Pentax K-01, Ugliest Camera Ever

[chris00nj]

I saw this camera, and just threw up in my mouth a little.

I think the problem is the mirrorless design along with keeping the SLR mount lens, so the backfocus distance has to be the same. As a result, the camera is just as big as an SLR, which erases the primary advantage of going mirror-less.

http://photorumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Pentax-K01-camera.jpeg

[btgc]

But then there's no blackout and noise, right?

[Disaster_Area]

looks like one of those all-plastic fake SLR's from the 80's... the ones that were fixed focus point and shoots disguised as an SLR, with names like Mikkon and Cannon

[gavinlg]

Yeah I saw it as well, and threw up in my mouth as well. What a hideous little blob.
Supposed to be designed by Marc Newson too... massive fail IMO!

[Archlich]

It looks OK to me. At least better than the previously leaked diagrams.

For me, there's hardly anything uglier than Leica Digilux 1.

[jsrockit]

Not really a good look... poor Pentax.

[hipsterdufus]

Is it bad that I kind of want one just because it's such an odd design?

[sevo]

But then there's no blackout and noise, right?

No blackout yes. As far as noise goes, YMMV. On the Sony Nex series, what is saved in noise by omitting the mirror is lost again by making the camera smaller so that the shutter (and tensioning motor) noise is less well shielded.

[btgc]

Nice or ugly, that's not that important. But 60mm eq. FOV - anyone?

[jsrockit]

As a result, the camera is just as big as an SLR, which erases the primary advantage of going mirror-less.

http://photorumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Pentax-K01-camera.jpeg

Are you sure it is just as big?

[driver]

Good thing cameras aren't fashion statements.

[timor]

Will it take any lens with K-mount ?

[Steve M.]

It looks as if it's suddenly been slammed into a wall. There's a dog name for it I think. Pug?

I'm also not crazy about that PENTAXPENTAX strap, but at least you can flip the signage over. There's not much that could help w/ this camera's odd styling and color scheme. Maybe buy the biggest lens hood you can find.

[dreilly]

It's cousin, Ricoh GXR, is now relieved that people will stop calling it ugly and direct their attention at the K-01. What's up with the two-toned thing? That really does it in for me.

BTW, the GXR is a great camera. Just a bit lumpy. They really went to town on this with the ugly stick.

[sevo]

Are you sure it is just as big?

It will not be much smaller, given that it has the same mount and mirror(less) box dímensions. The more so as Pentax' recent SLRs already were on the small side of things.

There is a image of that lens on a K-5 out on the net - and if that is no fake, the K-01 is barely smaller, except that it lost the prism hump and handgrip bulge.

[sepiareverb]

Is this a Petnax?

[Paddy C]

It is ugly and it's also a bad idea. What's strike three? Based on the Q it will be price and Pentax will be 2-for-2.

[rbelyell]

no vf=no buy

just my opinion, but at this stage of mirrorless cam development, lack of vf means manufacturer is just not 'serious'. ugly is ok, but impractical is not.

[f6andBthere]

I'd have hated to have been the kid living near you lot that looked a little bit different ... I'd just know that everytime I walked past I'd be hearing the chant "freak, freak" and dodging various missiles! :p

[dnk512]

Nikon and Pentax have been major disappointments with their mirror-less multi-lens designs (speaking for my taste of course).

Frankly I no longer think that an optical viewfinder is a must. An articulating screen *is*. All other viewfinder options (optical range, optical TTL, or Electronic or any combination) are just that, options. Not having any such option is an issue, but no one offers all the above either.

[jippiejee]

first that butt-ugly Canon aps-c release, now this. They just don't want you to switch from their lucrative dslr's.

[ruby.monkey]

Still less ugly than an M5. ;)

[f6andBthere]

Still less ugly than an M5. ;)


True ... and when Leica releases a two tone camera they call it a Panda and everyone loves it! :D

[Stuart John]

Looks like it was beaten with the ugly stick.

[loneranger]

what is in that chimney sticking out.
Actually the design reminds me of a small leica R8, wasnt that designed by Porche?

[regularchickens]

what is in that chimney sticking out.
Shades of the Nikon Photomic Ftn's massive metered prism. It wasn't exactly svelte, either.

I see DNA from both the GXR and the Q in this. And somebody's grandfather was a K-1000. So we have a mirrorless that's a bit smaller than a Pentax manual film body... but retains the hump and mirror box. Why? Oh, right, so that they wouldn't have to roll out a new line of lenses.

[batterytypehah!]

looks like one of those all-plastic fake SLR's from the 80's... the ones that were fixed focus point and shoots disguised as an SLR, with names like Mikkon and Cannon

My thought, too. Crossed with Thomas the Tank Engine, for that really young demographic.

[charjohncarter]

Ugly: who cares, what is the image quality? Can we use any of the 10 million lenses made for it? Is that penta hump for a future EVF or does it have one?

Size: K-01-12.1cm wide x 7.9cm high x 5.9 cm deep; K-5-131 x 97 x 73 mm, so smaller. Sony NEX-7-119.9 x 66.9 x 42.8 mm. Surprisingly, it isn't too much deeper than the NEX-7.

[Darthfeeble]

How about the quality of the picture that it takes? Does anyone care about that? S

[chrishayton]

Looking at the photo it looks to be an internal lens. In other words maybe it will fit K mount lenses but it will also have some new lenses only for use in this new mirror less mount where the optic cell is in the camera (non retrofocus maybe) Therefore its still small and completely backwards compatible ( but no M mount!)

[KoNickon]

Hey, we would have all bitched if we were unable to use all those Pentax SLR lenses, right? I've seen uglier cameras, for sure (think Agfa and Voigtlander rangefinders of the 1960s).

[ChrisN]

How about the quality of the picture that it takes? Does anyone care about that? S

No. The only important thing is how we feel the other cool people will feel about us if we use it. :D

At this stage I can't see an advantage over the K5. Any ideas?

[Archlich]

Ugly: who cares, what is the image quality? Can we use any of the 10 million lenses made for it? Is that penta hump for a future EVF or does it have one?

Size: K-01-12.1cm wide x 7.9cm high x 5.9 cm deep; K-5-131 x 97 x 73 mm, so smaller. Sony NEX-7-119.9 x 66.9 x 42.8 mm. Surprisingly, it isn't too much deeper than the NEX-7.

It has the 16MP sony sensor, which means same image quality as the K-5, D7000, NEX5N and a65, etc.

The hump is built-in flash.

Pentax is just too attached to their DA lens lineup...

[ChrisN]

Nice or ugly, that's not that important. But 60mm eq. FOV - anyone?

40mm pancake lens, 60mm-equivalent field of view (135 format standard). It's an odd length, but some like it a lot. There was a time when many SLRs came with a 58mm standard lens! Pentax's 43mm lens is quite nice, even on the crop sensor. The DA21mm lens (31mm-equivalent) could be quite nice on this body.

[Corto]

I like it.

But then I also drink expensive wines from papercups and drive a pick up truck.

[rbelyell]

How about the quality of the picture that it takes? Does anyone care about that? S

it cant take good pictures if youre focusing while hoding it as you would a child with a dirty diaper.:)

[MaxElmar]

Looks yuk. (But that's not very important.)

But native k-Mount? Really? How about a new mount and good quality adapters for K & M42?

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, now advanced technology makes it possible to have a mirrorless camera with absolutely NO size advantage over DSLR. And you will be happy to pay extra for the empty space where the mirror used to be.

What the heck is in the water over there at Pentax?

[dreilly]

I heard the IQ blows the X-1 Pro out of the water!

[Johann Espiritu]

It does *kinda* look like the Digilux 1...

http://2.s.img-dpreview.com/files/news/0516381232/digilux1-01.jpg?v=1322

If if feels solid in your hands, though, it might make up for it's odd looks.

[benlees]

You wanted a Fuji X pro 1 but got this instead. Sweet.

[dreilly]

Of course design and appearance matters. Do you dress up for an interview? Do you shave before a date? Would the Marines be taken as seriously if they walked around with dull swords and old flannel shirts sticking out of their flies?

So I'll state for the record that one of the considerations I have in buying a camera is the design and appearance. I spend a lot of time with this thing in my hand and yes, it's part of my persona like my boots, watch, and favorite wool coat. When I'm on a paying job, I want my appearance and the appearance of my equipment to look serious, professional, and like it was designed by somebody who had an idea or two rolling around in their heads. And yeah, I want it to work well as a tool. They're both essential to a good camera, in my opinion. To say otherwise is to discount the important role of the industrial designer.

If there are any Danes on the forum, I'd love for you to speak up on this matter. In my time in Denmark I rarely saw anything for sale that didn't have some thoughtful design behind it.

[dreilly]

http://2.s.img-dpreview.com/files/news/0516381232/digilux1-01.jpg?v=1322



You know, this reminds me of Destro.

And not much reminds me of Destro. But I think that's my deep-seeded hostility towards cameras that mix silver and black metal together.

[nighstar]

the camera doesn't look ugly to me..... odd, maybe, but ugly? no.

and besides, it's the photos it takes that matter.

[Taipei-metro]

I need to upgrade my ★ist DL
It won't be this 01.
K-01, sounds like a Hoya filter.
This one is still Pentax
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxkr/images/intro.jpg
Fits my hand.

[n5jrn]

As a result, the camera is just as big as an SLR, which erases the primary advantage of going mirror-less.


That's the main reason I thought the concept of making such a camera (EVIL, but to take SLR lenses) a bit odd and in fact doubted the veracity of the early rumors about such a beast.

[Corto]

Of course design and appearance matters. Do you dress up for an interview? Do you shave before a date? Would the Marines be taken as seriously if they walked around with dull swords and old flannel shirts sticking out of their flies?

