Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-14-2012, 01:53 PM   #136
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,447
QuoteOriginally posted by mervis Quote
Thinking the same thing, mono. To further that idea the K-02 or -03 should be built along the lines of a mini-Mamiya 7 with a RF viewfinder in the top corner and a 24mp sensor. Then I think the doubters would 'get' the concept.
What a long, strange it trip (will have) been if the company that killed the rangefinder starts making an MILC Rangefinder?

03-14-2012, 03:39 PM   #137
New Member




Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 13
QuoteOriginally posted by mervis Quote
My advice: take a deep breath. Don't worry about artificial tests. Take the K-01 out into the daylight and start shooting.
Problem is some of us primarily use the camera in artificial lighting. The same can be said regarding me and my attempts with the K-r and K-5. Both probably performed superbly outdoors, but my primary use will be indoors, no flash, using standard house-hold lighting.

From the little bit I've tried the K-01, it seems to focus exceptionally well under about 100mm. I could tell it gradually slowed the motor down as I zoomed my 70-300 and hunted a tremendous amount. Once the battery charges I'll try it some more and see if it's a keeper or not...
03-14-2012, 04:10 PM   #138
Junior Member




Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 29
QuoteOriginally posted by jogiba Quote
You need a $235 adapter with the V1 /J1 to use Nikon DSLR lenses.


Nikon FT1 Mount Adapter 3613 B&H Photo Video
I meant sensor based PDAF, not small sensor with a new mount
03-14-2012, 05:17 PM   #139
Senior Member
ibkc's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: southeastern US
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 203
QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
Beautiful cat! <3

I wonder how the K-01 would perform in a situation like this (my mother's Siamese watching the Super Bowl):
Wow, pretty Siamese!

I just did an incredibly super-authoritative low-light beige-cat test tonight with the DA 40mm XS. I'm not even going to try with the 18-55 zoom.

The cat was behind my computer chair, so I turned off the lights so that the only light hitting him was that coming from my monitor. To my immense surprise, the autofocus had no trouble at all finding him in the shadows, again and again. I'll process the images and post one or two.

I'm quadruply surprised because the same lens was having trouble locking focus today when I was out and about in well-lit places with plenty of contrasty things around. Ai-yai-yai ...

03-14-2012, 05:17 PM   #140
Senior Member
ibkc's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: southeastern US
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 203
QuoteOriginally posted by mervis Quote
ibkc, well done! The focus falls off beautifully. This lens is exceeding my expectations. Lovely kitty, as well.
Thank you, mervis!
03-14-2012, 05:26 PM   #141
Senior Member
mervis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 108
QuoteOriginally posted by DarrenCax Quote
Both probably performed superbly outdoors, but my primary use will be indoors, no flash, using standard house-hold lighting.
Okay, call me an old dinosaur, but this isn't the way cameras were meant to be used. It was unheard of in film days, and even in the early days of digital. Camera makers are trying to catch up with this, to me, artificial demand, but they're not quite there yet. Seems like a waste of manufacturers' resources trying to cater to people who aren't really serious about photography (if all they want to do is shoot household objects indoors under naked incandescent or fluorescent light).

I would rather they addressed the issue of blown-out highlights with more headroom at the upper end of the sensitivity curve, but internet clamor seems to be running in the opposite direction.
03-14-2012, 05:37 PM   #142
Forum Member




Join Date: Mar 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 70
QuoteOriginally posted by mervis Quote
Okay, call me an old dinosaur, but this isn't the way cameras were meant to be used. It was unheard of in film days, and even in the early days of digital. Camera makers are trying to catch up with this, to me, artificial demand, but they're not quite there yet. Seems like a waste of manufacturers' resources trying to cater to people who aren't really serious about photography (if all they want to do is shoot household objects indoors under naked incandescent or fluorescent light).

I would rather they addressed the issue of blown-out highlights with more headroom at the upper end of the sensitivity curve, but internet clamor seems to be running in the opposite direction.

Don't think those two things are mutually exclusive.

I may be a noob, but I hate using a flash (and I am not going to setup studio lighting to do candids of the kids).
03-14-2012, 05:40 PM   #143
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,157
QuoteOriginally posted by mervis Quote

I would rather they addressed the issue of blown-out highlights with more headroom at the upper end of the sensitivity curve, but internet clamor seems to be running in the opposite direction.
All they need to do is address the issue of inaccurate AF under some light conditions that fall within the published operating range of the system.

03-14-2012, 05:50 PM   #144
Senior Member
ibkc's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: southeastern US
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 203
QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
Beautiful cat! <3

I wonder how the K-01 would perform in a situation like this (my mother's Siamese watching the Super Bowl):
Here's a very quick (and dirty -- forgive the unvacuumed pet bed leaning against the wall, there ) snap of my cat, lit only by my computer monitor, and some light coming through the door at the other end of the room. I did a little noise reduction in the processing, but in the background, not on the cat.

DA 40mm XS; Av mode; f4.5; 1/3; 6400 ISO.

