When Do You Use Your K-01 vs. Your DSLR?

Sandy Hancock · 11-14-2012, 07:20 PM

The K-01 fits in a compact case with up to four limiteds. For casual street and social event shooting, where super-fast AF is not essential it is fabulous. The option to take good quality video is a bonus.

For live music and sports the K-5's get the gig, but the K-01 still comes along as a backup.

I love my Q when I really want minimal gear, but the K-01 is less fiddly for my big hands and fat fingers.

abacus07 · 11-14-2012, 09:07 PM

I'm looking at (buying soon) the K01 as part of my gear for a 2 month bike tour next summer. I also do a lot of hiking and it would be nice to have a smaller body for that. DA15, 40XS and the DFA100WR is all that I need.

The justification is that I haven't sold my K200D yet and the K01 is a much better 2nd body from a need/usage standpoint. I will also sell my DA40 and in the end make a little money.

fotogaffer · 11-14-2012, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by abacus07

I'm looking at (buying soon) the K01 as part of my gear for a 2 month bike tour next summer. I also do a lot of hiking and it would be nice to have a smaller body for that. DA15, 40XS and the DFA100WR is all that I need.

The justification is that I haven't sold my K200D yet and the K01 is a much better 2nd body from a need/usage standpoint. I will also sell my DA40 and in the end make a little money.

Hi abacus07. I have all the DA LTDs 15, 21,35 macro,40,70 as well as the DFA 100WR and have used them all on my K-01. I also like to cycle in addition to hike. Just my opinion, but I would not get rid of my DA 40 for the 40 XS. I have the 40 XS as it came as a kit, but I basically use it like a "functional body cap." I think the 40 ltd is sharper. Just the ability to swap out filters of the same size across all lenses is worth keeping the 40 in addition to your 15 and DFA 100. I don't you think you could want a better compact travel package than the trio of the 21 (or 15-much bigger though)),40 and 70 ltds and for a cycling trip and I expect that would cover most of your needs.

53bicycles · 11-14-2012, 10:39 PM

I figure I will sell my K10d when the k-01 arrives. I bought it for the jump in sensor tech, focus peaking, video better than my pointless-shoot, and yes, the look. I guess even at 40 I have enough hipster/rebel in me to feel pretty humdrum with a big black dslr.

abacus07 · 11-15-2012, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by fotogaffer

Hi abacus07. I have all the DA LTDs 15, 21,35 macro,40,70 as well as the DFA 100WR and have used them all on my K-01. I also like to cycle in addition to hike. Just my opinion, but I would not get rid of my DA 40 for the 40 XS. I have the 40 XS as it came as a kit, but I basically use it like a "functional body cap." I think the 40 ltd is sharper. Just the ability to swap out filters of the same size across all lenses is worth keeping the 40 in addition to your 15 and DFA 100. I don't you think you could want a better compact travel package than the trio of the 21 (or 15-much bigger though)),40 and 70 ltds and for a cycling trip and I expect that would cover most of your needs.

Valid points but I actually prefer my A50f1.7 and K35f3.5 to my DA40 and it doesn't get used as much as it should so it makes sense to downgrade to the XS (saving $200ish dollars). I'll just carry a step up ring to use the same filters. Long term I would really like to get the FA43 anyway. I might change my mind but I could use the money.

I take a lot of pictures of waterfalls so the DA15 is a necessity since I frequently can't backup further. The DFA100 would only be along for the macro capability. This trio isn't as compact as the 21/40/70 but it's pretty much perfect for me.

fotogaffer · 11-15-2012, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by abacus07

Valid points but I actually prefer my A50f1.7 and K35f3.5 to my DA40 and it doesn't get used as much as it should so it makes sense to downgrade to the XS (saving $200ish dollars). I'll just carry a step up ring to use the same filters. Long term I would really like to get the FA43 anyway. I might change my mind but I could use the money.

I take a lot of pictures of waterfalls so the DA15 is a necessity since I frequently can't backup further. The DFA100 would only be along for the macro capability. This trio isn't as compact as the 21/40/70 but it's pretty much perfect for me.

Nothing wrong with your logic. I can fully understand the redundancy of the DA 40 with the A50 1.7 in your kit, and possibly a future FA 43. They're all great lenses you're pondering. Enjoyed your nifty-fifty blog!

abacus07 · 11-15-2012, 09:47 AM

You're welcome (and everyone else) to add your name to the list. We're kind of short on participants right now and we're always looking for some enthusiastic photographers.

