 1/4 of the price". It doesn't work like this."

Maybe I shouldn't have written about what I need or want. I was merely reacting to you mentioning the K-1, as having a better AF. Maybe it does. But if you want a body with good tracking, you can do much better in terms of value. Which is why I don't understand your "I want performance similar to X but at 1/4 of the price" statement.

I never said the new 55-300 PLM has screwdrive.

I have been using Pentax for almost 7 years now. At one point I bought the old DA 55-300. A few years ago, I decided I it was time to move on, so I bought the DA* 60-250. That lens is optically brilliant. It's also faster (constant f/4), weather-sealed and just higher grade. But it's not as good as my old 55-300 for tracking. This has been confirmed by tests on Pentaxforums.com as well. So I came to the conclusion, some time ago, that this is a tradeoff you had to make with Pentax: either get a cheaper lens that is better for tracking, or a more expensive lens, which is optically superb, but is simply not as good for tracking.

Fast-forward to this review: they tested the D FA* 70-200 and the new DA 55-300 PLM, and concluded the cheaper 55-300 is far better for tracking. So once again, if you want the best tracking performance, don't get the professional-grade lens. Get the consumer lens.

And if you want both, maybe look somewhere else.

You don't get it. It is your decision, nobody's taking this from you.
It's your right to decide which brand you'd use and implicitly support.

What I said is that the PLM AF system is very different from the screw drive. It doesn't need to me compared with the old, abandoned SDM* micromotors. It doesn't use a technology introduced in 1987. It's progress.

I also had the DA* 60-250, and its main issue was that I had to avoid losing the subject (and therefore the hunting that followed). I've also seen a screw drive lens not being able to focus at all (at a certain distance), because its loose AF mechanism couldn't position the optics accurately enough.
I don't care about reviews; DPReview's are quite random - and Pentaxforums is still insisting the DA 560mm is not a full frame lens. At most they could give me a hint about something, but in the end, it's the personal experience that matters.

* the D FA 15-30 and D FA 24-70 are using another type of "SDM", which is actually Tamron's USD.

"It is your decision, nobody's taking this from you."

Then why do you say "they need us to buy their products"? I mean, I said their needs are not important to me (us?). Seems like you are agreeing with me on that?

I know PLM is very different from screwdrive. I didn't say it wasn't. I'm also not comparing it to the older SDM motors. Once again, I think you have misunderstood.

All I'm saying is that in the past, the cheaper Pentax zooms were better for AF tracking than the more expensive ones. Case in point: DA 55-300 (screwdrive) versus DA* 60-250 SDM, and the Pentaxforums.com test of those two lenses head-to-head on tracking, as well as my personal experience. In this review, they tried the DA 55-300 PLM and the D FA* 70-200 DC for tracking. Again, the cheaper lens was found to be better for AF tracking.

It doesn't matter how screwdrive, SDM, PLM or DC work for this to be true.

If you don't agree with me, that's ok. Still, it is my conclusion, and I post it as such.

I'm saying it because it true, that's the fundamental idea behind any business.
And it doesn't conflict one bit with your right to choose which brand you'd use and support. OK, go Nikon if that gives you the AF performance you need; Nikon needs our money too. Or Canon. Or whatever.

But perhaps you believe "Pentax" could do much better with less or no R&D money?

"I'm saying it because it true, that's the fundamental idea behind any business."

Ok, I see what you mean. You saying "I'm doing my part" gave me another impression.

"But perhaps you believe "Pentax" could do much better with less or no R&D money?"

I don't have to worry about that. What matters to me is the result I get for the money I invest. Actually, in that regard, this new 55-300 PLM might be nice. But optically it's probably nowhere near a 60-250.

But for what it's worth, I don't understand how a ring-type ultrasonic motor would cost so much in terms of R&D. It's not rocket science or anything. Canon and Nikon have been using them literally for decades.

"I'm doing my part" is also a truthful statement. It's called putting my money where my mouth is.
There would be no reason for Pentax to advance anything if we'd all use cheap screw drive lenses and Tamrons.