I have No Idea what Field you work in, But In the years I spent as a AV pro NOBODY gave a rats ass about what the Equipment looked like.

[lynnb]

I've figured it out. That thing sticking up between the lens mount and the grip is an oil filler cap. I hope it uses 100% synthetic.
I'm glad Ricoh bought Pentax. If this body proves unpopular, at least there are significant financial resources to mitigate any blips in revenue.
There are some really ugly cameras out there that have excellent IQ.

[Johann Espiritu]

You know, this reminds me of Destro.

Hahaha! You're right, it does resemble him a bit. So what camera would be the Baroness?

[Benjamin Oliver]

Maybe it's designed like that so that they can put a mechanism in the moves the sensor relative to the lens mount. You can then put any lens on it. . . . . Doubt it though

[CK Dexter Haven]

I have No Idea what Field you work in, But In the years I spent as a AV pro NOBODY gave a rats ass about what the Equipment looked like.

Thing is, this isn't an Equalizer you can stick into a 1u rack space and forget about. I'm like the Dane. Anything i have to live with, wear, and/or use on a daily basis has to be designed to a certain standard.

While i certainly 'get' that some people feel tools are tools and pants are pants and cars are cars... i'm not one of those people. I don't want to be the type who is proud of a stunted aesthetic sensibility. Frankly, i'm always a bit surprised when someone who is supposedly involved in aesthetic pursuits (photography) somehow limits their aesthetic interests when it comes to industrial design.

My "field," at present, is graphic design. In the years i've spent in my field, EVERYONE gives a rats ass what the equipment looks like. It's probably why Macs are the industry standard. Conversely, i would never think to ask an AV Pro for design/fashion/decor advice. :)

[CK Dexter Haven]

This is truly the work of the devil.http://cdn.slashgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/pentax-529x500.png

[Disaster_Area]

Hahaha! You're right, it does resemble him a bit. So what camera would be the Baroness?

Why... a black Fuji Klasse of course :) Sleek and sexy, with a touch of klass ;)

http://mainlinephoto.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/klasse-w-black.jpg?w=500&h=290

[dreilly]

Nice one! The Baroness always had Klasse. Too bad about the company she kept. Though there was the good Baroness in the alternative dimension. In that dimension right now, people on fora are decrying the ugliness of the X-1 Pro and lauding the new Pentax as the best camera design since the M3.

[Corto]

Thing is, this isn't an Equalizer you can stick into a 1u rack space and forget about. I'm like the Dane. Anything i have to live with, wear, and/or use on a daily basis has to be designed to a certain standard.

While i certainly 'get' that some people feel tools are tools and pants are pants and cars are cars... i'm not one of those people. I don't want to be the type who is proud of a stunted aesthetic sensibility. Frankly, i'm always a bit surprised when someone who is supposedly involved in aesthetic pursuits (photography) somehow limits their aesthetic interests when it comes to industrial design.

My "field," at present, is graphic design. In the years i've spent in my field, EVERYONE gives a rats ass what the equipment looks like. It's probably why Macs are the industry standard. Conversely, i would never think to ask an AV Pro for design/fashion/decor advice. :)

Interesting, I took a degree from NYU in graphic design after I was Injured on the Job.

And maybe you Should ask a Staging/Lighting/A/V pro for Advice on interior design, After all they do manage to turn a pigs ear in to a silk purse on a daily basis.

This was in the day when you could still get Apple clones, (Umax etc...)

Trust me, there where a lot of them in use in NYC at the time before Apple pulled the plug. Apparently the Easy Access cases of these clones appealed to a large crowd of Mac OS users.

I Honestly dont know where you get it from that Designers need their tools to look as good as their end product.

And that goes for any Field. Functionality comes first.

[ChrisN]

It takes its styling clues from the earlier Pentax MZ series. Pentax is nothing if not guided by its own history.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4d/Pentax_MZ-5n_K7NS1901.jpg/512px-Pentax_MZ-5n_K7NS1901.jpg (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3APentax_MZ-5n_K7NS1901.jpg)
Pentax MZ-5n K7NS1901 (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3APentax_MZ-5n_K7NS1901.jpg) [Public domain], by Nick4Penta (Own work), from Wikimedia Commons

[djcphoto]

No surprise here. The last good looking Pentax was the MX...

[Disaster_Area]

And that goes for any Field. Functionality comes first.


True, but looks can run a close second many times. As a previous poster said, it sometimes literally pays to look professional.

I was recently hired to shoot a wedding reception in a documentary/candid style, all black and white, nothing posed and was contacted because the client loved my street photography and found me through Flickr. When I met the client for a coffee to discuss the terms, I had my Nex 3 with me. After talking for a while, she said "Oh, I see you brought a little point and shoot with you, do you always carry a camera? What would you be shooting the wedding with?" When I told her at least part of my shooting would be done with the Nex, she gave me a very confused and worried look... I had to re-talk a customer into my services who had originally talked herself into hiring me. It was actually very difficult to explain that a tiny camera like the NEX is capable of professional results, in fact most of the photos she loved from my Flickr were taken with it.

If mirror-less is the way of the future , Fuji's the only camera manufacturer that's realized that if they want serious pros to even consider replacing their DSLR's with mirrorless cameras, they're going to have to make professional looking cameras. Clients have a to varying degree an abstract idea of what a "professional" camera should look like... anything that doesn't fit that mental picture is going to make you look less professional than the next guy.

[Corto]

Sure man, But in your case it has nothing to do how well it was designed, Your client obviously wanted to see a BIG, Complicated looking thing.

[chris00nj]

How about the quality of the picture that it takes? Does anyone care about that? S


I'm sure the quality of the images will be rather competitive with other mirror-less offerings or the K-5.

When deciding on a camera, other variables like size and ergonomics come into play.

[Zarkon]

Ugly: who cares, what is the image quality? Can we use any of the 10 million lenses made for it? Is that penta hump for a future EVF or does it have one?

Size: K-01-12.1cm wide x 7.9cm high x 5.9 cm deep; K-5-131 x 97 x 73 mm, so smaller. Sony NEX-7-119.9 x 66.9 x 42.8 mm. Surprisingly, it isn't too much deeper than the NEX-7.

Same sensor as the K5 and Pentax rendering - meaning awesome image quality. Compatible with all K mount lenses. I am just hoping for an EVF.

[f6andBthere]

No surprise here. The last good looking Pentax was the MX...


I'd dispute that ... the 67ii has a real presence IMO. And not just because of it's size. :)

[gavinlg]

Of course design and appearance matters. Do you dress up for an interview? Do you shave before a date? Would the Marines be taken as seriously if they walked around with dull swords and old flannel shirts sticking out of their flies?

So I'll state for the record that one of the considerations I have in buying a camera is the design and appearance. I spend a lot of time with this thing in my hand and yes, it's part of my persona like my boots, watch, and favorite wool coat. When I'm on a paying job, I want my appearance and the appearance of my equipment to look serious, professional, and like it was designed by somebody who had an idea or two rolling around in their heads. And yeah, I want it to work well as a tool. They're both essential to a good camera, in my opinion. To say otherwise is to discount the important role of the industrial designer.

If there are any Danes on the forum, I'd love for you to speak up on this matter. In my time in Denmark I rarely saw anything for sale that didn't have some thoughtful design behind it.

Amen. Aesthetic design and functional design should blend seamlessly into one experience. I want to admire my tools - I want them to be as beautiful as they are effective.

The problem is that there is some sort of weird socially based belief that one must be either good looking or intelligent/functional, and you can't be both at the same time. Bull****. Cameras like the leica M, the Nikon F/Canon 1 and hasselblads are living proof that something can be functional and aesthetically all at once.

[Spotmatic]

That 40mm XS lens kills the looks of the camera, IMHO. It's probably the smallest lens ever made, but the camera looks much nicer with a classic lens on it, a 50mm f/1.4 (photoshopped by a nice fellow Pentaxian):

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac288/benjicon/pentax-k01-preview-betterLooking.jpg

That changes it completely, eh? And it seems from the leaked specs that it features a focus peaking function. So good to use with MF lenses!

[jsrockit]

first that butt-ugly Canon aps-c release...

Canon APS-C that isn't a DSLR... where?

[jsrockit]

And you will be happy to pay extra for the empty space where the mirror used to be.

What the heck is in the water over there at Pentax?

Isn't it about half the price of the K-5?

[mugent]

I grew up on Pentax, I was hoping for something really good, but this is a fairly decent size balls up, the pentahump is just there for show with no EVF, and seemingly, not even the option for one. A Pentax K module for the GXR would of made much more sense, then bring out a GXR with integrated EVF, both M and K users would be happy.

The two tone thing is horrible, if they'd stuck with one colour, it might have had some quirky good looks to it, like the Pentax Q, which I can't help being drawn to.

[Mudman]

I like it in Black and white.

http://c758710.r10.cf2.rackcdn.com/img/products/872_1327954973_K01_White_3QView_large.jpg

[batterytypehah!]

So I'm waking up to find out that this nausea-inducing monstrosity is indeed official. Get all the specs over at Pentax forums. http://www.pentaxforums.com/news/pentax-k-01-officially-announced.html

Start your run on K-mount wides now.

[f6andBthere]

Woo hoo!

http://www.pentaxforums.com/content/uploads/files/1/p390/medium/K01_B_Y%20%5B1600x1200-2%5D.jpg

[al1966]

Woo hoo!

Sorry than looks even more wrong wrong wrong and the colour makes me think of a child's vomit. Besides what is the point of a mirror less that is not much smaller than a DSLR?

