Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

krebsy75 · 03-13-2012, 08:59 AM

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.

Originally posted by mecrox

I was thinking of the flap over the door but also how durable the build is. That doesn't mean it's bad in any way but probably not ideal for me as I prefer something a bit rugged. The resilience of the build quality and the possibility of loose or weak latches won't become generally apparent until after a few months' of use by a lot of folks so I should have toned my comment down. Apologies. Anyway, I know that if I went into the local dealership I would no doubt admire the k-01 and quite like it but I would still come away with a new K-5 because at its current price here the K-5 with its superb build quality is stunning value.

**luftfluss** · 03-13-2012, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by ogl

By the way, any mirrorless camera has problems with long lenses.

Hmm, I never knew that, but I guess I should have!

That said, other MILCs have 200mm lenses, yet the K-01 seems to be struggling even with the kit at 55mm.

**luftfluss** · 03-13-2012, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by Clavius

So in your eyes, the PDAF of a K100D should perform just as well as that of the K5? Of course not, they don't have to be the same. And so the CDAF of a K-01 doesn't have to be the same as the CDAF of the higher end model.

Are you purposely being obtuse and argumentative, or do you genuinely not understand a) the competitive market and b) how technology progresses?

**luftfluss** · 03-13-2012, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Parallax

Yes, they would, and have previously. Actually that was a huge issue with the Kx or Kr (I don't remember which) and somewhat with the K5.. That and the K5 stain issue that their "reams of testers " didn't catch, were really hot topics here for a while.

I don't mean to pick on Pentax here as most companies now use the consumers as QC, rather than doing it in-house.

Yeah, it was the K-r. Something related to Pentax's new AF module.

Parallax · 03-13-2012, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by luftfluss

That said, other MILCs have 200mm lenses, yet the K-01 seems to be struggling even with the kit at 55mm.

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

PentaxMom Felua · 03-13-2012, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by luftfluss

Hmm, I never knew that, but I guess I should have!

That said, other MILCs have 200mm lenses, yet the K-01 seems to be struggling even with the kit at 55mm.

I wonder. For a short while I had panasonic 45-200 and handheld it was no problem at 200 (crop 2x). That is, subject static and not too not decent light. But as I like olympus better and though shorter also lighter, I acquiered 45-150. Very easy, nice results at 150mm. But: static subjects or slight movement.
But of course m43 is no good.

.
I wonder about k-01. No need to hurry. Keep up the good trying all and everything out.
Mind you, longer tele always needs support, or not?

krebsy75 · 03-13-2012, 09:43 AM

This is true but it struggles with the 17-70 as well which is constant f/4. On the prime side, it struggles with the 35 macro which is f/2.8.

The focusing issues don't seem to be limited to low ambient light. I had issues with the 17-70 in full daylight. This discovery caused me to dig deeper.

Originally posted by Parallax

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

jmg257 · 03-13-2012, 09:55 AM

I would return it...why struggle with something you are not satisfied with, your use shows it to be dissapointing, with flaws that keep it from meeting your expectations? Working around them sure could be a solution, but why should you have to?...are the advantages worth it?

Maybe the issue(s) will get straightened out, and it'll be worth a revisit.

Life is too short to settle.

krebsy75 · 03-13-2012, 09:59 AM

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.

Originally posted by jmg257

I would return it...why struggle with something you are not satisfied with, your use shows it to be dissapointing, with flaws that keep it from meeting your expectations? Working around them sure could be a solution, but why should you have to?...are the advantages worth it?

Maybe the issue(s) will get straightened out, and it'll be worth a revisit.

Life is too short to settle.

JinDesu · 03-13-2012, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by krebsy97

This is true but it struggles with the 17-70 as well which is constant f/4. On the prime side, it struggles with the 35 macro which is f/2.8.

The focusing issues don't seem to be limited to low ambient light. I had issues with the 17-70 in full daylight. This discovery caused me to dig deeper.

It may have trouble with the slower lenses, but I don't think all fast lenses will work the same with the CDAF. I understand that the 35 F2.8 macro has a long focus throw because it is a macro lens. In addition, some of the older Pentax lens designs don't perform very well in CDAF, I believe. So some lenses perform great (35 F2.4), some ok (the limited primes), and some not so good (35 F2.8 macro).

