[Docrwm]

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'm in no way slamming the K-5, but What version firmware are we on now v13? And it's an evolution from previous dSLRs not a revolution like the K-01. This is why I studiously avoid ver 1.0 of nearly anything - let alone version 01.

[Medium FormatPro]

I've run the camera (k-01) through well over five hundred photographs so far; and not just through the screen on the camera. I've viewed the images through one of the best monitors currently available on the market and also printed off a fair share of the results as well.

To further try to validate the results I've tried it with quite the variety of Pentax lens; fixed, zoom, macro, extreme telephoto, etc... Yet no issues at all. Although not tested yet... I'll eventually run it through with two Zeiss lens (although they are in fact manual focus), and even some Sigma, Tokina, and even a few of the classic Pentax lens' (maybe even a mirrored lens, maybe a bellows set as well).

BTW; slightly off topic... I'll also be starting a posting to check on the possibility of extension tubes in the near future

[Adam]

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 don't think the K-01 is a flawed concept. The only flaw it has is that an AF system that's just as good as PDAF and can be used with mirrorless cameras hasn't been invented yet, but I'm sure it will be soon enough! It's really hard to get a CDAF system to work just as well with DSLR lenses as other manufacturers' systems do with dedicated mirrorless lenses that have shorter throw.

[Docrwm]

I don't think the K-01 is a flawed concept. The only flaw it has is that an AF system that's just as good as PDAF and can be used with mirrorless cameras hasn't been invented yet, but I'm sure it will be soon enough! It's really hard to get a CDAF system to work just as well with DSLR lenses as other manufacturers' systems do with dedicated mirrorless lenses that have shorter throw.

Not sure how the OPs words got attributed to me, but just for the record - I did not say the K-01 is a flawed concept.

[Wheatfield]

What do you mean by substandard? Slower than the competition? Doesn't focus at all? I guess I have different expectations. If I can find a way find focus, then I'm good, If a camera starts hunting around because it's dealing with too many focus points, I would just go back to basics - use a single point and calculate from there.

Substandard as in very poor focus accuracy under tungsten lights, very large AF points that don't necessarily lock on to what they are centered on, very poor AF accuracy with fast lenses and overall rather hit or miss focusing.
Add to that, Pentax's AF tends to be somewhat slower and clunkier than comparably priced competition.

Contrast Detect... You have to give it some contrast to detect. Playing around in the dark and then announcing your disappointment doesn't seem very productive to me. Plus the camera offers Focus Peaking, which is a nice form of manual override.

Is it more productive to set up straw man arguments rather than dealing with the post you are quoting?

My shooting philosophy doesn't depend on bells and whistles. I'm skeptical of all auto-helpers. I figure it's up to me in the end, and not the camera, to get the right exposure, the correct focus, the best framing and timing, etc.

Fair enough, but if the manufacturer puts the feature onto the camera, it should at least work reasonably reliably.

This camera offers killer IQ at a very reasonable price. The only other camera that offers a comparable price vs. IQ ratio is the NEX-5N. But Sony's lens offerings are pretty limited at the moment. So that's MY starting point: pro-level IQ with an easy to acquire line-up of high-end primes. A few functionality shortcomings are small issues after that. Doesn't have Nikon-level focus speed? I can work around that. I'm a one-picture-at-a-time guy anyway. Can't see the screen in the bright sun? Frankly, I don't believe that one. Never had a noticeable issue with my LX-5's screen in all kinds of conditions, don't expect it with the K-01.

At best you seem to be apologizing for deficiencies in the product, at worst you are outright denying they exist.

Disclaimer: I live in Canada, The camera isn't available here yet. So I haven't held it or used it. My opinions are based on what I've read and a lifetime of photo experience, but I shouldn't pretend to be some kind of authority on this particular model. I'm just surprised at people who choose to overlook the obvious benefits of the K-01 + K lenses to nitpick on secondary details. Details that maybe shouldn't be demanded of a $749 camera.