**Jacquot** · 11-15-2012, 06:50 PM

Hmmm, well I found out quickly that the K-01 bettered the Nikon 5100 for IQ. It has its challenges, but is a very nice camera. I have not used a K-5, however, so the 5100 comparison could be questioned, it's just what I have to use with Nikon lenses as a DSLR. Every camera in this league is different from a use standpoint.

RonHendriks1966 · 11-16-2012, 05:34 PM

Well when I'm off for sportscovarage where I want to have all my equipement on hold then I use the K-01 to make snapshots. I know they can all be made with K-5, but it is just fun to walk around and take images that are not important by them selve, but just to complete a story. Als much more easier to adjust the sharpness on the exact place where I want it.

After a soccergame the winning team was clearly very happy:

chiane · 11-16-2012, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by Na Horuk

I have the K-r and K-01. I tend to use the K-01 for better quality stills, to use focus peaking. I think the question is a bit bad because.. well, depends on which DSLR you want to compare it to. The K10D, K-5, K-30..
You shouldn't look at the K-01 as a replacement for something. You probably don't look at other DSLRs that way, right? You look at your wishes, at your budget, at what is available, and then you make your decision.
Also, i think the K-01 is significantly smaller than the K-r. Its not much lighter and if you compare numbers, its not much smaller, but its shape makes it much more compact. It doesn't get stuck at the edges, it takes less space in the bag, it allows more other stuff around it...
Its a competent and fun camera at a great price with a very special design.

Edit: I can tell you when I don't use my K-01, though. And that is mostly when I need AF on moving subjects.

Can you tell me more about the k-r vs. k-01? I have a k-r and am considering the k-01. I am going to be shooting a moving toddler. She's not an NBA player, but movement non the less. My K-r already is not great at focusing, especially at low light. I can't imagine anything short of a point and shoot could be worse.

**THoog** · 11-17-2012, 06:06 AM

Originally posted by chiane

Can you tell me more about the k-r vs. k-01? I have a k-r and am considering the k-01. I am going to be shooting a moving toddler. She's not an NBA player, but movement non the less. My K-r already is not great at focusing, especially at low light. I can't imagine anything short of a point and shoot could be worse.

Focusing on the K-01 is just like using LiveView on the K-r, only a little quicker and probably more accurate in lower light. If trying to catch a moving toddler with the viewfinder on the K-r is frustrating, the K-01 will not be an improvement. Point & shoot cameras actually have an advantage here - the tiny sensor gives them huge depth of field, so a moving target is more likely in the focus zone. I found when I switched my K-r from AF.A (autofocus - automatic) to AF.S (single-shot), focusing improved a lot. It seemed like it wanted to go into AF.C mode (continuous) all the time, even for non-moving targets.

Otherwise, the image quality is a little better (but not the huge leap of, say, a K100D - the K-r is no slouch!), and the menus/features will feel the same. The K-01 is a little smaller overall and feels very different in the hand with the blocky body.

D0n · 11-17-2012, 06:18 AM

Originally posted by chiane

Can you tell me more about the k-r vs. k-01? I have a k-r and am considering the k-01. I am going to be shooting a moving toddler. She's not an NBA player, but movement non the less. My K-r already is not great at focusing, especially at low light. I can't imagine anything short of a point and shoot could be worse.

buy a flash unit with af spot beam assist lamp.... and use it with your kr....
PENTAX - AF360FGZ

Medium FormatPro · 11-17-2012, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

For live music and sports the K-5's get the gig

But the K-01 can still do sports - just depends upon what sport and how creative the photographer is. Cases in point... I've recently done at end of court basketball games with items such as the Pentax DFA lens' (preferably the macro ones - even though one typically does not use the macro settings in sports). But there is reasoning behind the macro DFA use... One can lock the lens focus settings in auto or manual. Simply use either a better ISO for sports or a very high power flash (the flash is my pref) and then lock in also using the full aperature scale (to both sides) therefore allowing for depth of field (and in focus).

D0n · 11-17-2012, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by Medium FormatPro

But the K-01 can still do sports - just depends upon what sport and how creative the photographer is. Cases in point... I've recently done at end of court basketball games with items such as the Pentax DFA lens' (preferably the macro ones - even though one typically does not use the macro settings in sports). But there is reasoning behind the macro DFA use... One can lock the lens focus settings in auto or manual. Simply use either a better ISO for sports or a very high power flash (the flash is my pref) and then lock in also using the full aperature scale (to both sides) therefore allowing for depth of field (and in focus).

apparently some people are too young to know... we used to shoot sports BEFORE digital, af, motor winders and f2.8 supertelephotos....

we loaded a k1000 with tri-ex pushed to 1600 iso and used 400mm f5.6 or 600 mm f8 mirrors and pre focused, learned the sport well enough to anticipate the action, and timed the shutter release to hit the peak of the action. Sure we didn't shoot 500 frames at ten frames per second and then sift through the results for a usable shot... but we still turned over usable shots to our editors... I took some of the best sports shots our school yearbook ever published with that set up. I'm sure the K-01 (with some kind of hood/shade over the lcd) can out perform that rig in every way possible....