[mabelsound]

The astonishing thing to me about this isn't that it's ugly--though I agree with the majority here that it's a highly unbalanced, unappealing design--but that it doesn't have any kind of viewfinder. The chunkiness is inevitable due to the registration distance, but it would have been quite reasonable to include an EVF. For that matter, there have been beautiful chunky cameras--the DMC-L1 for instance.

I think the MZ period was a design low point for Pentax and it's a shame they're referring to it here. The K-5, on the other hand, is really nice looking--straightforward and compact.

I'm more impressed with what Olympus seems to be doing, taking design cues from the OM-4ti for their new camera, and including an EVF.

[f6andBthere]

The top view is interesting ... to say the least! (I'm biting my tongue here!)

http://www.pentaxforums.com/content/uploads/files/1/p390/medium/K01_S_B_b0%20%5B1600x1200-2%5D.jpg

Gulp ... there appears to be an HDR setting! :eek:

[btgc]

Rear view: straight surface without rest for a thumb. Just like on $80 digicam.
Thumbwheel, laid into top cover catches attention but how practical it is?

"A K-5 with no mirror at half the price" - so K-5 has damn expensive mirror :D

[jsrockit]

I don't really understand all the negativity, but then I like the Q design. However I still do not see a link from Pentax, did you find one?

http://www.pentax.jp/english/products/index.html

http://www.pentaximaging.com/hybrid

[batterytypehah!]

I don't really understand all the negativity, but then I like the Q design. However I still do not see a link from Pentax, did you find one?

http://www.pentax.jp/english/products/index.html

No but Pentax forums is official enough for me.

The news release only went live at 7 EST this morning, by the way.

EDIT: Ah, never mind. Thanks jsrockit.

[robbieduncan]

Canon APS-C that isn't a DSLR... where?

Powershot G1 X
http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/compacts/canon_g1x

[jsrockit]

Powershot G1 X
http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/compacts/canon_g1x

That's not APS-C...

[f6andBthere]

It looks like something the Lomo crowd would be pushing!

I've defended this thing to this point but I now have to say Pentax have done themselves a huge disservice here! :o

[mabelsound]

The top view is interesting ... to say the least! (I'm biting my tongue here!)

http://www.pentaxforums.com/content/uploads/files/1/p390/medium/K01_S_B_b0%20%5B1600x1200-2%5D.jpg

Gulp ... there appears to be an HDR setting! :eek:

http://2.s.img-dpreview.com/files/news/1431940017/leicadigilux2-top.jpg

[jsrockit]

I think I'd rather have the DSLR version... and that's rare for me to say that.

[batterytypehah!]

Well at least I'm finally getting an avatar out of this thing. Perfectly sums up my reaction.

[btgc]

I think On/Off switch is messed up - if they'd put grooved nose towards front, letting it hang over edge it would be one-hand operation (index finger). Now one will need to rest camera on one palm and use another hand to move lever. I doubt it's thumb operable because of dimensions and small grip. Probably I'm wrong...

[raid]

Compare this ugly dog to the elegant LX. Too bad that Pentax has slipped into a pit.

[f6andBthere]

Thanks! I also notice dpreview is hosting it.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/02/Pentax_K-01_announcement#press

I like the design, it is a breath of fresh air to me, design-wise.


Seriously ... you need help Fred!

It has all the style of a wash machine! :D

[kshapero]

no vf=no buy

just my opinion, but at this stage of mirrorless cam development, lack of vf means manufacturer is just not 'serious'. ugly is ok, but impractical is not.
Don't these manufacturers know by now that we want a built in EVF. At least Nikon got that right.

[jsrockit]

Don't these manufacturers know by now that we want a built in EVF.

Nope, because the snapshot consumers seem to actually like LCDs... you can always tell when camera companies aren't putting out a serious product made for photographers.... by the lack of VF.

[btgc]

LCD in bright light? Not a problem anymore!

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4120/4889226812_778e598331_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/17767363@N00/4889226812/)
Photographer's assistant (http://www.flickr.com/photos/17767363@N00/4889226812/) by mm35exp36 (http://www.flickr.com/people/17767363@N00/), on Flickr

[jbielikowski]

http://i1.kwejk.pl/site_media/obrazki/2012/01/d55470759077ccb6dbd04465d098784d.gif?1327691037

yeah, its ugly. ;)

[Jamie123]

I'm usually quite open-minded about new designs but this is really ridiculous. It's just awful and I'd be seriously surprised if it had even modest success.

What's funny is that they seem to be targeting the "fashion and design market": http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2143551/pentax-unveils-compact-01-mirrorless-camera

What the guy is saying is basically, yes, they know it's got no advantages over a DSLR and that it's design is the main selling point. Good luck with that.

[Travis L.]

hmmmm..

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t27/lewisaurus/pce115575.jpg

[nightfly]

Another take:

"Designed by Marc Newson, the K-01 from Pentax is the most photogenic camera I've seen in awhile. Until now, the design-driven segment of mid to high-end cameras has been dominated by vintage-inspired units like the gorgeous Fuji X Series. Newson's signature style distinguishes the K-01 from the rest with a design that's simultaneously modern, classic and timeless...."

http://www.coolhunting.com/tech/pentax-k-01.php

[celluloidprop]

It's ugly as sin, but looks are tertiary to ability. I don't get the point of a mirrorless that's not designed to take full advantage of what mirrorless can offer - smaller bodies, smaller lenses, usability with third-party lenses, etc..

[thirtyfivefifty]

http://photorumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Pentax-K-01-system.jpeg

Doesn't look so bad in silver or yellow. Just change out the strap.
Not that I plan to buy one...

[Paddy C]

Realized that it makes me think of Fisher-Price. Looks just like a camera for kids.

Regarding the Coolhunting praise...I have to ask, if this had been designed in-house by Pentax and, therefore, didn't have a prestigious designer's name attached to it, would Coolhunting (and the like) think it so great?

[rolleistef]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlRoRm8Ls7E

Interview with Mr Newson.
"How would you describe it?" "It really isn't a toy, it is a semi-professional camera". Err...

[CK Dexter Haven]

Interesting, I took a degree from NYU in graphic design after I was Injured on the Job.

And maybe you Should ask a Staging/Lighting/A/V pro for Advice on interior design, After all they do manage to turn a pigs ear in to a silk purse on a daily basis.

This was in the day when you could still get Apple clones, (Umax etc...)

Trust me, there where a lot of them in use in NYC at the time before Apple pulled the plug. Apparently the Easy Access cases of these clones appealed to a large crowd of Mac OS users.

I Honestly dont know where you get it from that Designers need their tools to look as good as their end product.

And that goes for any Field. Functionality comes first.

I would never ask a grip or AV Pro for advice on interior design. Never. I'm pretty sure there's a huge divide between knowing how to light or mic something versus design something. Grips are not Set Designers. And vice versa. I used to be involved in music production - i know some people. I've been around those people. I'm in advertising now, and know some people. They are the last people i'd want to have anything to do with design. We are generalizing here, of course.

I didn't say designers NEED their products to look as good as their end product. The word is WANT.

And, i will dispute your claim that "functionality comes first" in any field. Simply not true. That's why there is a Fashion Industry. It's how they can sell jeans for $300 and suits for $3000. It's why there's an auto industry that can sell a Ferrari/Maybach/Bentley when a Hyundai can get you there in exactly the same amount of time, and probably with more reliability. It's why there's an Art World, when art serves no practical function.

You're going to have to face some facts. Chief among them is that THE EXPERIENCE is a critical factor with a great number of consumers. And the experience encompasses aesthetics and design. The next fact is that this camera is butt-ugly. I'm sorry.

Does it matter? Depends on who you ask. I used to shoot fashion when the Pentax 67 was The Camera. I hated the design of that beast. The "II" came along and fixed some of the issues. But, i still had an older model dedicated to a Polaroid back, and every time i had to pick it up, there was a 'shock to the system.' I exaggerate. A little. I am sensitive to sensual and aesthetic matters, sure. But, i'm not that unique.

[btgc]

No one has mentioned battery life or hot shoe on lens axis - just grinding and grinding on how it looks. For lovers of beauty there are iphones and other istuff. Give chance to damn thing, don't bury it before someone has got hands on it. And why everyone is obsessed with idea mirror-less camera should be tiny?

[CK Dexter Haven]

I'm sure the quality of the images will be rather competitive with other mirror-less offerings or the K-5.

When deciding on a camera, other variables like size and ergonomics come into play.

Agreed.
Does anyone believe that if the Leica M series looked like this, it would still have the same number of devotees and level of fanaticism? Granted, this is 'digital,' and no one expects these 'devices' to be similarly 'classic' and longlasting....

Someone here or elsewhere opined that 'real photographers' don't care what the cameras they use look like. But, i can't think of any real photographers who used/were dedicated to significantly ugly gear during/throughout their careers. The ugliest super popular camera i can think of is the Pentax 67, and it isn't even that bad. It's just sorta 'primitive' and inelegant. I think, when there were fewer cameras/camera companies putting out pro-level stuff, there was a higher standard. Rollei, Contax, Leica, Nikon, and later, Canon.... They all had their stinkers, but the stinkers never defined a trend or became the launching point for a series.

[jsrockit]

Give chance to damn thing, don't bury it before someone has got hands on it. And why everyone is obsessed with idea mirror-less camera should be tiny?

The whole point of mirrorless cameras was to make them smaller so you'll be more likely to carry it with you... they were made in reaction to DSLRs and their huge size (mostly).

[gavinlg]

The top view is interesting ... to say the least! (I'm biting my tongue here!)

http://www.pentaxforums.com/content/uploads/files/1/p390/medium/K01_S_B_b0%20%5B1600x1200-2%5D.jpg

Gulp ... there appears to be an HDR setting! :eek:

Oh wow..

