[jon404]

I bought a K-01 recently, with the two kit zooms. Also have a Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, and a Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4... both of which work perfectly with their aperture rings on A, using manual focus of course.

The kit zooms are surprisingly sharp, stopped down a little, and very good value for the money. Their AF is just fine, more than fast enough for me, indoors or out.

I haven't tried 'Tracking AF' yet... I use spot focus. If I had to take pictures of kids in motion, i'd get them outdoors in sunlight. Otherwise, indoors, just wait til they sit still for a moment. But it will also take a continuous burst of JPGs and something will work out.

Have had no problems at all with auto focus.

I'm an amateur photographer, retired now. Took pictures as part of my job for years. I can tell you, the K-01 is a better camera than we will ever need. I have two rough tests for image quality -- a picture of a grass lawn ( are the blades of grass sharp and distinct? No smearing?) And a picture with a lot of clear blue sky (any speckles? Noise?). The K-01 is just great, best digital camera I've ever used. Amazon today, US $478 with the two kit zooms, $300 body.

[wombat2go]

I am sure I am going to continue using both cameras on my -M collection.
The ist ds focus confirmation is consistent and accurate.
istds Pentax -M 1:2.8 40mm, hand held
https://www.box.com/s/1e2b95f5a04cee8d6073
https://www.box.com/s/209edf19081385021670

Getting used to the K-01 focus peaking
K-01 SMC Pentax-DA 1:3.5~5.6 18~55mm tripod
https://www.box.com/s/btfbihpnabjisxs98ymp
K-01 SMC Pentax 1:2 55mm tripod (I don't put up kid's shots, anyway they won't sit still anymore.)
https://www.box.com/s/vjjcvtg8n9cz26hcfis3

[ripit]

While I would like to have the 2 kit zooms, It would really be stretching how much money I can come up with (fast enough to get one while they are still in stock cheap). I also already have at least a dozen auto focus zoom (many are budget glass but they get the job done). I do not own any auto focus primes so that is what is making me heavily lean towards the kit with the 40mm. I just hope they are still in stock in a week or two (I'm shooting for this friday but doubt I will have enough). In addition, there are lots of older auto focus zooms that go pretty cheap on ebay, but unless I have been searching for the wrong things, auto focus primes never go cheap. Several years from now when the kids are old enough to not require daycare, perhaps I can afford some better lenses, lol. We only have one income as daycare would take most of a second income.

[jon404]

Ripit -- then get the body, just the body. Sounds like you've got plenty of lenses -- and you know probably better than I do that most any lens gets nice and sharp when it is stopped down a bit. Also, it's easy enough to sharpen the image a little in Photoshop or any other bitmap editor.

The only thing you've said that seems to favor that 40mm lens is 'taking pictures of kids' ... where, if they are moving fast indoors, the faster the lens the better. But, versus that, it's amazing how good the pictures are at ISO 1600, at 3200... which gets you back to the lenses you already have. But! Everybody says that the 40mm lens is just great! Good luck figuring this one out. And remember, you can always get kids to sit still if you bribe them with a candy bar... it's sort of the Mediterranean Diet for the rest of us.

[robtcorl]

Excellent advice from jon404, and others.
If you can swing it, I'd go with the 40mm XS too.
But a Pentax A 50mm f/2 ($40 or less) would probably work for most of your shots, with the help of focus peaking.
And as stated, the quality of the 01's high ISO photos will most likely knock your socks off!

I can sympathize with your day care cost.
My kids are now grown, but remember well the financial strain.
Good luck to you!

[Na Horuk]

I think the AF issue is a bit blown out of proportion. With the latest firmware update, the CD AF is not terribly slow. If you have a clear target in good light, you probably won't even notice a difference in AF speed. It still takes less than a second. But CD AF is different from PD AF. And the ways in which it is different has some pros and cons. The pro is that it is always accurate, there is no front/backfocusing. The con is that it has to go over the focus and then back up to it. This can be a problem when taking photos of objects that are moving or in very low contrast light (or have a high contrast object nearby). But after shooting for a while you learn and adapt. You can also use focus peaking. Personally, I find I get more keepers with my K-01 than with my K-r, in terms of focus accuracy. But depends on what kind of photography you do.

[lukulele]

I started with Pentax in 1971 with SP II's and in the last three years a K-7, K-5, Q, and now a K-01 for my son and I. It seems to perform well with the F 50 1.7, F 35-70 and anything in manual focus. Increasing the LCD brightness helped greatly and a hand strap is next. The sensor is truly magnificent when you nail a shot. I screwed up the focus on this but made an attempt to salvage something in my first foray in PS6. The experimentation is the joy with the K-01.

---

Last edited by lukulele; 04-21-2014 at 08:32 AM.

[ripit]

Thanks again for the reply's. The 2 kit lenses would be about 180$ more and I don't have a need for them as mentioned. The 40mm may cost as little as $60 more than the body so I would think it would be a bad idea not to get one, especially as I have no AF primes of any kind.