**THoog** · 11-17-2012, 08:06 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by D0n

apparently some people are too young to know... we used to shoot sports BEFORE digital, af, motor winders and f2.8 supertelephotos....

we loaded a k1000 with tri-ex pushed to 1600 iso and used 400mm f5.6 or 600 mm f8 mirrors and pre focused, learned the sport well enough to anticipate the action, and timed the shutter release to hit the peak of the action. Sure we didn't shoot 500 frames at ten frames per second and then sift through the results for a usable shot... but we still turned over usable shots to our editors... I took some of the best sports shots our school yearbook ever published with that set up. I'm sure the K-01 (with some kind of hood/shade over the lcd) can out perform that rig in every way possible....

One of the charms of the K-01 for me is that its limitations push me to go back to 'old school' techniques I learned on the ME Super back in the 80s - technology is wonderful, but not if you become so dependent on it that you lose your problem-solving skills.

Every time I read that something is 'impossible' with such-and-such camera/lens/flash, I think how there was probably a workaround for it before I was born, and right now, somewhere, someone who can't afford the latest and greatest is getting a great shot with that equipment.

11-14-2012, 09:42 PM	#18
fotogaffer Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Niagara Region, Ontario, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 716	Originally posted by abacus07 I'm looking at (buying soon) the K01 as part of my gear for a 2 month bike tour next summer. I also do a lot of hiking and it would be nice to have a smaller body for that. DA15, 40XS and the DFA100WR is all that I need. The justification is that I haven't sold my K200D yet and the K01 is a much better 2nd body from a need/usage standpoint. I will also sell my DA40 and in the end make a little money. Hi abacus07. I have all the DA LTDs 15, 21,35 macro,40,70 as well as the DFA 100WR and have used them all on my K-01. I also like to cycle in addition to hike. Just my opinion, but I would not get rid of my DA 40 for the 40 XS. I have the 40 XS as it came as a kit, but I basically use it like a "functional body cap." I think the 40 ltd is sharper. Just the ability to swap out filters of the same size across all lenses is worth keeping the 40 in addition to your 15 and DFA 100. I don't you think you could want a better compact travel package than the trio of the 21 (or 15-much bigger though)),40 and 70 ltds and for a cycling trip and I expect that would cover most of your needs. Last edited by fotogaffer; 11-15-2012 at 07:59 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Do any of you use a handheld meter in conjunction with your dslr?	slackercruster	Photographic Technique	9	05-07-2012 09:04 PM
Do you Do you use AA battery tray in your battery grip?	LFLee	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	16	02-04-2012 11:23 PM
How do you use your dial	littledrawe	Pentax DSLR Discussion	36	09-10-2011 02:08 PM
When do you upgrade your DSLR?	ytterbium	Photographic Technique	27	10-27-2010 11:16 PM
Do You Use your 10-17mm MORE Than your 12-24mm???	Ron_Man	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	07-20-2010 06:19 PM

11-14-2012, 07:20 PM	#16
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	The K-01 fits in a compact case with up to four limiteds. For casual street and social event shooting, where super-fast AF is not essential it is fabulous. The option to take good quality video is a bonus. For live music and sports the K-5's get the gig, but the K-01 still comes along as a backup. I love my Q when I really want minimal gear, but the K-01 is less fiddly for my big hands and fat fingers.

11-14-2012, 09:07 PM	#17
abacus07 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Taiwan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,075	I'm looking at (buying soon) the K01 as part of my gear for a 2 month bike tour next summer. I also do a lot of hiking and it would be nice to have a smaller body for that. DA15, 40XS and the DFA100WR is all that I need. The justification is that I haven't sold my K200D yet and the K01 is a much better 2nd body from a need/usage standpoint. I will also sell my DA40 and in the end make a little money.

11-14-2012, 10:39 PM	#19
53bicycles New Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Steamboat Springs, CO Posts: 22	I figure I will sell my K10d when the k-01 arrives. I bought it for the jump in sensor tech, focus peaking, video better than my pointless-shoot, and yes, the look. I guess even at 40 I have enough hipster/rebel in me to feel pretty humdrum with a big black dslr.

