Originally posted by audiobomber I would advise against getting a K-01. It's an amazing camera, no doubt, but it's not an all-rounder. Unless I've misunderstood and you are planning on keeping the *istD? In which case, go for it.
You seem to have a lot of lenses and several compacts. Could you not sell most of them off, and save towards a K-30? It does everything the K-01 does and more, including focus peaking. One standard zoom, one telephoto zoom and one prime is a very capable kit. If the K-30 is out of the question, what about keeping the *istD and adding a DA 35mm f2.4? I'm not a big K-x/K-r fan, but if I could only keep my K-x or K-01, it would have to be the K-x.
Whatever you do, I'd sell off all the excess baggage and near duplicate lenses and get down to basics.
I do plan on keeping the ist-ds (that goes doubly so if I get the k-01 as I do still want a dslr). I have no significant complaints with it except low light performance. Its a nice camera that gets the job done a lot of the time just fine (when it doesn't, its usually a lack of light that is the problem). It is just too often that low light is causing a problem. Its not that it will not focus, it's that I can not get fast enough shutter speeds to avoid motion blur/camera shake and such. When light is good enough, the ist-ds is good enough. I have tried faster glass and it wasn't enough (at least what I could afford). I have a kalimar 35-70mm 2.8 constant for instance. If you are not familiar with it, its probably the cheapest you will find a 2.8 constant zoom. Sharpness is decent but build quality is terrible. It kind of operates like its got a bit of glue in it (I have 2 of them, one is irreparably broke unless you could find replacement parts but they both have that glue feeling). While the 2.8 constant was helpful, it just wasn't quite enough.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with the ist-ds, but its high iso performance is poor compared to new models. I generally shoot at iso 400, 800 is usable in a pinch, 1600 is just too bad to consider. I have been leed to believe that the new sensors perform substantially better. Also, it doesn't have shake reduction. While opinions seem mixed on sr, it can not hurt to have it, and it might help sometimes. I had planned on getting a kx/kr eventually (it will still have those benefits), but when the k-01 popped up so cheap, it seemed like a possibly better alternative. I could get a new camera for the same cost of a used kr, with a 2 yr warranty for $20 more. I can also get a lens that sells for $250 separately for $60 in the bundle, and it would allow me to have an AF prime. A kx/kr is still an option, but I would much prefer a new camera with warranty and a hot deal on the lens (if the camera will manage to fit my needs).
A few more years down the road, my options will probably be better (kids will be old enough day care will not be necessary, and day care cost literally double where we live compared to where we used to live). I would eventually like to get the kids dslrs too, so if in the long run, I wind up with a couple of extra bodies, there is a use for them.
Would anyone recommend a used kr/kx over a new k-01 (keep in mind, the bodies would be about the same price, and the k-01 has the option of a new AF 40mm 2.8 for $60 more). Also keep in mind I will keep the ist-ds.
On a side note, I have though about selling off some of my lenses several times. There are complications with that but I might eventually try.