Pentax remember your spotmatics? And the MX? And the beautiful LX?
This camera just doesn't fit. It looks like something GE or some obscure chinese electronics company would build. What happened to ergonomic design?
I'd hate to be a pentax rep at an imaging show trying to sell one of these things. At least with the (slightly less hideous) Pentax Q you can show how tiny it is. With this - I can't really see any advantages.

[peterm1]

Pentax do a great line in bad taste, but then again whats the old saying - "No one ever went broke by under estimating the taste of the public."

[rolleistef]

Wasn't there a film called "the Blob"?

[gavinlg]

http://3.s.img-dpreview.com/files/news/4846894009/side-by-side4.jpg?v=1322

http://1.s.img-dpreview.com/files/news/4846894009/side-by-sideRr.jpg?v=1322

[shadowfox]

Thing is, this isn't an Equalizer you can stick into a 1u rack space and forget about. I'm like the Dane. Anything i have to live with, wear, and/or use on a daily basis has to be designed to a certain standard.


Even some 1u rack space devices are designed to please the eye. :)
http://chrysalis.rutgers.edu/hardware/chrys-arc.jpg

The whole "only picture quality matters" only holds water if you only see pictures and never use a camera.

[shadowfox]

Oh wow..

Pentax remember your spotmatics? And the MX? And the beautiful LX?
This camera just doesn't fit. It looks like something GE or some obscure chinese electronics company would build. What happened to ergonomic design?


Gavin, you forgot one important name in unergonomic design hall of fame: A r g u s

[Teuthida]

Still less ugly than an M5. ;)

You are insane. The M5 is the best M Camera ever produced.;)

[Jamie123]

The camera functions are really what is more interesting, rather than focussing on the camera's departure from the me-too, or retro, designs produced by most camera designers.

Actually, if you look at the BJP link I posted, you'll find that the Pentax UK spokesperson specifically states that it's really the design that's important here, not the functions (as it really offers no advantages over a DSLR). So it's not entirely unfair of people to focus their criticism on the design.

Also, everyone's entitled to their opinion and everyone has their own taste but I certainly don't think that the fact alone that it's a departure from the "me-too or retro designs produced by most camera designers" makes it a successful design. Doing something different is very easy. You can make a camera that camouflages as a turd and it would certainly be different and unusual. Doing something different that's good is the hard part. Pentax, it seems, has chosen to do the former. :)

[f6andBthere]

The comparison made earlier to the Digilux is all very well but really ... they are chalk and cheese. The Leica, inspite of the chunky design, has some form/elegance and looks quite good IMO. The Pentax doesn't seem to look right or even close to right from any angle!

It's a turd ... and if it is actually a sales success it'll only be because they're offering a lifetime supply of polish with each unit sold!

http://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/digitalslr/Digilux_3_top.jpg

[charjohncarter]

Actually, if you look at the BJP link I posted, you'll find that the Pentax UK spokesperson specifically states that it's really the design that's important here, not the functions (as it really offers no advantages over a DSLR). So it's not entirely unfair of people to focus their criticism on the design.

Also, everyone's entitled to their opinion and everyone has their own taste but I certainly don't think that the fact alone that it's a departure from the "me-too or retro designs produced by most camera designers" makes it a successful design. Doing something different is very easy. You can make a camera that camouflages as a turd and it would certainly be different and unusual. Doing something different that's good is the hard part. Pentax, it seems, has chosen to do the former. :)


I don't get it, it is smaller, it is cheaper, and it has M, Av, Tv which is all I want. It is new and very different for a digital camera, still give me a reason why I wouldn't buy one over a DSLR. I've had many SLRs and two DSLRs; they are 'foxtrot-ing' pains in the rectal area.

[f6andBthere]

Interesting to go over to the Pentax forum for a looksee ... they have a forum dedicated to the camera and heaps of posts/threads praising it.

But it is the 'Pentax' forum I guess! :D

We tend to look at everything here from our own point of interest based on the cameras we like ... there's obviously a world of people out there who think differently to us. Who would have thought that? :D

[ChrisPlatt]

The more you guys kvetch the more I like it.

Chris

[f6andBthere]

All the people who went out and bought and loved (guilty here) those boxy Volvos from the seventies and eighties will want one for sure! :p

[charjohncarter]

All the people who went out and bought and loved (guilty here) those boxy Volvos from the seventies and eighties will want one for sure! :p

No, I want one of these:

http://wikoshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Canon-G12-1.jpg


It looks really like bitching.

[Archlich]

The comparison made earlier to the Digilux is all very well but really ... they are chalk and cheese. The Leica, inspite of the chunky design, has some form/elegance and looks quite good IMO. The Pentax doesn't seem to look right or even close to right from any angle!

It's a turd ... and if it is actually a sales success it'll only be because they're offering a lifetime supply of polish with each unit sold!

http://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/digitalslr/Digilux_3_top.jpg

I specified Digilux 1...which is like the Argus C3 reborn.

[f6andBthere]

I specified Digilux 1...which is like the Argus C3 reborn.


Even that oddball looks better than the Pentax IMO! :D

[willie_901]

Well that was fun.

[benlees]

All the people who went out and bought and loved (guilty here) those boxy Volvos from the seventies and eighties will want one for sure! :p


No need to drag us through the mud. The first gen. Datsun 510 (Bluebird) is my favourite car of all!

[Pablito]

How about the quality of the picture that it takes? Does anyone care about that? S

That's up to the photographer! :D

[f6andBthere]

No need to drag us through the mud. The first gen. Datsun 510 (Bluebird) is my favourite car of all!


Seriously ... they were a great car. I can see why you like them! :)

[PhotoMat]

I'm sure that there are some who will like the color scheme.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7165/6810550767_f55af350f9.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/30260450@N02/6810550767/)

[Jamie123]

I don't get it, it is smaller, it is cheaper, and it has M, Av, Tv which is all I want. It is new and very different for a digital camera, still give me a reason why I wouldn't buy one over a DSLR. I've had many SLRs and two DSLRs; they are 'foxtrot-ing' pains in the rectal area.

If you look at the comparison picture posted by gavinlg it looks like it's only marginally smaller than a DSLR and it uses the exact same lenses. And at almost the same size it doesn't have a viewfinder. I guess it's just not clear why someone who doesn't like DSLRs would like this one.

[Spyro]

pointless mirrorless

Actually I dont mind the design so much, just the pointlessness.
I bet it will become very popular for its looks in certain crowds.

[mugent]

It's design is actually starting to grow on me, it's still a big ugly, but at least it's different, rather just another black blob. What frustrates me, is that had they given it a decent EVF, then it would be great, but as it is, it seems a few years behind everyone else.

[Paul T.]

Looking at the first photo, I disliked it, it looked toy-like. It made me think of some of Newson's designs that have dated. But looking at more photos, I reckon first impressions were deceiving. It's pretty minimal, simple, and works for me.

Unfortunately I tried the 60mm view for six months with my R-D1 and hated it.

[Paul T.]

Here is Newson's Ford... I like it, so there!

http://www.yatzer.com/assets/Article/1930/images/FORD-012C-by-Marc-Newson_yatzer_4.jpg

[j j]

Several people here spending an awful lot of time slating a camera they know little about, care nothing for and have no wish to buy. There are plenty of forums for bitching about cameras from a position of ignorance. Check them out. You'll love them.

Meanwhile we have a camera with one of the best sensors yet developed that can natively mount more lenses than any other camera ever produced. Sounds good to me.

[Chyn]

The design has started to grow on me as well. Now it's just a matter of waiting for actual images and videos as well as user reports over ergonomics.

It's fascinating seeing that the K-01 kit is basically my old DSLR setup of choice (before moving to rangefinders), consisted of the *istDS and the DA40. I bet it's more or less the same shape, just with an even better sensor, in-body lens stabilization, and sans mirror.

[Spyro]

What frustrates me, is that had they given it a decent EVF, then it would be great, but as it is, it seems a few years behind everyone else.

so basically a k5 with an EVF instead of an OVF plus some funky colours.

...why?

[btgc]

so basically a k5 with an EVF instead of an OVF plus some funky colours.

...why?

K-5 - $1,349.00with 18-55mm lens
k-01 - around $749 body-only and $899 with the 'XS' version of the 40mm lens

[Spyro]

K-5 - $1,349.00with 18-55mm lens
k-01 - around $749 body-only and $899 with the 'XS' version of the 40mm lens



it wouldnt be $749 if it had an evf built in.

and come to think of it the k5 has all those pro features like weather sealing so I guess a k-r or something would probably be a better comparison.

[Trius]

They really went to town on this with the ugly stick.

"It fell out of an ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down."

[btgc]

it wouldnt be $749 if it had an evf built in.


But you don't expect a cup of espresso to be priced around same as a hot water and spoon of ground coffee?

[mugent]

so basically a k5 with an EVF instead of an OVF plus some funky colours.

...why?

Exactly, focus peaking. The SLR style of focusing is not foolproof, calibration errors are really problematic, if you are using AF lenses, fine, but if not, it can cause trouble.

[rbiemer]

"Ugliest camera ever"? Nope. Not even close.
I sort of want to see this offered in the color combinations that Pentax offered for the K-x in Japan...
Rob

[Jamie123]

Why? I suppose the responses are predictable?

It is interesting to note the true feelings toward the more experimental Leica designs like the Digilux series. No interesting discussion about UK and post war German industrial design [history], or camera development -- just pub-style male trash talk. Boring.

Why? Because you're acting miffed all because I mentioned the word 'turd' in a joke about a camera.
And only the last sentence was a joke. The rest was quite serious. I said that being new and different is not enough to make something good.