Perhaps a ring-type motor is unsuitable for the volumes Pentax is working with? I'm not sure if they have to make a motor for each lens, or just several types.
Besides:
a. neither Canon nor Nikon, AFAIK, are using ring-type motors all over their lens line
b. newer AF motor types might replace ring-type motors, at least for some applications (STM, nano USM). Pentax' PLM is one of those.

Canon USM always is ring-type, Nikon SWM is either ring-type or micromotor. But both put ring-type motors in their top-grade lenses so that they focus fastest. Unlike Pentax.

You may be right about the sales volumes. But again, I don't care about reasons why the situation is as it is. I just know it is, and I have to live with the consequences.

Actually, I also don't care whether or not Pentax uses ring-type ultrasonic motors. I just choose that example as it is what a lot of other manufacturers use to achieve fast focus speeds. If Pentax can do it through another technology, fine with me. For all I know, they might put tiny witches in the lens, and call it "BMM (black magic motor)". If it gets the job done, I don't care.

The point is that, up until now, their pro-grade lenses focus SLOWER than their consumer-grade lenses. So there is a performance penalty for upgrading. This is itself may limit sales of their top-grade products. I know it does for me.

No, Canon USM is not always ring-type - but you don't have to believe me, look what Canon says on this matter: "there are three types of USM motor - the ring-type, Micro and Micro II types".
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/usmlens_technology.do

Yes, we have to be aware of the current situation; but we also must recognize progress where/when it happens. The PLM motor is exactly this: progress. Even the DC motors from the new D FAs are a progress (from my limited testing).

Your absolute rule of Pentax reserving speed for their consumer lenses is based on one particular lens - the PLM, which is the newest Pentax lens. We have yet to see in which lenses they'll use this new motor.
Even more, IIUC you were unable to evaluate the lens personally, and you're talking about what you read in some reviews. I don't trust reviews.

Getting back to the original subject - that of "Pentax" making AF advancements, let's see what was done under Ricoh, between 2013 and 2016:
- Pentax AF systems with -3EV sensitivity (which, at that time, was better than the competition)
- first Pentax AF system with advanced subject recognition and tracking functions, using a 86k segment RGB metering system (K-3)
- improvements on DC motors (D FA* 70-200, D FA 150-450)
- first Pentax camera with on-sensor PDAF - that's the K-70
- the introduction of the PLM motor

There's still much to do, but I'd call it progress.

By the way, the new Pentax D FA lenses might not be slower than all comparable Canikon ring-type lenses.

"No, Canon USM is not always ring-type"

I stand corrected. Still, it doesn't change much.

"we also must recognize progress where/when it happens"

Sure, it's progress. Still doesn't mean it's good enough. Doesn't mean it's not. It's up to you or me to decide on that.

"Your absolute rule of Pentax reserving speed for their consumer lenses is based on one particular lens"

It's not an absolute rule, and I don't think Pentax is doing this on purpose either. It's my conclusion, based on having owned a variety of Pentax lenses, including all DA* zooms, reading reviews and watching Youtube videos of the actual speed. My guess is there's more glass to move in pro-grade lenses, and Pentax somehow hasn't mastered how to move more glass with a similar speed. The 16-50 is OK wrt AF speed, the 50-135 is slow and the 60-250 isn't fast either. The 55-300 (non-PLM) has better tracking performance than either of the DA* teles.

"IIUC you were unable to evaluate the lens personally, and you're talking about what you read in some reviews. I don't trust reviews."

As an APS-C shooter none of the latest Pentax lenses appeals to me (the 16-85 came closest). So I haven't tried any of them myself. I fear Pentax is starting to become more and more like Canon/Nikon in the sense that they won't invest into a pro DA* line anymore, instead investing in fullframe pro-grade lenses and wanting you to upgrade there.

It is your choice whether or not you trust reviews.

"the new Pentax D FA lenses might not be slower than all comparable Canikon ring-type lenses"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udbie3mKJ2E

Any significant progress is good; and let's be realistic, there's no way for "Pentax" (actually, Ricoh Imaging) to catch up with Canon/Nikon immediately. They made significant steps forward, this should be recognized as such.