11-15-2012, 09:03 AM	#20
abacus07 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Taiwan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,075	Originally posted by fotogaffer Hi abacus07. I have all the DA LTDs 15, 21,35 macro,40,70 as well as the DFA 100WR and have used them all on my K-01. I also like to cycle in addition to hike. Just my opinion, but I would not get rid of my DA 40 for the 40 XS. I have the 40 XS as it came as a kit, but I basically use it like a "functional body cap." I think the 40 ltd is sharper. Just the ability to swap out filters of the same size across all lenses is worth keeping the 40 in addition to your 15 and DFA 100. I don't you think you could want a better compact travel package than the trio of the 21 (or 15-much bigger though)),40 and 70 ltds and for a cycling trip and I expect that would cover most of your needs. Valid points but I actually prefer my A50f1.7 and K35f3.5 to my DA40 and it doesn't get used as much as it should so it makes sense to downgrade to the XS (saving $200ish dollars). I'll just carry a step up ring to use the same filters. Long term I would really like to get the FA43 anyway. I might change my mind but I could use the money. I take a lot of pictures of waterfalls so the DA15 is a necessity since I frequently can't backup further. The DFA100 would only be along for the macro capability. This trio isn't as compact as the 21/40/70 but it's pretty much perfect for me.

11-15-2012, 09:25 AM	#21
fotogaffer Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Niagara Region, Ontario, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 716	Originally posted by abacus07 Valid points but I actually prefer my A50f1.7 and K35f3.5 to my DA40 and it doesn't get used as much as it should so it makes sense to downgrade to the XS (saving $200ish dollars). I'll just carry a step up ring to use the same filters. Long term I would really like to get the FA43 anyway. I might change my mind but I could use the money. I take a lot of pictures of waterfalls so the DA15 is a necessity since I frequently can't backup further. The DFA100 would only be along for the macro capability. This trio isn't as compact as the 21/40/70 but it's pretty much perfect for me. Nothing wrong with your logic. I can fully understand the redundancy of the DA 40 with the A50 1.7 in your kit, and possibly a future FA 43. They're all great lenses you're pondering. Enjoyed your nifty-fifty blog!

11-15-2012, 09:47 AM	#22
abacus07 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Taiwan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,075	You're welcome (and everyone else) to add your name to the list. We're kind of short on participants right now and we're always looking for some enthusiastic photographers.

11-15-2012, 06:50 PM	#23
Jacquot Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sun City Center, FL Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,544	Hmmm, well I found out quickly that the K-01 bettered the Nikon 5100 for IQ. It has its challenges, but is a very nice camera. I have not used a K-5, however, so the 5100 comparison could be questioned, it's just what I have to use with Nikon lenses as a DSLR. Every camera in this league is different from a use standpoint.

11-16-2012, 05:34 PM	#24
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Well when I'm off for sportscovarage where I want to have all my equipement on hold then I use the K-01 to make snapshots. I know they can all be made with K-5, but it is just fun to walk around and take images that are not important by them selve, but just to complete a story. Als much more easier to adjust the sharpness on the exact place where I want it. After a soccergame the winning team was clearly very happy:

11-16-2012, 09:43 PM	#25
chiane Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Chicago, IL Photos: Gallery Posts: 170	Originally posted by Na Horuk I have the K-r and K-01. I tend to use the K-01 for better quality stills, to use focus peaking. I think the question is a bit bad because.. well, depends on which DSLR you want to compare it to. The K10D, K-5, K-30.. You shouldn't look at the K-01 as a replacement for something. You probably don't look at other DSLRs that way, right? You look at your wishes, at your budget, at what is available, and then you make your decision. Also, i think the K-01 is significantly smaller than the K-r. Its not much lighter and if you compare numbers, its not much smaller, but its shape makes it much more compact. It doesn't get stuck at the edges, it takes less space in the bag, it allows more other stuff around it... Its a competent and fun camera at a great price with a very special design. Edit: I can tell you when I don't use my K-01, though. And that is mostly when I need AF on moving subjects. Can you tell me more about the k-r vs. k-01? I have a k-r and am considering the k-01. I am going to be shooting a moving toddler. She's not an NBA player, but movement non the less. My K-r already is not great at focusing, especially at low light. I can't imagine anything short of a point and shoot could be worse.

