K10 Focus Issues - Time to send it in for repair?

[jeremy_corbin]

<p>Hey everyone!<br>

Sorry about not being around much lately; I've gone into hiding. I've kept up on twitter feeds and posts though.</p>

<p>My K10 started having issues after some traveling I did recently. Despite having it safely tucked away in a Pelican case and having the case be my carry-on, I've discovered some focusing issues. I noticed my in-focus rate dropped through the floor (proverbially). I, being a good Pentaxian, printed out Yvon Borque's focusing chart with my laser printer (600dpi) and discovered some great inconsistencies:<br>

My K10 now front focuses.... then back focuses.... then nails it... then it's off again... across all lenses. Now we're not talking a few microns here... I adjusted from -250 to +250 and back again. (You K5/7 users should note the K10 is adjustable in 10's and not 1's). I'd get the focus nailed in on my tripod and then I'd pick it up and do real-world tests, only to discover that the moment i picked it up it'd be off again. It wasn't a consistent correlation, but I <em>FEEL</em> that when I pointed the camera down to the floor to read the LCD that it would begin back focusing. When it held it upwards I <em>FEEL</em> that it would front focus.<br>

Yup... seems like something is loose.<br>

CRIS quotes that the basic Look-It-Over will be around $200 US... but I bought my K10 for $250. It's been faithful for two years but now I'm wondering what I should do about it.</p>

<ul>

<li>Do I send it in for repair? - $200 (plus cost of whatever is broken)</li>

<li>Do I buy a second K10? - $200 (ist*DS is current backup... and does a fantastic job).</li>

<li>The K20 would be nice, if only for the fine AF adjustment across multiple lenses instead of the K10's global adjustment. - $350</li>

<li>The K7 isn't much money beyond the K20. - $375</li>

<li>The K5, although a dream, is still around $700 used. - $700</li>

<li>The K5II is still completely out of my wallet's league. - $1000</li>

</ul>

<p>For the extra cost of the K5ii I'd make more use of a DA70 or DA21 instead of renting them and I certainly don't need the megapixels... but the K5 seems to be loved by ya'll. </p>

<p>I'm up for suggestions.</p>

<p>-J</p>

<p>PS - If ya'll forgot, I make portraits. No birding. No sports. No landscapes. And certainly no weddings.<br>

<a href="http://jcorbinphotography.com/">http://jcorbinphotography.com/</a></p>

[steve_t.1]

<p>Hi Jeremiah,</p>

<p>I don't know... these things are computers with camera lenses attached. I've taken to depreciating the purchase price of these high tech gizmos over some arbitrary period of time that I think I'm going to own it. You paid $250 for the camera 2 years ago (let's say 24 months). That is a monthly cost of ownership, to date, of $10.42 per month. Have you gotten ten bucks of enjoyment per month out of the comput... err, the camera? If so, I think if I were in your shoes I'd just retire that body and buy a replacement body. I don't think I'd sink money into your K10. Lenses are another issue, but the body...? A brand new K-5 at Adorama (for example) is $729 as I'm writing this. My K-5 has been serving me very well. That's about (cough) half the price I paid for my K-5. Hmmm, my cost of ownership over the two years I've owned my K-5 has been about $60 per month. And about 10,000 images shot so far. About $0.14 per shot. Anyway, when I think of the body as a disposable commodity it makes it easier to say goodbye to it when it's time is up.</p>

<p>Just how I try to justify it to myself. And then I try not to think of that wonderful old K1000 collecting dust in my closet. Still works just fine after 30-some years. Trade-off: cost of film vs. the relatively short life of the digital camera body.</p>

<p>Good luck with your decision.</p>

[gregoryl]

<p>Hello Jeremiah<br>

I wouldn't put the money into that old a camera. The bodies are basically the disposable end of the system. Good lenses hold their value but at the rate new bodies come out they depreciate like a new car and the new cameras are leaps and bounds ahead of the K10 that's about 5-6 years old. My K10 has a crooked mirror and I've had to crank the correction to get it to focus properly but mostly it just sits in a case as back up. I picked up a K7 a couple of years ago new for $900 but they keep coming down in price, could probably get one for less than half that now. The K30 has pretty good features and reviews. Ebay or local sites like Kijiji etc can be good deals if you know what you want and are patient. Anyway like I said to start I don't think it's worth it, it's not a collectors type of camera that holds value. I'd say get something new with a warranty or a good deal used on something newer.<br>

Regards<br>

Greg</p>

[jeremy_corbin]

<p>I've gotten around 55,000 Shutter Actuations from my K10 since I purchased it nearly 2 years ago.<br>