Besides, you can't know if it's "good enough" or not without *using* these products, don't you think? ;-)

All the DA* lenses were launched between 2007 and 2008. All of them. They represent Pentax' first attempt at a proper in-lens AF motor solution (not counting the KF experiment).
So when you talk about DA*s, you're talking about old technology and you must not judge Pentax' "advancements" in AF by those.

Please re-read my statement, carefully. I never said Pentax' is as fast as Canikon's fastest. But then, is every Canikon lens as fast as their fastest? ;-)
It's the Nikon 200-500 which I suspect to have a motor not faster than the D FA 150-450's. I say "suspect" because all I saw were videos similar to what you're showing me.

I know that if you look at Pentax's history, it may be perfectly logical for them to be behind Canon and Nikon when it comes to autofocus. It may be very commendable that they are making progress.

However, at the end of the day, a camera is a tool, like a hammer. If I buy a hammer, I buy it to, for instance, drive nails in wood, not because I'm interested in the process the manufacturer has gone through to end up with the hammer I'm buying. I just want the bloody thing to work, because I need to make furniture with it (or whatever).

You are right that I don't know if a new Pentax lens is good enough. But truth be told, I am somewhat disappointed in Pentax, to the point that I won't be trying new lenses anymore anyway. Of course this is personal. But then, you asked a personal question.

And no, not all Canikon lenses focus as fast as their fastest lens. But for the most part, their pro-grade lenses do focus faster than consumer-level lenses. So you won't loose anything by upgrading.

The video I showed you is actually not that good an example when it comes to continuous AF performance. It only shows end-to-end focus speed. For continuous AF, small, incremental changes are needed, and torque is probably more important than pure speed.

I actually tested my 55-300 screwdrive against my 60-250 SDM a while ago. The DA* lens actually goes through the focus range a little faster. But it doesn't do continuous AF so well, because it doesn't get "up to speed" very fast. The screwdrive 55-300 does, which means it doesn't have to catch up so much, which leads to the capability to shoot more frames.

Look at it this way: almost any lens will get from infinity to minimum focus distance in, say, less than 1.5 seconds. Ever had a subject coming towards you that fast?

At least that's my theory, FWIW.

You are correct, a camera is a tool; however, it's a tool that is not defined solely by its autofocus. Considering the whole package, Pentax is a very good choice for many. Would I recommend it for hardcore wildlife shooters? Surely not; but cameras are not only used for wildlife - a comparison with a tool which only does one thing (hammer) is terribly wrong.
Let's take the K-70 for example - it does have advantages over its direct competitors, a better viewfinder for example, or a better, WR build.

Or, let's take the K-1: it's a landscape photographer's dream. But, Pentax is getting better at action, too. That's a good thing.

My experience regarding the DA* 60-250 vs. 55-300 is very different - the DA* being slow at the end-to-end "focus" speed but working better at small corrections.
The D FA 150-450 is a different beast.

@Alex Sarbu Sorry, but I'm seriously getting the feeling that I have to dot every I and cross every T in the limited amount of text I can enter here, or otherwise you'll be all over the post to find something to say I'm wrong, like you are doing now with the hammer comparison. Maybe I should have said "AF performance is a tool, just like a hammer", as it was you who stated that AF had been improved over the years, and I was reacting to that. The fact that I could have been more exact in that post does not contradict my point, and I think you know it.

I do think that entry-level Pentax gear is great value, and a great tool to learn photography. The K-70 has weather sealing, a pentaprism viewfinder and 2 e-dials. And there are weather-sealed kit lenses for it. IMHO though, you might want to re-evaluate whether Pentax is still the best choice if you want to upgrade from there.

Sorry; I'm just trying to make my point - that a camera is a complex tool serving an astonishing range of "needs", AF being only one aspect. No matter the cost (and cost is actually a factor), you cannot make a camera "better" at anything than all the others. So you'll have to choose.

And let's not forget that the discussion was about Pentax making advancements in AF; it wasn't about if they are on the same level as Canikon. For you, the difference might be irrelevant as you might need Canikon-level AF *now*; for me and many others, Pentax is still overall a better choice - and AF advancements means expanding the area of comfortable usage.