For $749, I can buy a camera with a viewfinder. Is that a mere detail too? Or more nitpicking?
Note, I also live in Canada, and have no direct experience with the K-01, but as I was responding to your rather fanciful post about the legions of imaginary Pentax QC folk who wouldn't let a single fault out the door, even in the face of much historical evidence to the contrary, it isn't really all that important.

[monochrome]

Substandard as in very poor focus accuracy under tungsten lights, very large AF points that don't necessarily lock on to what they are centered on, very poor AF accuracy with fast lenses and overall rather hit or miss focusing.
Add to that, Pentax's AF tends to be somewhat slower and clunkier than comparably priced competition.

Please quantify "very poor."

Fair enough, but if the manufacturer puts the feature onto the camera, it should at least work reasonably reliably.

Please quantify "reasonably reliably."

For $749, I can buy a camera with a viewfinder.

Please. Do.

Is that a mere detail too? Or more nitpicking?
Note, I also live in Canada, and have no direct experience with the K-01,

Just Sayin'

but as I was responding to your rather fanciful post about the legions of imaginary Pentax QC folk who wouldn't let a single fault out the door, even in the face of much historical evidence to the contrary, it isn't really all that important.

Argumentative colloquialisms are not helpful.

[Rupert]

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.

It hasn't been an issue at all for me, and from what I read the vast majority don't view this as a problem that is prohibitive. However, once the hounds are on the trail and running, howling for blood, there is no turning back. So far they have not been set free on the K-01 but you can see them around here sniffing at the edges.
Regards!

[mervis]

Wheatfield, you're itching for battle? Fair enough.

1. The 'strawman' you referred to is our OP, so, in fact, NOT a strawman.

2. You consider a CDAF autofocus system that's on par with other CDAF autofocus systems a 'fault'. I don't. (The perceived slowness may be due to the inherent design of this particular camera - see Adam's post above yours. That would be a result of physics, not manufacturer error.)

3. You say the camera doesn't have a viewfinder. I say it does.

4. You call it 'apologizing for deficiencies in the product'. I call it emphasizing a product's strengths.

5. You claim I'm denying such 'deficiencies' exist. I'll explain (again) that I addressed the two main points of contention so far (AF speed & LCD visibility) with my own, admittedly long-winded, take on the problems. No 'denying' there.

6. I never said Pentax wouldn't let 'a single fault' out the door. I stated (perhaps with some hyperbole) that they would certainly test to make sure the autofocus worked according to the system it chose within the parameters of the body design prior to release. Do you have evidence that they didn't do this?

I'll finish by mentioning a phenomenon I've noticed over the years of reading online camera forums. With any new release there are invariably frantic early adopters who find 'flaws' in their new purchase who then, experiencing buyer's remorse, post their concerns online. Often these worriments take on a life of their own as non-purchasers join the discussion and offer up pixel-loads of analysis. Then the naysayers and trolls come crashing in and the new product gets tarred as a 'failure' or 'flawed concept', or, more colorfully, as an 'ugly duckling' or 'revolting contraption'. Then it all dies down and the product eventually finds its contingent of buyers who are generally happy with their new camera and go about taking pictures unbothered by the supposed faults. (Okay, that 'contingent of buyers' may be made of straw, but I think you know what I mean.)

I'm just trying to speed up the dying-down process. What's your motive for posting to a thread about a product you don't like and don't plan to buy?

[luftfluss]

I never said Pentax wouldn't let 'a single fault' out the door. I stated (perhaps with some hyperbole) that they would certainly test to make sure the autofocus worked according to the system it chose within the parameters of the body design prior to release. Do you have evidence that they didn't do this?

I don't know how long you've been a Pentax DSLR user, but there is certainly a well-known issue with front-focus in low light with the K-5 and K-r. Pentax even released a firmware fix for it, rev. 1.03, but only for the K-5.