03-14-2012, 09:41 PM   #145
New Member




Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 13
QuoteOriginally posted by mervis Quote
Okay, call me an old dinosaur, but this isn't the way cameras were meant to be used. It was unheard of in film days, and even in the early days of digital. Camera makers are trying to catch up with this, to me, artificial demand, but they're not quite there yet. Seems like a waste of manufacturers' resources trying to cater to people who aren't really serious about photography (if all they want to do is shoot household objects indoors under naked incandescent or fluorescent light).

I would rather they addressed the issue of blown-out highlights with more headroom at the upper end of the sensitivity curve, but internet clamor seems to be running in the opposite direction.
Well for me it's simply where I take most of my photos (personal/family/etc). So I need a camera that does well in low/artificial light. As we know, Pentax has some of the lowest noise at higher ISOs, VERY good tungsten white balance correction, and decent stabilization which is good on any lens. IMO, these cameras are some of the best suited for indoors. On top of which, since I began taking photos of abandoned places (well, I've not in a while, but beside the point) I learned how much better capturing the room's lighting rather than using a flash makes a much better picture. So, at least on paper, Pentax fits the bill for me.
03-14-2012, 09:53 PM   #146
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,882
QuoteOriginally posted by mervis Quote
Okay, call me an old dinosaur, but this isn't the way cameras were meant to be used. It was unheard of in film days, and even in the early days of digital. Camera makers are trying to catch up with this, to me, artificial demand, but they're not quite there yet. Seems like a waste of manufacturers' resources trying to cater to people who aren't really serious about photography (if all they want to do is shoot household objects indoors under naked incandescent or fluorescent light).

I would rather they addressed the issue of blown-out highlights with more headroom at the upper end of the sensitivity curve, but internet clamor seems to be running in the opposite direction.
That's purely subjective. Cameras were and are made to capture images. The more versatile a camera is at capturing an image under a variety of conditions, the more useful it becomes.
03-14-2012, 09:55 PM   #147
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,882
QuoteOriginally posted by ibkc Quote
Here's a very quick (and dirty -- forgive the unvacuumed pet bed leaning against the wall, there ) snap of my cat, lit only by my computer monitor, and some light coming through the door at the other end of the room. I did a little noise reduction in the processing, but in the background, not on the cat.

DA 40mm XS; Av mode; f4.5; 1/3; 6400 ISO.
Heh, no escaping the hairs on the pet beds!

That seems like good AF to me, thank you for the example.
03-14-2012, 09:56 PM   #148
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,882
QuoteOriginally posted by ibkc Quote
I'm quadruply surprised because the same lens was having trouble locking focus today when I was out and about in well-lit places with plenty of contrasty things around. Ai-yai-yai ...
Hmm, maybe Pentax needs to issue a firmware update to tweak the CDAF...
03-29-2012, 04:21 PM   #149
Veteran Member
krebsy75's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chester County, Pa.
Posts: 804
Original Poster
I just wanted to take a moment and post an update. We returned the K-01 we purchased and got a second K-5. It turns out that the K-5 does a much better job meeting my wife's photographic needs.

To make a 10 page long story short, we were disappointed to find that the K-01 was reluctant to lock focus with some of our lenses. Beyond this issue we were tickled-pink over the camera and still marvel at the shots obtained with it.

Good luck to those who elect to buy a K-01. It definitely represents a serious photographic tool. One look at the sample shots people are getting is all it takes.
03-29-2012, 09:53 PM   #150
Banned




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Charleston & Pittsburgh
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,683
QuoteOriginally posted by mervis Quote
Originally posted by DarrenCax Both probably performed superbly outdoors, but my primary use will be indoors, no flash, using standard house-hold lighting. Okay, call me an old dinosaur, but this isn't the way cameras were meant to be used. It was unheard of in film days, and even in the early days of digital. Camera makers are trying to catch up with this, to me, artificial demand, but they're not quite there yet. Seems like a waste of manufacturers' resources trying to cater to people who aren't really serious about photography (if all they want to do is shoot household objects indoors under naked incandescent or fluorescent light).

I agree.

Although not specifically addressed in this thread heading... I would not have purchased the K-01 if it did not have the fully dedicated hotshoe. And where there are some very rare instances where I will not in fact tamper with lighting options; I really prefer to experiment with lighting just as much as I do with lens;, perspective, etc... It is unfortunate that most people do not experiment more with the creative lighting options
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
auto-focus, da, k-01, k01, k5, mirrorless, pentax k-01, test
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
my most disappointing thing about Pentax slip Pentax DSLR Discussion 16 01-06-2012 10:22 PM
K10D iso 100 noise - bit disappointing Spock Pentax DSLR Discussion 9 01-07-2011 10:22 AM
Pentax disappointing Sensor cleaning. coljung Pentax DSLR Discussion 74 12-02-2010 01:04 PM
Nature A disappointing night... Adam Post Your Photos! 3 11-22-2010 08:00 PM
Nature Discovery Matjazz Post Your Photos! 8 08-08-2010 08:41 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:52 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top