My K10 hasn't just cost me... she's made me money... and at less than $0.01 per actuation, she's definitely put in her time. <br>

You gentlemen are right though: My film cameras have been very reliable and even though I have 3 I need to send to Eric for CLA I still find them useful. I would just hate to put her out to pasture, so-to-speak.<br>

The K20 appears to be a good option... The Multi Lens AF Fine Tune would be incredibly helpful.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Probably something in the mirror mechanism has gotten physically unstable. Or maybe the screws holding the focus sensor unit, or the sensor, are loose. I'd be hesitant to send a digital/plastic camera with a non-absolute failure out for repair, it might come back no better.<br>

K-5's are falling to $500 used. If you only use autofocus lenses, consider a used K-r, I've used one and liked it a lot. (While the finder is pentamirror and lower magnification than the K-5, the camera is very light, and image quality is very similar to K-5.)</p>

[wayne_campbell]

<p>My K10 never focused well from the getgo. I even sent it in to the recommended Pentax service center and when it came back it still didn't focus right. I would ditch it and get a K5. I don't think the K10 can be made to focus any better, it's just not a good focusing camera.</p>

[MattB.Net]

<p>I'll jump on the bandwagon and say get a K-5 if you can. Or a K20 if the K-5 is too much. So much advancement has been made between the K10 and K-5 in terms of AF and IQ that if it doesn't break the bank it seems like the clear way to go.</p>

[tomadakis]

<p>IMHO the K5 is the way to go. Since you are making money out of the equipment, invest more! I own the K20 and my next body is going to be the K5IIs when the prices drop to the $600-700 level after the next model is released. My two cents...</p>

[laur1]

<p>Well, if you really want a K10D in working condition, I can give you a discount over the repairing price and send you mine - let's say for $150 :) I used it for less than 50k actuations - perhaps 30-40k.</p>

[ukhov]

<p>- work portraits, wider frame with Cannon </p>

[jeremy_corbin]

<p>All, I'd love the K5 and there's no doubt that it's worth the $750 I see it for on Amazon (Beach Camera has some)... but I'd rather spend money on glass with my budget. I've rented a number of them in my attempt to find "something longer" and I haven't quite settled on one that meets my needs.</p>

<p>Yury, I have considered going with the *alleged* "Full Frame" offerings from Canon or Nikon. The light-gather abilities are nice, but I don't require the megapixels. Also, Canon's ergonomics are terrible. Nikon's are better... or at least they're closer to Pentax's.<br>

Overall, if I really "need" to move to the *alleged* "Full Frame" format, than I'll wait for Pentax so I don't have to re-purchase my lenses.</p>

<p>*I say "alleged" because in my mind a "Full Frame" is an 8x10 camera. :-) Maybe I'll skip the 35mm format and go 4x5.... or something portable like the 645.</p>

[wayne_campbell]

<p>You say you'd rather spend money on glass but what good is great glass if the camera inherently won't focus or can't be repaired to get good focus? Sort of a Catch-22.</p>

[davidmantilla]

<p>I have a k10d that served me well, then made the upgrade to k5 when first released, and believe me, I've never looked back. The difference in quality is so great, i would really say, if you can afford it, go for the k5. I have a bunch of film cameras that I hold on to, they still work after all these years, film quality hasn't changed much in the past 30 years. with digital however, the hardware and sensors improve every year, so that k10d is really out of date. i dont think about the megapixels, the improvement in the ISO and reduction of noise is a no-brainer for me to upgrade from k10d if possible. </p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Jeremy,</p>

<p>IMO, the K-5 is the best camera worth upgrading to from the K10D. I actually prefer images from the K10D to the K20D (and I liked the K20D file output in real world use...prints). <br>

<br />The K-5II (which I haven't used) seems even better. But bang for buck, the K-5 is the cats meow.</p>

<p>The only reason I don't recommend the K-7 (which I think is equal to the K20D in IQ) is the annoying shutter vibration. But for $350 used, the K-7 might be the best bang for the buck.</p>

<p>So, I'd replace the K10D with a gently used one. I'd consider a K-7 or I'd just go straight for the K-5. </p>

<p>Tough call if you are on a budget. All are good cameras capable of making saleable prints, but the price does get exponentially higher. </p>

[jemal.yarbrough]

<p>Jeremy:<br>

I sent you a DM on twitter re my K20D. While I agree that the 70mm and 21mm are awesome lenses, the jump from K10 to K-5 may be worth renting the lenses a bit longer. I would probably skip the K-7 (not from personal usage). </p>