And sure, you can discuss UK and post war German industrial design history but the fact is that product design is usually aimed to please consumers (at least a good part of them) so design history is a bit beside the point if we judge whether or not it looks good. Jony Ive's team designs products that seem to please a lot of people who have no awareness whatsoever for the history of design.

For what it's worth, I have a lot of friends working in graphic design (mostly English and Swiss) and I can't imagine this camera appealing to any of them. I'll ask them, though.

Of course it really just comes down to taste. Personally I find the Digilux design somewhat appealing but I can't say the same about this Pentax. Did they take a risk with the design? Sure. But IMO they failed.

[Paul T.]

Why? I suppose the responses are predictable?

It is interesting to note the true feelings toward the more experimental Leica designs like the Digilux series. No interesting discussion about UK and post war German industrial design [history], or camera development -- just pub-style male trash talk. Boring.

"I don't like it so it must be bad."

next it will be "modern art is rubbish."

[batterytypehah!]

Meanwhile we have a camera with one of the best sensors yet developed that can natively mount more lenses than any other camera ever produced. Sounds good to me.

Natively, but I don't see the significance. It has the K mount lens register so you can mount anything that's 45.46mm or longer. Which leaves out Canon, Minolta, Konica, and every type of RF lens. I'll take a NEX plus adapter any time.

[j j]

The significance is usability. AF lenses that AF. No fiddling with adapters and shims. Infinity focus assured. Contact between lens and camera. Thousands of K mount lenses and plenty of good ones at reasonable prices. Of course, these may not be concerns for you and some people like the DIY approach, but this camera is not limited in the lens choice department.

[charjohncarter]

If you look at the comparison picture posted by gavinlg it looks like it's only marginally smaller than a DSLR and it uses the exact same lenses. And at almost the same size it doesn't have a viewfinder. I guess it's just not clear why someone who doesn't like DSLRs would like this one.

Even a little bit smaller than a DSLR is worth plenty for me.

[batterytypehah!]

Of course, these may not be concerns for you and some people like the DIY approach, but this camera is not limited in the lens choice department.

I just explained that I do find the choices very limited, and I don't know what's "DIY" about a commercially made adapter. Different priorities, I guess.

[Jamie123]

Even a little bit smaller than a DSLR is worth plenty for me.

I understand that but then I would assume that a lot smaller is worth even more for you which would certainly make other mirrorless cameras a more obvious choice.
But I'm really not trying to change anyone's mind here, just wondering what market segment the camera is aimed at. They say it's aimed at 'design and fashion' people but then I don't really know why these people would be particularly invested in the K-mount.

[nightfly]

The looks are growing on me.

Look at what we've got:

1) Mirrorless for whatever that's worth
2) APS-C Sensor
3) Compatibility with a ton of lenses
4) $750 body only

Really that's not too bad. $1000 cheaper than the Fuji X-1 with way more lenses. Not quite as elegant but really not that bad. And K-mounts are generally pretty small lenses relative to most DSLR lenses.

I'm not in the market but if I were I'd probably consider this over an m4/3 and probably the Fuji offerings just due to price.

I think some sort of flip out or rotating screen would have made it a lot more appealing for not much more cost from Pentax's standpoint.

[jsrockit]

Here is Newson's Ford... I like it, so there!

http://www.yatzer.com/assets/Article/1930/images/FORD-012C-by-Marc-Newson_yatzer_4.jpg

I like that too...

[Paul T.]

I took the girlfriend to Coast, a swish Mayfair restaurant designed by Newson for one of her birthdays in the mid 90s.

I reckon, accounting for inflation, the bill for a average-to-decent meal, wasn't far off the price of the K-01. On that basis, it's a bargain!!!

[batterytypehah!]

The looks are growing on me.

Look at what we've got:

1) Mirrorless for whatever that's worth
2) APS-C Sensor
3) Compatibility with a ton of lenses
4) $750 body only

Really that's not too bad. $1000 cheaper than the Fuji X-1 with way more lenses. Not quite as elegant but really not that bad. And K-mounts are generally pretty small lenses relative to most DSLR lenses.

I'm not in the market but if I were I'd probably consider this over an m4/3 and probably the Fuji offerings just due to price.

I think some sort of flip out or rotating screen would have made it a lot more appealing for not much more cost from Pentax's standpoint.
Why does everybody assume this is meant to compete with the X-Pro? I really don't see that at all. Pentax needs to have their eyes on the NEX-5, first and foremost, and they're not winning with this thing.

And of course, lens adapters will appear for the Fuji.

[nightfly]

To me this makes more sense than the Sony tiny body/giant lenses approach and it actually appears to have controls that aren't on a touchscreen which puts it into the Fuji realm rather than the Sony one.

But I just don't get the Sony or the whole adapted lenses appeal.

100s of K Mounts ready to go seems like a much better approach.

[batterytypehah!]

^ OK, valid point about the touch screen.

However, with the same lens mounted, the K-01 is always going to be about the same size as the NEX (haven't looked up specs but you can't get around those 45.46mm of air, whether it's in the body or an adapter). Yet the NEX can be made much smaller if you go for RF lenses.

K-01 makes sense if you're invested in AF lenses. If your legacy glass is MF, all it does is lock you out of other mounts.

[eckhardf]

In general I like the design - refreshing and very "clean". It looks simple when compared to the K5 and I imagine a lot of novice camera users would find it more appealing than traditional dslr controls because of this.

I am wondering whether the GUI (Graphic User Interface) has also been "designed" to match the theme of the camera? I would hope so, to make for a total user experience, and I would imagine that Newson would not overlook this detail and insist on the appropriate changes and "look".

My real issues with the camera are functional - no eye level view finder, rubber memory card cover etc..

Cheers.

eck.

[charjohncarter]

I understand that but then I would assume that a lot smaller is worth even more for you which would certainly make other mirrorless cameras a more obvious choice.
But I'm really not trying to change anyone's mind here, just wondering what market segment the camera is aimed at. They say it's aimed at 'design and fashion' people but then I don't really know why these people would be particularly invested in the K-mount.

I guess I'm not a 'design and fashion' person, but I like the concept. Maybe, you will see an in fitting adapter so you can use your LTM lens and maybe even M mount (plus maybe as the K mount registry is shorter than most SLRs adapters for all kinds of other lenses). I personally like the idea of a fairly high image quality digital almost P&S that is smaller than a DSLR. That also has M, Av, Tv settings.

[batterytypehah!]

Maybe, you will see an in fitting adapter so you can use your LTM lens and maybe even M mount

I don't see how that would work. You'll have the same choice of adapters you have now; the K mount has been around long enough that it's all been tried, I would assume.

(plus maybe as the K mount registry is shorter than most SLRs adapters for all kinds of other lenses)

Many, not most. PK is kind of in the middle. Konica, Canon, Minolta are shorter, so can not be adapted. Nikon, OM and Leica R are longer.

[gburger]

I got to play with one earlier this week. It is also very heavy. Not sure how many they will sell.

[Ronald_H]

The appeal of mirrorless cameras is also about the versatility. I love the fact that my NEX-3 can mount every 35mm lens I own (with adapters). Of course I have no AF and electronic coupling but as it turns out, I hardly use the kit lens anymore. The Pentax brings a top sensor to the table with in body stabilisation, something the NEX cameras don't have.

It makes a lot of sense to make it K mount compatible, but I see no way it could mount for example M lenses. And I would have liked an EVF.

[jsrockit]

I heard the menu was definitely simpler (vs. the K-5).

[Matus]

It may take great photos. I do realize that. But other than that it is just an DSLR without mirror and without viewfinder. Similar size and weight.

It may look strange - from the top a bit like GXR actually. I do not care much about that - all matters is how it sits in hand and how it operates.

True is - Pentax users wanted badly a mirror-less camera for their K-mount lenses (and wanted AF of course). So finally they get one.

Pentax is probably not strong enough (market wise) to bring out mirror-less camera with is own lenses. And they probably needed something fast - to keep foot in the door. Fair enough.

Of course - a K-mount for GXR could have been introduced, but it would most probably not deliver AF functionality. Only such a thing out there is the AF adapter for NEX cameras - and it is large of course.

I am MUCH more curios about the OM-D from Olympus that should be just around the corner ...

[gavinlg]

They say it's aimed at 'design and fashion' people but then I don't really know why these people would be particularly invested in the K-mount.

I follow a LOT of fashion stuff, including up to the second fashion blogs and style magazines, and trust me, this camera won't see the light of day in any of them, unless pentax pays for it to be there.

You'll see Leica M's, Nikon F's, even pentax spotmatics, hasselblads, x100's, but definitely not this.

[Trius]

Newsom's Ford design is a lot different than his Pentax, um, mistake. :rolleyes:

[Corto]

I would never ask a grip or AV Pro for advice on interior design. Never. I'm pretty sure there's a huge divide between knowing how to light or mic something versus design something. Grips are not Set Designers. And vice versa. I used to be involved in music production - i know some people. I've been around those people. I'm in advertising now, and know some people. They are the last people i'd want to have anything to do with design. We are generalizing here, of course.

I didn't say designers NEED their products to look as good as their end product. The word is WANT.

And, i will dispute your claim that "functionality comes first" in any field. Simply not true. That's why there is a Fashion Industry. It's how they can sell jeans for $300 and suits for $3000. It's why there's an auto industry that can sell a Ferrari/Maybach/Bentley when a Hyundai can get you there in exactly the same amount of time, and probably with more reliability. It's why there's an Art World, when art serves no practical function.

You're going to have to face some facts. Chief among them is that THE EXPERIENCE is a critical factor with a great number of consumers. And the experience encompasses aesthetics and design. The next fact is that this camera is butt-ugly. I'm sorry.