I do already have a few manual 50mm primes (I can not remember if any are A). I have a ricoh 50mm 2.0. A long time ago when I had less lenses I compared it to my other lenses and it was the sharpest lens I owned (including a series 1 vivitar 70-210 ver 2). It does well wide open. I also have a sears 50mm 1.7 (fairly certain its a ricoh), an olympus f.zuiko 50mm 1.8 that has been converter and 1 or two others I do not recall (haven't used them recently). I also have 2 canon fd 50mm 1.8 that I can convert (one is torn apart ready for a mount), and a fuji fujinon 50mm 1.6 that I could convert. Beyond that I have few MF primes but many MF zooms (I had a pretty serious run of ebay LBA for a while with anything I could get cheap, some are junk but some are very good). I always seemed to use the zooms much more but it would be really nice to have one AF prime. My eyesight might have been a factor in prefering AF lenses. My eyesite is just barely at the edge or outside what the camera can adjust for. I just recently got glasses (eyesite wasn't bad enough to need them for anything else but the camera). Perhaps the new MF features of the k-01 might help (I have some long zooms and super zooms including some semi fast ones I would like to play with).

I'm familiar with the focusing past and back thing from non dslr cameras and think I could learn to live with it fine. I did read the review and the shooting speeds (focus speeds) seemed to be fine, but that was only with a fast lens (the 40mm 1.8 I think).

I barely have enough for the body but will wait till next friday so I can get the 40mm (and hope they do not run out of stock).

If lcd reflection is a problem, I can always get a hood or an anti reflective cover down the road. I actually have a popup shade for the ist-ds that is removable but the hard cover under it seemed to help some by itself.
Thanks again everybody.

[HSV]

I've been considering the K-01 for a while...and wrote it off because it lacked wireless P-TTL, which I use fairly frequently.

Recently, I've played a bit with a Sony Nex, and my interest for the K-01 came back. I liked the Nex for 2 reasons: 1) peaking, and 2) the accuracy of live-view compared to the actual exposure (when using a constant light source, of course). I could move my aperture, ISO, and shutter speed, and see the Live-View change accordingly.

I think that the K-01 will do fairly well with 1), but how about 2)?

How accurate is the live-view of the K-01? Does it have a permanent DOF preview? Does it reflect the chosen exposure parameters? Does it reflect the white balance setting of the final image?

How does it compare to the K-5 in Live-View? The K-5 is an absolute torture to use in Live-View (slow CDAF, CDAF not working indoors, big difference between Live-View and the actual image)

Thanks.

[jon404]

Let's see -- with my kit telephotos, it shows wide-open-bright all the time, but you can have it show a DOF preview. Same with my older Pentax A-type lenses.

Fast enough? See below, two pictures of far-away airplanes I took today, in bright sunshine, with the 50-200mm, at 180mm (270mm FF equiv). Can't speak for AF on these -- I used manual focus with the long telephoto.

[ripit]

Do you shoot the longer lenses manually because you have had problems with AF or just because you prefer MF with them?

[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.

[ripit]

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.

[THoog]

I have an istDS in my collection, as well as a K-x and K-01. Starting with the K-x, the improvement in low-light was astonishing. I would let it go to ISO 1600 where I never would with the 6MP sensor. For the K-01, it's ISO 3200. I thought the 16MP sensor would be a minor step up from the 12MP in the K-x, but it added more than pixels - stuff just looks better from my better lenses. If nothing else, I'd say try the K-01, and if the lack of a VF is too annoying, it won't be hard to swap for a K-x/K-r.

The old 6MP CCD sensor in the ists and K100D can still do nice work. It seems to do especially well with black and white. My only nitpicks are having to constantly watch the white balance in low light to avoid "going yellow", and in sunlight, a tendency to saturate on bright reds.

[ripit]

I have an istDS in my collection, as well as a K-x and K-01. Starting with the K-x, the improvement in low-light was astonishing. I would let it go to ISO 1600 where I never would with the 6MP sensor. For the K-01, it's ISO 3200. I thought the 16MP sensor would be a minor step up from the 12MP in the K-x, but it added more than pixels - stuff just looks better from my better lenses. If nothing else, I'd say try the K-01, and if the lack of a VF is too annoying, it won't be hard to swap for a K-x/K-r.

The old 6MP CCD sensor in the ists and K100D can still do nice work. It seems to do especially well with black and white. My only nitpicks are having to constantly watch the white balance in low light to avoid "going yellow", and in sunlight, a tendency to saturate on bright reds.

Thanks a bunch for the information. Thats the camera I have and the two I am considering so it is very helpful to have an iso comparison. Since low light is my concern (in other instances I can still use the ist-ds if I really need a viewfinder), the k-01 having beter iso performance is a plus over a used kx/kr.

Since you have both, just overall, all around shooting, speed of focus, ability to focus, how would you say the k-01 compares to the ist-ds? I'm not looking for specifics necessarily, just kind of an is the k-01 a step down in its abilities compared to the ds?