11-17-2012, 06:06 AM	#26
THoog Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: North Carolina Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,685	Originally posted by chiane Can you tell me more about the k-r vs. k-01? I have a k-r and am considering the k-01. I am going to be shooting a moving toddler. She's not an NBA player, but movement non the less. My K-r already is not great at focusing, especially at low light. I can't imagine anything short of a point and shoot could be worse. Focusing on the K-01 is just like using LiveView on the K-r, only a little quicker and probably more accurate in lower light. If trying to catch a moving toddler with the viewfinder on the K-r is frustrating, the K-01 will not be an improvement. Point & shoot cameras actually have an advantage here - the tiny sensor gives them huge depth of field, so a moving target is more likely in the focus zone. I found when I switched my K-r from AF.A (autofocus - automatic) to AF.S (single-shot), focusing improved a lot. It seemed like it wanted to go into AF.C mode (continuous) all the time, even for non-moving targets. Otherwise, the image quality is a little better (but not the huge leap of, say, a K100D - the K-r is no slouch!), and the menus/features will feel the same. The K-01 is a little smaller overall and feels very different in the hand with the blocky body.

11-17-2012, 06:18 AM	#27
D0n Banned Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 530	Originally posted by chiane Can you tell me more about the k-r vs. k-01? I have a k-r and am considering the k-01. I am going to be shooting a moving toddler. She's not an NBA player, but movement non the less. My K-r already is not great at focusing, especially at low light. I can't imagine anything short of a point and shoot could be worse. buy a flash unit with af spot beam assist lamp.... and use it with your kr.... PENTAX - AF360FGZ

11-17-2012, 06:36 AM	#28
Medium FormatPro Banned Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Charleston & Pittsburgh Photos: Albums Posts: 1,668	Originally posted by Sandy Hancock For live music and sports the K-5's get the gig But the K-01 can still do sports - just depends upon what sport and how creative the photographer is. Cases in point... I've recently done at end of court basketball games with items such as the Pentax DFA lens' (preferably the macro ones - even though one typically does not use the macro settings in sports). But there is reasoning behind the macro DFA use... One can lock the lens focus settings in auto or manual. Simply use either a better ISO for sports or a very high power flash (the flash is my pref) and then lock in also using the full aperature scale (to both sides) therefore allowing for depth of field (and in focus).

11-17-2012, 07:05 AM	#29
D0n Banned Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 530	Originally posted by Medium FormatPro But the K-01 can still do sports - just depends upon what sport and how creative the photographer is. Cases in point... I've recently done at end of court basketball games with items such as the Pentax DFA lens' (preferably the macro ones - even though one typically does not use the macro settings in sports). But there is reasoning behind the macro DFA use... One can lock the lens focus settings in auto or manual. Simply use either a better ISO for sports or a very high power flash (the flash is my pref) and then lock in also using the full aperature scale (to both sides) therefore allowing for depth of field (and in focus). apparently some people are too young to know... we used to shoot sports BEFORE digital, af, motor winders and f2.8 supertelephotos.... we loaded a k1000 with tri-ex pushed to 1600 iso and used 400mm f5.6 or 600 mm f8 mirrors and pre focused, learned the sport well enough to anticipate the action, and timed the shutter release to hit the peak of the action. Sure we didn't shoot 500 frames at ten frames per second and then sift through the results for a usable shot... but we still turned over usable shots to our editors... I took some of the best sports shots our school yearbook ever published with that set up. I'm sure the K-01 (with some kind of hood/shade over the lcd) can out perform that rig in every way possible....

11-17-2012, 08:06 AM - 1 Like	#30
THoog Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: North Carolina Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,685	Originally posted by D0n apparently some people are too young to know... we used to shoot sports BEFORE digital, af, motor winders and f2.8 supertelephotos.... we loaded a k1000 with tri-ex pushed to 1600 iso and used 400mm f5.6 or 600 mm f8 mirrors and pre focused, learned the sport well enough to anticipate the action, and timed the shutter release to hit the peak of the action. Sure we didn't shoot 500 frames at ten frames per second and then sift through the results for a usable shot... but we still turned over usable shots to our editors... I took some of the best sports shots our school yearbook ever published with that set up. I'm sure the K-01 (with some kind of hood/shade over the lcd) can out perform that rig in every way possible.... One of the charms of the K-01 for me is that its limitations push me to go back to 'old school' techniques I learned on the ME Super back in the 80s - technology is wonderful, but not if you become so dependent on it that you lose your problem-solving skills. Every time I read that something is 'impossible' with such-and-such camera/lens/flash, I think how there was probably a workaround for it before I was born, and right now, somewhere, someone who can't afford the latest and greatest is getting a great shot with that equipment.