[monochrome]

When I look at the video review here (nice one, btw), it seems like the K-01 focus speed/lock in low light is going to be roughly similar to my Ricoh GXR. It isn't bad, but it is worlds away from the latest, fastest CDAF optimized systems.

So, maybe my expectation is a little lower... I just plan to use the K-01 is situations that are well lit (or plan on using snap focus, etc.) and that do not require a quick AF lock. I will keep using my m4/3 kit for those situations (as others will probably keep using their DSLRs).

Yep - this is the sensible approach. My garage wall is loaded with yard tools. There are 6 different shovels but only 1 spade. I've learned over time which shovel to use for which task and when to choose the spade. I own several rakes with the same learning embedded. I buy the same leather glove every four or five years because they work and they last.

If I choose the tool best suited to the task I am much happier Saturday evening than if I try to force a tool to do a job it wasn't designed for.

I don't think we yet know what job the K-01 was designed for. Until we know that we won't know whether it is the best tool available designed for that job - or just an also-ran. As a group our experiences, praises, criticisms and images will, over time, allow us to use the K-01 when it is appropriate - and choose another tool for those uses where the K-01 doesn't excel.

I'm good with that. I'm not good with dismissing the K-01 altogether after one day of handling because a user had a bad experience with a lens or two in a shooting situation that challenges almost every camera.

[pingflood]

It's possible that the rubber door will wear over time and not remain secure to the camera. Pentax elected to go with form over function here, unfortunately.

Have not seen the K-01 in person, but Canon uses rubber doors for the various connectors on their pro bodies.

[luftfluss]

Struggle...

Struggle at all times or struggle in a dark room? Personally, I think too much emphasis is being made on autofocus speed and not on image quality - which is this camera's real strength. (I couldn't care less about autofocus speed, but I think I've made that obvious.)

More people use AF than not. And if one of the goals of the K-01 is to bring the K-mount to "the masses", it needs to do reasonably well in AF speed and acquisition, at least in the same ballpark as other MILCs.

[luftfluss]

Remember that at 55mm, the kit is only f5.6. That isn't much light for it to work with, especially indoors.

I'll quote the OP: "My concerns regarding this camera's AF began while using the DA 17-70mm outside at a playground in full sunlight. AF with this lens was extremely crude and fussy north of 55mm."

[krebsy75]

Good point made here. The masses are going to be a lot less patient than enthusiasts.

More people use AF than not. And if one of the goals of the K-01 is to bring the K-mount to "the masses", it needs to do reasonably well in AF speed and acquisition, at least in the same ballpark as other MILCs.

[luftfluss]

My wife loves the cam with either of our 40s. It seemed like a great complement to our K5. We might punt for now and sit on the sidelines for a bit.

I'm beginning to wonder if the only way to do mirrorless right is with dedicated, optimized lenses. Perhaps the K-01 is a flawed concept. Way too soon to draw this kind of conclusion but it has occured to me.

I wonder... is it possible the K-01 is not delivering enough power to the drive motor? The fact that the LCD is on all the time, and existing K-mount lenses are larger and heavier compared with their m4/3 counterparts, there's quite a bit of energy being expended. Perhaps Pentax, in an attempt to maintain decent battery life, has shortchanged the AF system?

[Parallax]

I'll quote the OP: "My concerns regarding this camera's AF began while using the DA 17-70mm outside at a playground in full sunlight. AF with this lens was extremely crude and fussy north of 55mm."

Yes, I read that. How does that relate to my statement about the kit lens? At 55mm it is, as I pointed out, f5.6.

[luftfluss]

Apropos of not much, my K-x can successfully use Live View with my Sigma 170-500 lens. I've going to try the combination out tonight in my living room, which is 12x18 and will be illuminated by a single 60w bulb.

[luftfluss]

Yes, I read that. How does that relate to my statement about the kit lens? At 55mm it is, as I pointed out, f5.6.

Well, the 17-70 is brighter at f/4, and yet there is still (at least in the OP's experience) a problem. So, you are pointing out that the K-01 is perhaps struggling because of the slow (5.6) kit lens, and I'm pointing out that it's also struggling with a faster (4) lens.

[krebsy75]

I didn't want to mention this but what the hell. One of our test subjects last night was a flower vase. Our K-x, while painfully slow, was able to lock focus in LV on items in the vase in which the K-01 could not. This was using the 35 macro.

Having said that, the K-x has generally miserable LV performance. I'm not sure why Pentax engineers programmed the K-01 to give up so easily.

[luftfluss]

I didn't want to mention this but what the hell. One of our test subjects last night was a flower vase. Our K-x, while painfully slow, was able to lock focus in LV on items in the vase in which the K-01 could not. This was using the 35 macro.

Having said that, the K-x has generally miserable LV performance. I'm not sure why Pentax engineers programmed the K-01 to give up so easily.

I'll guess that because LV is such a battery drainer, if the camera spends too much time attempting acquisition battery life will be miserable.

[mecrox]

I'll quote the OP: "My concerns regarding this camera's AF began while using the DA 17-70mm outside at a playground in full sunlight. AF with this lens was extremely crude and fussy north of 55mm."

Well, clearly not good news, but to be fair this problem has been reported with the 17-70mm on other bodies such as the K-5, K-r, etc. - that is, the 17-70mm can find it hard to obtain a focus lock between around 50mm and 70mm. So this one could be down to the lens, at least in part. One would need to check on the K-01 with other lenses, e.g. a Sigma 17-70mm or the DA 55-300mm.

[krebsy75]

This was my original suspicion as well. Although the 17-70 focuses fine on our K5.

The first fussy lenses for us were the 17-70 and 35 macro. Because of the aforementioned concerns with this glass I didn't get too worked up and chalked it up to the cam's quirkiness. I became concerned when both of our 18-55s exhibited fussiness at 50-55mm.

I may be repeating myself here but reduncy is unfortunately necessary with long threads like this.

Well, clearly not good news, but to be fair this problem has been reported with the 17-70mm on other bodies such as the K-5, K-r, etc. - that is, the 17-70mm can find it hard to obtain a focus lock between around 50mm and 70mm. So this one could be down to the lens, at least in part. One would need to check on the K-01 with other lenses, e.g. a Sigma 17-70mm or the DA 55-300mm.

[ibkc]

It is nice that you have found the camera to work well for YOUR type of shooting.

Note that I was not commenting on flaws in the camera; I was commenting on what I see as limitations in "testing" that I see people doing, and commenting on how I "test" a camera. You found my comment offensive; I find your offense amusing.

[ibkc]

He's ....

Also, I am a woman.