It would be great to figure out as a collective group which lenses perform wonderfully on the K-01.

mervis · 03-13-2012, 10:11 AM

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.)

krugorg · 03-13-2012, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by krebsy97

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.

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).

krebsy75 · 03-13-2012, 10:26 AM

Keep in mind that the point of this thread was to communicate my discovery that the K5 in LV was able to lock focus more consistently than the K-01. It's slower, but was more successful locking. This leads me to believe that the technology is there for the K-01 to perform better. It's just frustrating when the cam gives up and displays a red box.

JinDesu · 03-13-2012, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by krebsy97

Keep in mind that the point of this thread was to communicate my discovery that the K5 in LV was able to lock focus more consistently than the K-01. It's slower, but was more successful locking. This leads me to believe that the technology is there for the K-01 to perform better. It's just frustrating when the cam gives up and displays a red box.

Heh, I can imagine how you feel, my k-x is terrible.

I hope that a lot of the focus issues being brought up will be solved by firmware soon. As much as we think it's silly to complain about a CDAF system being used indoors in low-light on subjects with not too much contrast, your typical entry level user buying this camera will have no idea why the camera is not locking focus.

I'm just glad that the camera has quite a good focus peaking system, and focus peaking works in AF mode to pair with quick-shift lenses.

pingflood · 03-13-2012, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by Rupert

Gee.....this is all shocking to me......a low priced camera that doesn't focus like a D800? Looks like Pentax screwed us again?

You have your problems, I have mine......my little X10 has a problem with Orbs about once in every 2-3K shots....and over in the Fuji Forum people are jumping off of bridges.

I'll just keep on shooting, and if you're smart, you will too! Heck, I'm not even all that smart, and I figured that out!

Regards!

Well, Fuji appears to be replacing the X10 sensor for the people who have problems, must be overreacting I suppose, since it's clearly a non-issue.

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

03-13-2012, 08:59 AM	#61
krebsy75 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Chester County, Pa. Posts: 804 Original Poster	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. Originally posted by mecrox I was thinking of the flap over the door but also how durable the build is. That doesn't mean it's bad in any way but probably not ideal for me as I prefer something a bit rugged. The resilience of the build quality and the possibility of loose or weak latches won't become generally apparent until after a few months' of use by a lot of folks so I should have toned my comment down. Apologies. Anyway, I know that if I went into the local dealership I would no doubt admire the k-01 and quite like it but I would still come away with a new K-5 because at its current price here the K-5 with its superb build quality is stunning value.

03-13-2012, 09:24 AM	#62
luftfluss Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,629	Originally posted by ogl By the way, any mirrorless camera has problems with long lenses. Hmm, I never knew that, but I guess I should have! That said, other MILCs have 200mm lenses, yet the K-01 seems to be struggling even with the kit at 55mm.

03-13-2012, 09:28 AM	#63
luftfluss Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,629	Originally posted by Clavius So in your eyes, the PDAF of a K100D should perform just as well as that of the K5? Of course not, they don't have to be the same. And so the CDAF of a K-01 doesn't have to be the same as the CDAF of the higher end model. Are you purposely being obtuse and argumentative, or do you genuinely not understand a) the competitive market and b) how technology progresses?

03-13-2012, 09:30 AM	#64
luftfluss Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,629	Originally posted by Parallax Yes, they would, and have previously. Actually that was a huge issue with the Kx or Kr (I don't remember which) and somewhat with the K5.. That and the K5 stain issue that their "reams of testers " didn't catch, were really hot topics here for a while. I don't mean to pick on Pentax here as most companies now use the consumers as QC, rather than doing it in-house. Yeah, it was the K-r. Something related to Pentax's new AF module.

03-13-2012, 09:36 AM	#65
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,333	Originally posted by luftfluss That said, other MILCs have 200mm lenses, yet the K-01 seems to be struggling even with the kit at 55mm. Remember that at 55mm, the kit is only f5.6. That isn't much light for it to work with, especially indoors.

03-13-2012, 09:41 AM	#66
PentaxMom Felua Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Veluwe Posts: 339	Originally posted by luftfluss Hmm, I never knew that, but I guess I should have! That said, other MILCs have 200mm lenses, yet the K-01 seems to be struggling even with the kit at 55mm. I wonder. For a short while I had panasonic 45-200 and handheld it was no problem at 200 (crop 2x). That is, subject static and not too not decent light. But as I like olympus better and though shorter also lighter, I acquiered 45-150. Very easy, nice results at 150mm. But: static subjects or slight movement. But of course m43 is no good. . I wonder about k-01. No need to hurry. Keep up the good trying all and everything out. Mind you, longer tele always needs support, or not?