Firmware update 1.03 for Pentax K5 | Camera Rumors

Latest K-5 Firmware Update : Software Downloads : PENTAX

This is excluding the fact that for several generations, Pentax AF has been slower than like-priced Canikons.

[Adam]

The main issue with the K-01 AF accuracy is that it can sometimes fail to lock focus even when there IS plenty of contrast.

For example, at site one in the photo below:


Pentax K-01 Review - Autofocus Performance - PentaxForums.com

[mervis]

Not to be argumentative, luftfluss, but it's just not a concern to me. I don't shoot indoors generally, but if I did and I needed precision results, I would use a tripod and manual focus. Fortunately, the K-01 offers Peaking for those situations.

I still can't quite get what people mean by 'issues'. Is it just the lack of speed or does the camera not focus at all? My personal expectations are way low in dim settings. I understand others have their own expectations and they may see themselves stuck in the Pentax system because of investment in glass. But they don't have to buy the K-01. The improved K-5 is there for not too much more money and its successor is coming.

So I will stipulate: Yes, it may be slow(er), but most photography is done in the daylight and the K-01 is a bit of a bargain. The unhappy buyer can always return his purchase, but I think that would be shortsighted.

PS: Adam, doesn't focus-peaking as an alternative kind of absolve the problem? Does it also not work in low light?

[luftfluss]

I don't think you're being argumentative, Mervis. You are representing the one side of the product evaluation - is it good for "me"? The other side is, "is it good compared with its competition?"

I think that many people, including myself, consider the K-01 to be a step up the ladder from a P&S camera. I think the K-01 is a great combination of P&S sensibilities with DSLR-style versatility and performance. The problem, as I see it, is that it is entirely possible that a person upgrading from a P&S will find that the K-01 actually has worse AF performance than a quality P&S in low-light situations. It also appears that the K-01 has worse AF performance than other MILCs. Whether or not that is important to you (or me) is immaterial to the point that a poor reputation for the K-01 will lead to it's demise and possibly damage the Pentax brand, which I think none of us want. An experienced SLR user llike you may be thinking, "hey, the K-01 is a great bargain, I get outstanding IQ and I'm not too concerned with the other performance aspects", but the P&S user may think, "hey, I can't even take a pic of my cat laying on the sofa while I watch the Celtics game! WTF?!"

[monochrome]

I am just amazed that the first thing someone tries out is shooting a vase in a dim, tungsten-lit living room at night with a kit lens and it is a reason to return a camera.

I just tried to lock focus on a white sofa cushion in a walnut-panelled 13x20 foot room with an Oriental rug, lit by a single 60 watt bulb in a corner under an opaque lampshade and my DA40Ltd hunted and wouldn't lock. The TV was on though. I couldn't get focus lock for shutter release even manually with focus peaking. I could get focus lock on the lamp but not on the dark cherry writing desk bail handle and II froze the camera in Tv mode.

That's all true.

Uh oh.

[luftfluss]

OK, I'll confess...

I have a beige cat. I am one of those (gulp) people who loves to take pics of his kitties. I particularly like to take kitty pics in low-light because the cats' pupils get large, and I think its a cute look. My mother's cat is also beige, although lighter.

Yep, I'm a cat-nerd.

Based on this real-world criteria, and from what I've read here about the K-01, I think that the K-01 is not the camera for me. That doesn't make it a bad camera, though.

[rawr]

So far they have not been set free on the K-01 but you can see them around here sniffing at the edges.

Indeed. Pentax folk online are specialists at brand destruction.

Every single product Pentax has ever produced gets relentlessly savaged here over the minutest inadequacy or flaw, whether it be the K-7 ('high ISO is crap!'), K-x ('no AF points in the VF!'), K-r ('FF under tungsten!'), K-5 ('overexposure in bounce flash!'), the Q ('everything is wrong!), and it is all the end of the world, time to change brands etc etc. And now it's the K-01's turn.

Meanwhile regular folks just go about using their cameras with minimal drama or hassle.