Does it matter? Depends on who you ask. I used to shoot fashion when the Pentax 67 was The Camera. I hated the design of that beast. The "II" came along and fixed some of the issues. But, i still had an older model dedicated to a Polaroid back, and every time i had to pick it up, there was a 'shock to the system.' I exaggerate. A little. I am sensitive to sensual and aesthetic matters, sure. But, i'm not that unique.

Nothing I can say to this.

But I still think youre wrong :D

[jarski]

Am liking how they handled K-mount support, everything else in this camera turns me off, but perhaps next model? Like Sony eventually brought NEX7.

Speaking of Sony, wonder could they have done the same with old Minolta mount, instead of inventing new E-mount.

[Jamie123]

Not miffed, just don't see the point of being so shrilly dismissive, just not my way of discussing design with friends. It does not move the dialog along.

It's got nothing to do with being dismissive. I merely made a quite serious point in a joking manner, i.e. that uniqueness and departure from the mainstream cannot really be an argument for whether or not something is good. You can depart from the mainstream in two directions. One is to make things better, one is to make things worse. I personally think they made things worse. I could sort of understand the design if it was a camera made by Alessi or some similar brand but then I would still look at it as a toy.

I'd be happy to discuss the camera in the context of the history of design although I know very little about it. Here probably lies the fundemental disagreement, though. I think we should not necessarily look at design the same way we look at art. At least not when it comes to consumer products. Of course I'm not saying the two are mutually excluding and I'm certainly not saying design objects cannot be works of art or that there's not a highly artistic aspect to design. But whereas with art I can look at an object I find aesthetically unpleasing and still think it has artistic merit due to the meaning I assign to it or the relevance it has to the history of that particular medium, etc. etc, I cannot do the same with product design. I look at this camera as a consumer and I find it aesthetically unpleasing so in my eyes it's a failure. I assume that Newson set out to make something beautiful and I don't think he succeeded. I don't mind at all if others disagree just as I don't mind if others don't share my taste in women or clothes but I also don't think I should apologize for not liking something. And as much as I want to go against the current, I cannot bring myself to like something just because everyone else dislikes it.

[Ronald_H]

Actually, I don't find it all that ugly. It has a blocky, toy-like charm. And what is a BIG advantage to me, is that the uninitiated won't know what to make of it. Chances are that it will be a very competent camera. I would order one in yellow ;)

To be honest, if it had a fully supported Nikon F mount, I'd most certainly would buy it.

[btgc]

Actually, I don't find it all that ugly. It has a blocky, toy-like charm. And what is a BIG advantage to me, is that the uninitiated won't know what to make of it. Chances are that it will be a very competent camera. I would order one in yellow ;)


Very good point. There are events where so called pro cameras are not allowed (pro vs non-pro is judged by security, usually black bulky small sensor superzooms are PRO). Bring this in yellow with pancake in hand and other lens in a bag and security will just smile at you.

[Paul T.]

No, Newson set out to produce something different and distinctive. I think he succeeded. Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but something that's distinctly new, and different, can take time to appreciate.

In any case, for many of us it's the ergonomics rather than the aesthetics that kill it. Without a VF, I can't see the point, especially when Fuji and others have shown the way...

[Godfrey]

Nice or ugly, that's not that important. But 60mm eq. FOV - anyone?

Super. The 40mm lens is one of my most used lenses on APS-C format. If I still had my Pentax DA21mm and FA43mm Limited lenses, I'd buy one of these in a second. In Bumblebee coloring.

I'm quite serious. Since I'm now shooting a lot with the Ricoh GXR-M fitted with Color-Skopar 21mm f/4 and Nokton 40mm f/1.4 lenses, there's little point to going out to spend the $2000 it would cost to reacquire those two lenses and get a K-01 body. But despite the toy-like styling, I suspect this is going to be a very nice camera for a lot of uses. If you have some nice Pentax lenses, it will be a delight. It's not so different in size from the GXR, just thicker due to the requirements of the lens mount, and compared to any of my SLRs it is quite small.

Pentax K-01 vs Leica M9
http://camerasize.com/compare/#285,213

[Ronald_H]

Very good point. There are events where so called pro cameras are not allowed (pro vs non-pro is judged by security, usually black bulky small sensor superzooms are PRO). Bring this in yellow with pancake in hand and other lens in a bag and security will just smile at you.

Indeed. That's why my NEX-3 is red. Traditional Leica loving folk scoff, security guys think it is a funny P&S or that I brought my girlfriend's camera. Suits me fine, stick a fast prime on it, crank to ISO12800 and you get pictures you would not believe were possible. And please realize a few short years ago these pictures really were not possible. At all.

The pic below is very heavily post processed, but the point is that there actually IS a picture. Sony NEX-3 at ISO12800 + 2/3rds of a stop 'push' on the raw file. Nikon 85mm f1.8 wide open. Yes, manual focus.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7173/6800600755_048d2c39bf_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lookupinwonder/6800600755/)
Concert photography (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lookupinwonder/6800600755/) by Ronald_H (http://www.flickr.com/people/lookupinwonder/), on Flickr

[charjohncarter]

Size comparisons; check this:

http://camerasize.com/compare/#285,215

[jsrockit]

Size comparisons; check this:

http://camerasize.com/compare/#285,215

Better yet...http://camerasize.com/compare/#285,187

[Ronald_H]

Better yet...http://camerasize.com/compare/#285,187


It's actually smaller than a M9... Not in depth obviously, but still.

[charjohncarter]

A lot of time is spent thinking about the color of the Leica logo on the RFF and perhaps not enough on how hard it is to grip the shutter speed dial? Re the Pentax in question - I am not fond of the results.

But in the K-01's case the mode dial looks easy to grip.

[emraphoto]

indeed Fred.
perhaps Wucius needs write one on camera design?

[sevo]

To be honest, if it had a fully supported Nikon F mount, I'd most certainly would buy it.

Agreed. Indeed I'd buy any Nikon mount EVIL with D90 capabilities, but half its size.

But a native K-AF mount isn't really as attractive - the number of lenses sold to Pentax AF SLRs or DSLRs must be relatively modest by comparison. Pentax had its periods of fame (and serious recognition) much earlier on, the Pentax lovers I know generally hoard K2's or or MX/LX age cameras and lenses, where it is irrelevant whether the adapter supports AF or not - even for them, that thing will have a tough time competing with any shorter flange depth system with a K adapter.

[emraphoto]

"I don't like it so it must be bad."

next it will be "modern art is rubbish."

modern art can be rubbish, just like it can be great. there is a logic to design and ignoring it completely can result in just that, rubbish.

i know what Fred is talking about is the logic part and in doing so he raises interesting points. the core to design is the continuing progression of the thing. sometimes these cameras seem to ignore the progression part and leap straight into some sort of future that invariably doesn't quite hold with the consumers.

[ChrisPlatt]

Shocking as it may seem IMO this camera isn't intended to win over you Leica, Canon and Nikon lovers.
It is instead made for Pentax users, and owners of the millions of Pentax-K and M42 lenses out there.

Chris

[batterytypehah!]

Shocking as it may seem IMO this camera isn't intended to win over you Leica, Canon and Nikon lovers.
It is instead made for Pentax users, and owners of the millions of Pentax-K and M42 lenses out there.

Chris

Right but as sevo pointed out, Pentax was an also-ran in autofocus SLRs. Owners of MF lenses have no reason to pick this over another camera plus adapter, except for the brand logo.

It would have been a better move IMO to keep the K-01 body smaller and offer a "smart" adapter for those who want it.

[Jamie123]

I understand, but not what I am thinking. I am more interested in why this '80s SONY recorder (see attachmet) has clear colorful easy to read/see/interput controls while my home recorders are all in black, using tiny illegible fonts of unknown origin?

Questions I might ask in in this vein
1) why do amateur users see the SONY professional type design as toy-like, because of the colors?
2) Why are controls on many cameras so small and randomly placed?
3) Why are menues not designed by graphic designers?

I am interested in industrial design questions -- while many seem to ba asking what I consider fashion questions. I most likely will not be looking for my cameras in Vogue (as one poster suggested would not happen), that is a product placement discussion.

A lot of time is spent thinking about the color of the Leica logo on the RFF and perhaps not enough on how hard it is to grip the shutter speed dial?

Re the Pentax in question - I am not crazy about the results - but I see the problem in general. Of current digital camera designs only the RED SCARLET-X really appeals to me, from a purly design aspect. http://red.cachefly.net/products/scarlet/gallery/03.png

The reason why big colorful buttons are usually regarded as toy-like is probably because most toys for very young children are designed that way as they tend not to have fully developed motor skills and the colors makes it easier for them to remember what's what (as they can't read).
And the reason why most of your home recorders are all balck is probably because black goes with almost anything unlike varying shades of white which are quite difficult to match in an interior.

I do agree with a lot of your points and Pentax certainly deserves an A for effort but I still think they missed the mark. I actually don't think the buttons are what bothers me about the design. The buttons are fine. What I dislike are things like the awful "K-01" font (why go all retro in this specific aspect only and use the old ugly K?), the vertically grooved grip surface that looks like the lid of a coke bottle, the bulge below the mode selector wheel which seems to imply that there's some kind of mechanical operation with the wheel going on below the surface and last but not least the tackiness of having Marc Newson's signature on the bottom.

You say you're concerned with industrial design question and not fashion. I think the fashion aspect was introduced by Pentax UK's spokesperson when he said that this camera's main selling point was design and that they're banking on it being a success with fashion and design people.
But let's forget the term 'fashion'. I think most people in this thread who cirticise the look of camera aren't concerned with fashion either. They are concerned with beauty, though. And I always thought that thas was a very important aspect in industrial design. I don't know much about industrial design but I was always under the impression that the task designers are faced with is solving both functional and aesthetic problems at the same time. That's the hard part, isn't it? You can make something useful and ugly or something pretty and useless but I always thought the best designers were those who can make something that's both useful and beautiful.