03-13-2012, 09:43 AM	#67
krebsy75 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Chester County, Pa. Posts: 804 Original Poster	This is true but it struggles with the 17-70 as well which is constant f/4. On the prime side, it struggles with the 35 macro which is f/2.8. The focusing issues don't seem to be limited to low ambient light. I had issues with the 17-70 in full daylight. This discovery caused me to dig deeper. Originally posted by Parallax Remember that at 55mm, the kit is only f5.6. That isn't much light for it to work with, especially indoors.

03-13-2012, 09:55 AM	#68
jmg257 Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 202	I would return it...why struggle with something you are not satisfied with, your use shows it to be dissapointing, with flaws that keep it from meeting your expectations? Working around them sure could be a solution, but why should you have to?...are the advantages worth it? Maybe the issue(s) will get straightened out, and it'll be worth a revisit. Life is too short to settle.

03-13-2012, 09:59 AM	#69
krebsy75 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Chester County, Pa. Posts: 804 Original Poster	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. Originally posted by jmg257 I would return it...why struggle with something you are not satisfied with, your use shows it to be dissapointing, with flaws that keep it from meeting your expectations? Working around them sure could be a solution, but why should you have to?...are the advantages worth it? Maybe the issue(s) will get straightened out, and it'll be worth a revisit. Life is too short to settle.

03-13-2012, 10:06 AM	#70
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Originally posted by krebsy97 This is true but it struggles with the 17-70 as well which is constant f/4. On the prime side, it struggles with the 35 macro which is f/2.8. The focusing issues don't seem to be limited to low ambient light. I had issues with the 17-70 in full daylight. This discovery caused me to dig deeper. It may have trouble with the slower lenses, but I don't think all fast lenses will work the same with the CDAF. I understand that the 35 F2.8 macro has a long focus throw because it is a macro lens. In addition, some of the older Pentax lens designs don't perform very well in CDAF, I believe. So some lenses perform great (35 F2.4), some ok (the limited primes), and some not so good (35 F2.8 macro). It would be great to figure out as a collective group which lenses perform wonderfully on the K-01.

03-13-2012, 10:11 AM	#71
mervis Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 108	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.)

03-13-2012, 10:16 AM	#72
krugorg Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Photos: Albums Posts: 70	Originally posted by krebsy97 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. 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).

03-13-2012, 10:26 AM	#73
krebsy75 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Chester County, Pa. Posts: 804 Original Poster	Keep in mind that the point of this thread was to communicate my discovery that the K5 in LV was able to lock focus more consistently than the K-01. It's slower, but was more successful locking. This leads me to believe that the technology is there for the K-01 to perform better. It's just frustrating when the cam gives up and displays a red box.

03-13-2012, 10:30 AM	#74
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Originally posted by krebsy97 Keep in mind that the point of this thread was to communicate my discovery that the K5 in LV was able to lock focus more consistently than the K-01. It's slower, but was more successful locking. This leads me to believe that the technology is there for the K-01 to perform better. It's just frustrating when the cam gives up and displays a red box. Heh, I can imagine how you feel, my k-x is terrible. I hope that a lot of the focus issues being brought up will be solved by firmware soon. As much as we think it's silly to complain about a CDAF system being used indoors in low-light on subjects with not too much contrast, your typical entry level user buying this camera will have no idea why the camera is not locking focus. I'm just glad that the camera has quite a good focus peaking system, and focus peaking works in AF mode to pair with quick-shift lenses.

03-13-2012, 10:32 AM	#75
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Originally posted by Rupert Gee.....this is all shocking to me......a low priced camera that doesn't focus like a D800? Looks like Pentax screwed us again? You have your problems, I have mine......my little X10 has a problem with Orbs about once in every 2-3K shots....and over in the Fuji Forum people are jumping off of bridges. I'll just keep on shooting, and if you're smart, you will too! Heck, I'm not even all that smart, and I figured that out! Regards! Well, Fuji appears to be replacing the X10 sensor for the people who have problems, must be overreacting I suppose, since it's clearly a non-issue.

Disappointing Discovery

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!