[Codazzle]

So I've owned a K-5 for about a year and half (and been extremely happy with it), but was talking about getting a K-01 since the price drop for various reasons. The main ones were throwing my 40mm LTD on it and using it as a sweet P+S, becoming a little more "forgettable" (IE I'm not the guy with the huge camera you can't ignore), and it looks frickin' cool. My GF was listening and got me one (yay me. A white one, which is what I wanted).

I just needed to say on this forum how happy I was that it satisfied the main reason I wanted it; it made me a little more inconspicuous. I haven't been scanning the forum, but I didn't notice many people pointing this out

I love my K-5, but it's harder to take a camera out like that at family gatherings without getting 'bothered' for lack of a better term (especially when they ALL have P+S's and everyone has to pose for EVERY picture. Which is fine for them, just not for me ). I had my FA31 on it for speed (not a huge lens, but not a pancake), and I drew very little attention to myself (especially after turning the AF assist beam off) and quite seamlessly blended in. I also brought it out on NYE and I found it was much easier to get candids.

All in all, I thought I would like the K-01, but it has easily surpassed my expectations thus far. I was shooting in high ISOs (1600-3200) which I haven't really done yet with the K-5, so I don't know if I can fairly compare pictures, but they were pretty close to pictures I've taken at 800 ISO with the FA31 on my K-5

[Louicio]

I also bought my GF a K-01 (which she loves, SUCCESS!) however I also find it to be far more discreet. I was thinking it was perhaps that you don't press it to your face at eye level, and the brain doesn't subconsicously associate the camera with the eyes and they don't realise you are taking a photo.

[asw66]

And this discretion should make it a superior tool for street shooting.

[JinDesu]

Keep in mind, it's the same sensor as the k-5. If you're shooting in jpeg, I believe the k-01's jpeg noise reduction is supposed to be a bit better than the k-5, but the RAWs are pretty similar.

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

Although the performance for stills are very similar, the K-01 and K5 do not have the same sensor, according to the tech guys like GordonBGood who have investigated it. In order to improve video performance and especially live view responsiveness, a different sensor was needed. The K-01 and K30 most likely share the same sensor and processing engine.

[RonHendriks1966]

Put that FA31mm on your K-01 and you will be surpised how amazing that combo can be.

[jimr-pdx]

I love my K-5, but it's harder to take a camera out like that at family gatherings without getting 'bothered' for lack of a better term (especially when they ALL have P+S's and everyone has to pose for EVERY picture. Which is fine for them, just not for me ). I had my FA31 on it for speed (not a huge lens, but not a pancake), and I drew very little attention to myself (especially after turning the AF assist beam off) and quite seamlessly blended in. I also brought it out on NYE and I found it was much easier to get candids.

All in all, I thought I would like the K-01, but it has easily surpassed my expectations thus far. I was shooting in high ISOs (1600-3200) which I haven't really done yet with the K-5, so I don't know if I can fairly compare pictures, but they were pretty close to pictures I've taken at 800 ISO with the FA31 on my K-5

I like how I can still feel accessible at gatherings now; rather than have my face blocked by the K-5 (I didn't use live view with it) I can see and be seen yet still get excellent images. I didn't expect this.

Keep in mind, it's the same sensor as the k-5. If you're shooting in jpeg, I believe the k-01's jpeg noise reduction is supposed to be a bit better than the k-5, but the RAWs are pretty similar.

For what DPR test shots are worth, this seems true in jpeg but perhaps even a smidge in raw. Close enough either way for as little as I micro-examine shots.

[NSX167]

the K-01 and K5 do not have the same sensor

Really?

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

Just going by what GordonBGood has researched and stated. (He designed the best known and most beloved hack to the K20D firmware to eliminate the high-ISO purple shadow problem - and is well recognized for his technical capabilities.) Here is his definitive explanation of the differences in the sensors:

Well, let's see - using PhotoMe ( PhotoME - Exif, IPTC & ICC Metadata Editor - use the Beta) to open raw images from the K-5, the K-01, and the K-30, we see the following:

a) K-5: raw dimensions 4992 by 3284 photosites, default image origin (22,10), default crop size (4928,3264), active area not specified but inspection with Rawnalyze or RawDigger shows top left corner (10,0) and bottom right corner (4960,3284).

b) K-01: raw dimensions 4960 by 3300 photosites, default image origin within the active area (4, 4), default crop size (4928,3264), active area top left corner (8, 20) and bottom right corner (4944, 3292) but confirmed with Rawnalyze or RawDigger to actually have top left corner at (8,12) with the bottom left corner at (4960, 3300). This is specified this way in order to shift the actually display pixels to those taken lower on the sensor in order to better centre the image in the image circle of the mount, but leave the photosites used to be taken slightly to the left on the sensor as that is closest to being centred already.

c) K-30: raw dimensions 4960 by 3300 photosites, default image origin within the active area (4, 4), default crop size (4928,3264), active area top left corner (8, 20) and bottom right corner (4944, 3292) but confirmed with Rawnalyze or RawDigger to actually have top left corner at (8,12) with the bottom left corner at (4960, 3300). This is specified this way in order to shift the actually display pixels to those taken lower on the sensor in order to better centre the image in the image circle of the mount, but leave the photosites used to be taken slightly to the left on the sensor as that is closest to being centred already.