[ully]

will ever beat out the Fed5.

[Jamie123]

I just personally despise the black consumer electronics look which dominates Sumsung (and others) design these days. Even Apple fell victim for a time, and produced black keyboards. I doubt there are many women who really want all these macho black boxes in their living rooms. :D

But white with legible fonts or even silver died with US companies like KLH years ago (http://midcenturymodernist.com/2007/furniture-objects/electronics/klh-model-twenty-plus-turntable-and-speakers/). I hold little hope for anti-black but there are those who try:

http://www.halcro.com/logic/showpic.php?pic=..%2Fproducts%2Fmca70_lg.jpg

http://www.ayre.com/7series.htm

Dwell magazine and others persist, but I think Walmart will prevail - beauty wise.

I understand where you're coming from but the simple truth is, as everyone who runs a clothing store will tell you, black always sells. Black is playing it safe and most people like to play it safe. Samsung and the likes want to sell as many devices as they can. Of course we can complain about this but then again, it makes it so much easier to set yourself apart :)
So yeah, if you look at design magazines instead of the Walmart catalogue you'll obviously find much more daring designs and a wider variety of colors but let's keep in mind that those are very expensive products with a very limited target audience. The less people you're trying to please, the more risks you can take.
But, to be honest, I think as far as playing it safe goes silver is a close second to black.


There is another case that can be made for black in consumer electronics, though. I never liked tvs in any other color than black for the simple reason that I want to be able to make the frame disappear by turning off the light. Same goes for the iPhone. The white iPhone looks nice but it just would annoying to me if I had to watch a clip with the black bars on top and below the picture and then have a white frame around it.

[Ron (Netherlands)]

There is a youtube film with someone handling this thing, indeed it looks like a brick, not pocketable at all - design wise not a clever step from Pentax

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=t-lSQlvqFKs

[emraphoto]

in all honesty, it is pretty damn ugly

[shadowfox]

Better yet...http://camerasize.com/compare/#285,187

Cool site, thanks for the link, js!

http://j.mp/AeTvjB
I want the other Pentax on the right :D

[hub]

I looked closely at the camera and I do believe that it is not ugly. There was a predefined set of constrains like the longer flange for the K mount, but other than that I think it is trying to break through new design idea that provide a unique look.

While it is true that in the end the camera is just a tool, and that cosmetics aspect are very secondary to the image creation, I think it is legitimate for a vendor to try to distinguish itself and call on a designer like Marc Newson, to really do something different.

This is in fact a recurring aspect of the electronics industry (and not only). Sometime people hate, sometime people love. And I think that this time it goes a bit against the trend set by companies like Apple.

We'll see.

(and no, I'm not judging the quality of the camera based on this)

[uinku]

A friend forwarded me a blog post (http://www.dezeen.com/2012/02/02/k01-by-marc-newson-for-pentax/#more-190417) on this camera. She called it "purty."

I think we at RFF have a certain aesthetic (you can have it in any color you like as long as it's black), and the K-01 goes against this general aesthetic. Ask some non-enthusiasts about this camera, and you'll probably get a more favorable response.

What kinda bugs me is Newson's condescending quote (though not out of place for a big-name designer):

“I don’t recall seeing that many cameras on the market that have been designed by professional designers,” says Newson. “Most of them are designed by engineers.”

Give me the most functional, aesthetically unpleasing camera any day--I'm here to shoot, not to strut.

[fotobiblios]

Looks -- well yes the M2 etc are great, likewise Pentax Spotmatic and Nikon F and Fuji X10 (X1 misses) or Fuji Natura (not in pink) but although this Pentax is far from perfect in design or spec, it's far less ugly than the current mass of bulbous Canon and Nikon dslrs, surely? I think a development of this with viewfinder (as NEX7 developed from the perfectly fine Nex5) may be really quite good and even become some kind of classic.
And as for complaining about the look of the pancake lens - do you really prefer the monsters from Canikon? - their primes are nearly always more than twice the size of 1970s lenses of the same spec. (and not pretty)
thoughts?

[Taipei-metro]

The 01 and Japanese fortune cats 日本招財貓...
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7021/6806260353_082d263fed.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikiresty/6806260353/)
K01_B_B_a0 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikiresty/6806260353/) by mikiresty (http://www.flickr.com/people/mikiresty/), on Flickr
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2078/2049883818_f8b3538f49.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/daisy_yeung/2049883818/)
招財貓 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/daisy_yeung/2049883818/) by emmodaisy (http://www.flickr.com/people/daisy_yeung/), on Flickr
The cat is asking for a design share, Mr. Newson...:)

[fotobiblios]

"Designer cameras" -- generally not a success,

eg Giugiaro with the ugliest Nikon (EM) pre-autofocus, or the English designer behind the Minolta 7000 (various names for this first AF) - somewhat better Porsche design and the Contax (Yashica) cameras.

In that context, this pentax isn't too bad, but generally a camera is best left to engineers with a good design sense (few and far between)

[alexnotalex]

The design reminds me of childhood holidays with my parents in their caravan.

The toilet looked a lot like this, and we used it every day.

Time will tell.

[MaxElmar]

This will turn out like Olympus's "dedication" to 4/3 a few years ago. Wait for the "mirror box-less" version. And then I can put my RF glass on there. Oh, and where the heck is my EVF?? You put a darn hump on the thing and no EVF???

If it were ugly, which I'm not sure it is, I can live with ugly. I can learn to love ugly. I can't live with stupid.

[batterytypehah!]

Well looky here, maybe the guys at Pentax haven't completely lost it, after all. New lens line-up just announced, including a wide that extends back into the airspace where the mirror used to be. Focal length as yet undisclosed.

http://www.pentaxforums.com/news/photos-of-new-pentax-lenses-revealed.html

[Trius]

Is this Pentax prettier than the OM-D? :p

[batterytypehah!]

Is this Pentax prettier than the OM-D? :p
No but my Pentaxes are :p

[Steve M.]

You may be right about nothing being uglier than a Fed 5. I had one, and it was impossible to sell, even though it was in perfect shape and everything worked. Even the shutter and rangefinder were accurate. I finally sold the lens, and stuffed the camera into the box as a freebie. Otherwise, I'd still be looking at that thing.

[charjohncarter]

Well looky here, maybe the guys at Pentax haven't completely lost it, after all. New lens line-up just announced, including a wide that extends back into the airspace where the mirror used to be. Focal length as yet undisclosed.

http://www.pentaxforums.com/news/photos-of-new-pentax-lenses-revealed.html

Just wondering: what is the total distance from the back of the K-01 to the front of the 40mm lens? How does that compare with other mirror less digital cameras? And I don't mean P&S.

[batterytypehah!]

^If the database at Pentax forums is to be believed, it's 68.2mm. 59mm for the body, 9.2mm for the lens.

[charjohncarter]

I'll see if I can find the width of a NEX plus its kit lens width.

[Jack Conrad]

It reminds me of the the Argus C-3. :eek:

[shadowfox]

It looks like those toy cameras for kids to play in the bath tub.

Now this, is a serious camera:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachments/pentax-film-slr-discussion/35599d1243218075-pentax-mz-s-mz-s_grip_marclangille_ax.jpg

Linked from: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachments/pentax-film-slr-discussion/35599d1243218075-pentax-mz-s-mz-s_grip_marclangille_ax.jpg

[gavinlg]

It looks like those toy cameras for kids to play in the bath tub.

Now this, is a serious camera:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachments/pentax-film-slr-discussion/35599d1243218075-pentax-mz-s-mz-s_grip_marclangille_ax.jpg

Linked from: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachments/pentax-film-slr-discussion/35599d1243218075-pentax-mz-s-mz-s_grip_marclangille_ax.jpg

Which could have been this:

http://i.pbase.com/o4/93/723093/1/91905616.LFE1Btnl.pentaxmzdback.jpg

The full frame pentax - mz-d. A few prototypes were made about 10 years ago. They never went through with it. :(

[Godfrey]

The MZ-S was a pretty nice camera. I ran into it too late to be interested in buying another film camera.

... The full frame pentax - mz-d. A few prototypes were made about 10 years ago. They never went through with it. :(

They couldn't go through with it. Phillips didn't deliver on the sensor.

Contax had the same problem ... they were basing their DSLR on the Phillips sensor: it never performed to spec, it couldn't be delivered in quantity, and Kyocera decided they'd put out enough money and were done with the camera business as a result.

Pentax nearly bought the farm on it too. They got lucky - produced the *ist D, which didn't sell very well, then the *ist DS, which sold well enough to put them into a better position.

[charjohncarter]

Here is a reason why the SLR depth mirrorless might not be so bad:

The background to this is that on any M-mount digital camera, you have a fundamental optical problem. On any digital camera you have to have an IR (infra red) filter to prevent color shifts due to IR contamination - all modern sensors are very sensitive to IR. However, because the M-mount has such a short lens to sensor distance, the light has to be at a considerable angle to reach the corners of the sensor. In turn that means that light that goes to the corners of the sensor passes through the IR filter at a sharp angle. That means that it passes through "more" of the filter, and reds get cut, resulting in cyan drift - blue corners. The M8 and M9 compensate for this by coding lenses, allowing the camera to boost reds (and greens, slightly) to compensate for the impact of the IR filter on visible light. CornerFix does the same thing, but as a post processor.

What's happening with the red edges above is that the cyan drift is somehow being over-compensated, red being boosted too much, and as a result you get red edges.