If the higher-end Pentax equipment is "the best choice" or not, it depends on those choosing. I already called the K-1 a landscape photographer's dream, and then there's the medium format.

I actually took a look at the samples. The angle of view is so wide, and the subject so far away, that the DOF pretty much contains everything. For these kind of "action shots", even the K20D AF would suffice. Hell, even MF would suffice. Just set it to hyperfocal with a big enough F-number and you're done.

On a Dutch Pentax forum, there was a guy wo posted some shots made with his D700 in 2009: http://www.pentaxian.nl/index.php/topic,4401.msg44831.html#msg44831.

I don't think a K20D could do something like this, and even modern Pentax cameras may not be able to.

edit: although, he might have pre-focused somewhere left on the bar and just fire away once the dog jumped over it. Still, there's action shots and action shots.

Sigh...
K20D? A camera launched in 2008? How on Earth is it relevant to AF advancements being made (or not)?

As for your D700 samples, look at the 3rd picture: the dog's head is out of focus; and the EXIF says it was made with manual focus. I don't know what you're trying to prove... but definitely not Nikon's AF superiority.

OTOH, on the Pentax SLR Talk section, people posted action shots taken with the K-1. Including swallows in flight (that took some skill!).

@Alex Sarbu I was responding to the person who started this thread. He was wondering what happened to Pentax AF, given that he could shoot action photos with his 8-year-old K20D.

I looked at his samples and it turns out his action shots are more like landscape shots with a dog running somewhere: shot fairly wide with bags of DOF. So there's action shots and there's action shots.

About the shots I linked to, I didn't find focus mode in the EXIF but I did amend my post by saying he might have prefocused (either auto or manual) on the bar. So yeah, this is not the best example in terms of AF performance. It does illustrate my earlier point: there's action shots and there's action shots.

It is perfectly possible to take action shots with Pentax. But even things like the AF user interface make it harder, depending on how you take that shot, as the active focus point is not continuously lit. In that regard, I think some other brands just offer you more tools, more ways to take the shot.

My bad, then - it was too many posts ago, and since then we had a lengthy discussion about (I hope) Pentax AF advancements ;-)

I guess we agree on this point; the K20D's AF was nothing to write home about, and it wasn't helped by the 2008 era lenses.
How you would approach sports with a recent Pentax camera with their recent lenses is another issue, one I'm still investigating. But I can say with certainty, there's a night and day difference.

I had the K20D, yes, the body was quite comfortable to hold. The new style bodies (I skipped the K-7 and got the K-5) aren't bad at all, though, and I find their deeper grip better.

The active focus point not being continuously "lit", that's not an issue except in low light IMO (when you can't see the black markings). I'm not sure what kinds of sport you'd shoot in such conditions. But if you used the K-1 and reached a different conclusion...
(the K-1 is so far the only Pentax camera using a LCD overlay)

Does Pentax have a fast 24mm(35efl) for apsc? None.

It's hardly an election!

It could do better, Nikons for one example are noticeably better at AF, even the 3xxx line, and middle of the road D7200 is better at AF than top of the line Pentaxes.
I own a Pentax, and it is my only camera because of its ergonomics and mostly the viewfinder, but its AF is lacking.

I dont think that K-70 has the same sensor as D3400 bec Pentax sensor includes on-chip phase-detect autofocus pixels which may be draining the battery faster. We will see the lab results on DXO analysis. Pentax may have a better sensor than D3400. We will see.

I didn't say the K-3 had superior AF. And seriously, "tighter chassis"?

I like the K3 jpeg rendition better but this 70 seems to have a much better sensor

If you like shooting with quality primes (like the limiteds), SR (shake reduction) of 4.5 stops is a big big deal. Without SR, even shooting at shutter speeds 1 / focal length, you're unlikely to get tack sharp pictures with todays high-rez sensors. See the excellent SR section of the review.

And it superd duper obvious if you look at the concenric circle in complementary colours. (Just to the right of the bottles I can't seem to do the link). I suspect more would look better if they had used a better lens.