Note that "left" and "down" are actually reversed on the sensor due the the image actually being imposed in reverse.

Inspection of the actual images for the full area of the sensor shows very different active area layouts as per the above descriptions between the K-5 and the K-01, with the K-01 and the K-30 having identical layouts.

This leads me to believe that the K-01 and the K-30 have a identical sensor, which is different than that of the K-5.

We have other reasons to believe the sensors are different in that the newer cameras offer video modes which are not possible with the maximum scan rates of the older K-5 sensor.

Now the performance of the new K-30 may not be quite as good as that of the K-5 with higher black read noise due to the faster clocking used for higher speed scans, but is likely to be better than that of the K-01 if one uses the optical viewfinder for still photography as then the sensor is not being heated by continuous Live View (LV) scans, but the performance is likely to be identical for LV mode of the K-30 (the K-01 doesn't have any other mode than LV).

Regards, GordonBGood

[NSX167]

Just going by what GordonBGood has researched and stated. (He designed the best known and most beloved hack to the K20D firmware to eliminate the high-ISO purple shadow problem - and is well recognized for his technical capabilities.) Here is his definitive explanation of the differences in the sensors:

Well, let's see - using PhotoMe ( PhotoME - Exif, IPTC & ICC Metadata Editor - use the Beta) to open raw images from the K-5, the K-01, and the K-30, we see the following:

a) K-5: raw dimensions 4992 by 3284 photosites, default image origin (22,10), default crop size (4928,3264), active area not specified but inspection with Rawnalyze or RawDigger shows top left corner (10,0) and bottom right corner (4960,3284).

b) K-01: raw dimensions 4960 by 3300 photosites, default image origin within the active area (4, 4), default crop size (4928,3264), active area top left corner (8, 20) and bottom right corner (4944, 3292) but confirmed with Rawnalyze or RawDigger to actually have top left corner at (8,12) with the bottom left corner at (4960, 3300). This is specified this way in order to shift the actually display pixels to those taken lower on the sensor in order to better centre the image in the image circle of the mount, but leave the photosites used to be taken slightly to the left on the sensor as that is closest to being centred already.

c) K-30: raw dimensions 4960 by 3300 photosites, default image origin within the active area (4, 4), default crop size (4928,3264), active area top left corner (8, 20) and bottom right corner (4944, 3292) but confirmed with Rawnalyze or RawDigger to actually have top left corner at (8,12) with the bottom left corner at (4960, 3300). This is specified this way in order to shift the actually display pixels to those taken lower on the sensor in order to better centre the image in the image circle of the mount, but leave the photosites used to be taken slightly to the left on the sensor as that is closest to being centred already.

Note that "left" and "down" are actually reversed on the sensor due the the image actually being imposed in reverse.

Inspection of the actual images for the full area of the sensor shows very different active area layouts as per the above descriptions between the K-5 and the K-01, with the K-01 and the K-30 having identical layouts.

This leads me to believe that the K-01 and the K-30 have a identical sensor, which is different than that of the K-5.

We have other reasons to believe the sensors are different in that the newer cameras offer video modes which are not possible with the maximum scan rates of the older K-5 sensor.

Now the performance of the new K-30 may not be quite as good as that of the K-5 with higher black read noise due to the faster clocking used for higher speed scans, but is likely to be better than that of the K-01 if one uses the optical viewfinder for still photography as then the sensor is not being heated by continuous Live View (LV) scans, but the performance is likely to be identical for LV mode of the K-30 (the K-01 doesn't have any other mode than LV).

Regards, GordonBGood

Thanks for the detail explanation, I have read another feedback about K01 and K5, this is for your information.

*******************
K01 and K5 use the same sensor but different noise reduction approach. Stretching the max limit of K01 (please take note the nominal max ISO for K01 is ISO12800 but we choose to boost it to its Extended ISO which is 25600) to see it's ISO performance and its noise signature.

Very strange observation indeed. At surface level especially lighter area, there are very much the same. But dark area is where you see the differences (observe the lower part of the porcelain vase at the back). K5 removes nearly all Chroma Noise but the luminance noises are of bigger graininess. K-01 preserves some of the Chroma noise but have far finer graininess. It's a rather interesting strategy from Pentax this time to employ different processing algorithm even though they are of near identical sensors. You definitely will appreciate the finer noise graininess in K01.
Congrats! to Pentax for bringing its noise reduction technology to another level.

[cristigj]

I had a guy yesterday talking to me about how he respected the fact that I still shot film, but that eventually I would have to convert to digital. A lady I work with thought that the K-o1 was a film camera from the late 80s. I cant see it. The more I use it, the more I like the way it is set up. I hold it more or less like an old 'brownie' and jump between the shutter, the green button and the OK button with my right thumb. It attracts less attention than when I use my P&C for street photos. People seem a little more suspicious of a P&C for some reason. I have only had it a week, but these are some of the observations I have noticed