There are a few questions here - why exactly is this happening, what can be done about it, and most puzzling - why does this seem to happen on the left edge of images only?


from:

http://chromasoft.blogspot.com/2009/10/vignetting-correction-issues-on-leica.html

[santino]

I like it.

But then I also drink expensive wines from papercups and drive a pick up truck.

We do have the best statement here :D :cool:

[peterm1]

In Australia we have some great sayings. For example someone who is really ugly might be referred to as "Having a head like a robbers dog." This camera is the photographic equivalent. Woof!

But if you look at some of Leicas very early digital offerings they were no beauty pageant winners either. brrrrrr. Makes me want to shive jsut thinking about them.

[Dirk]

You think that's ugly? You should see the Nikon 1.

[hxpham]

It looks like those toy cameras for kids to play in the bath tub.

Now this, is a serious camera:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachments/pentax-film-slr-discussion/35599d1243218075-pentax-mz-s-mz-s_grip_marclangille_ax.jpg

Linked from: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachments/pentax-film-slr-discussion/35599d1243218075-pentax-mz-s-mz-s_grip_marclangille_ax.jpg
Looks like a plastic Leica S2 or R9

[bhargav]

Did anyone actually buy it from here? Some samples would be good.

[jsrockit]

I've only seen one of these out in the wild (NYC)... doesn't appear to be a popular camera.

[ChrisPlatt]

It would have plenty of defenders here were there a red dot on it.

Chris

[gavinlg]

It would have plenty of defenders here were there a red dot on it.

Chris

Lol.. I don't think so. Everything about it is crappy. It's far too big, has slow AF, is ugly, and doesn't have a viewfinder. You may as well just use a pentax k5 - it's just not that much smaller at all.

[Shade]

Well yeah I wouldnt say its good looking, but kinda looks like what a kid would use.. But as mentioned, good thing cameras are not fashion statements and as long as it take great pictures..

[dct]

Lol.. I don't think so. Everything about it is crappy. It's far too big, has slow AF, is ugly, and doesn't have a viewfinder. You may as well just use a pentax k5 - it's just not that much smaller at all.

Aside from the design aspects I really don't get it why they didn't include a VF into this bulky body. Something like the OM-D(EM-5) instead of the prism. The target customers might be the one with a lot of K-mount glass looking for a backup digital body. Any other imaginable customers :confused:

[zuikologist]

Ugliness aside, it has the best focus peaking implementation I have seen. Check out Youtube - v clever DOF style peaking.

[jarski]

It would have plenty of defenders here were there a red dot on it.

Chris

on RFF? quite opposite, red dot would be like red scarf for a bull.

would be interesting to know how K-01 has sold. Pentax took big risk with it, especially very unorthodox design. nothing wrong with tech specifications, but nothing outshines the competition either.

[Shade]

Yeah I do wonder how does pentax fare with their sales on this model.. Will be interesting if there are many takers on it. The risk they are raking is quite huge, perhaps the Japanese market loves it? They have been known to like unusual designs..

[MikeL]

Note: this is coming from someone not up to date on the cutting edge of digital cameras.. And all I have to compare it to, from an experience standpoint, is a year or two of occasional use of a Panasonic GF-1 and 20mm lens (both of which I'm still impressed with!).

I used the Pentax briefly, that a friend rented. It had a 43mm limited lens on it.

It felt chunky to grip relative to other cameras, but not too funky.
The whole thing felt very solid, but not too heavy.
Autofocus was similar to the GF-1 from what I could tell. Pretty nice.
Manual focus was really easy with the 43mm, even without the peaking effect. Sweet LCD.
Image quality with the body-lens was way better than I'd ever need.

In short, I was impressed with the lens and photos and ease of use. The body does what it needs to do. It didn't make me want to add stuff to my other cameras to make them chunky, but it wasn't a big deal either. Leica M bodies feel chunky to me when they have a half-case. My GF-1 is still chugging along for what I use it for, but if it goes kaput, I could see it as a replacement.

Around the same time I used the friends Fuji xpro-1. I can't or don't rationalize/reason out my camera preference like some, but I can say I much preferred using the Pentax with 43mm lens.

[Keith]

I saw one somewhere recently and it looked different to what I imagined ... it wasn't ugly.

I'm not saying I'd own one but I certainly wasn't put off by it's looks!

[Shade]

They are also available in a myriad of colours dont they?

[charjohncarter]

I'd like to thank my fellow RFFers for disparaging and generally down rapping the Pentax K-01. You were successful in reducing the price to $346 at B&H so even though I don't do much digital, I couldn't resist the price (although it was $316 at Adorama on black Friday). Here are images 1 and 3 out of the camera:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8479/8216888945_9c1e854e46.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8344/8216889295_eede06027c.jpg

[charjohncarter]

I finally got around to using my flash unit with my K-01. I have aperture ring Pentax lenses so as I bought the camera to use it with flash, I hoped these would be useful. They were: just set the aperture to the auto thyristor aperture setting and fire away. I used manual and hit the green button before shooting when indoors. I also set for an outdoor/indoor scene by setting ambient to the outdoor, of course leaving the aperture for the auto flash:

ambient balance:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8206/8245284304_a57e859a8a.jpg

indoor:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8208/8244217279_115ce90ed5.jpg

[majid]

Ugly? Apart from the yellow grip version, I don't think so. And certainly at $315 or so it's a bargain for anyone with K mount lenses.

If you want ugly, go for the Cyclops Zeiss Contarex or the original Nikon F Photomic.

[John Robertson]

Pentax seems to have lost the plot these days, the K01, and that daft little CSC with "toy" lenses.
My MX and ME super were great cameras, but these days !!!!!!!!
Yup lost the plot, only a matter of time before they vanish with a whimper, shame really!!

[nikon_sam]

Good Lord...even the strap is ugly...

[jarski]

this camera has been available now for some time, seen only one outside Internet: in a shelf of big camera store. to me, it looked just as bad in real life as the photos on the net.

[Addy101]

I like the pictures on the net, so it is just as nice in real life?

Reading the reviews on the net it seems it is too much style over function. Not nice to hold, the screen isn'tgood enough and not small enough. The positves are image quality and good enough AF. A better grip, a (optional) EVF and better screen would make this a much better camera it seems. But then again, top of the line Nex and M4/3 cameras are just as good and much smaller.

[BardParker]

Do you need an adapter to mount a manual focus K-mount lens? Is there any conversion for the sensor? (50mm lens = 50mm on camera?)
If so, I might get one of these.....

Kent

[Addy101]

It is a K-mount camera, so you can use your manual focus lenses with all functions. However, it is APS-C, so your 50mm will have the FoV of a 75mm lens on film.

[jarski]

guess nobody argues about good IQ of K01. and once shot has been taken, who cares what was used to make it? but IMO big price drops tell tale that it wont sell otherwise, and looking the thing, no wonder. it has couple passionate fans over at pentaxforums though :)

[ampguy]

anyone using one of these?

[kdemas]

anyone using one of these?

Moi. Love it. IQ is awesome.

[tstermitz]

Same top-rated, APS-C sensor as Nikon D7000 and Pentax K5.

It is a bit boxy in order to use the K-mount flange distance.

[ZorkiKat]

Are you sure it is just as big?

Almost as big, the about the same as a compact DSLR. Thick deep body. Not your usual flattened mirrorless CSC types.

Almost got one of these fugly Pentaces, but got a Samsung NX 200 instead. May have been one of my better decisions made. :)

[nparsons13]

I'll bet you know someone who loves a woman who you think isn't very attractive. Would you call her fugly to his face?

It was considered cool last year--even on the Pentax forums--to try to outdo the last guy in insulting the K-01's design. But it's been nearly a year since the camera's release, and more and more photographers have fallen in love with the camera and have found once again that beauty is more than skin deep.

So continue with the trash talk if you want--just keep in mind that the more great K-01 photos are made, the more your passé bad-mouthing sounds like sour grapes. :)

[charjohncarter]

I actually have one and it is really a good camera: it fits my hand, it is simple compared to the DSLRs I've owned and the pictures are excellent. Basically there is very little difference between the final out put of digital so get what you want and forget about the hype.

This weekend, I never do sports, well amost never:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8221/8431541928_4a06dfa604.jpg

[ampguy]

I think I'd like one if they go on sale again for ~$200 or so for just a body, wouldn't want yellow, or the pancake lens though.

No hurry though, since my one camera one year project is the EPL1 with AR Hexanon SLR lens.

[nparsons13]

We may see $200 for a K-01 body eventually. A price drop to $299.95 was announced this morning. That's a tremendous bargain for such a capable camera.

[kdemas]

We may see $200 for a K-01 body eventually. A price drop to $299.95 was announced this morning. That's a tremendous bargain for such a capable camera.

That is an amazing deal for a camera with this IQ. Wow.

[giellaleafapmu]

That is an amazing deal for a camera with this IQ. Wow.

I got one (yellow!) a few days ago, if you consider that the DA 40mm f2.8 costs more than 250,- US$ if bought alone this is impossible to skip. The IQ is amazing and I love the face people put when I get that out of the bag: "Did he steal his kid's camera? Fisher Price camera should be only for kids...".

Ah, yep, I also found that pointless and ugly when it appeared, and AF is slowish and it has no EVF but - who cares? - photography is not always about speed and this camera is funny so now it become my unprofessional camera of choice!

GLF

[nparsons13]

AF is slowish

GLF

Install the two firmware updates, 1.01 and 1.02. The latter was released just a few days ago. The first speeds up AF a lot, and the second helps other more minor problems.

[giellaleafapmu]

Install the two firmware updates, 1.01 and 1.02. The latter was released just a few days ago. The first speeds up AF a lot, and the second helps other more minor problems.

Thanks for the advice, it's so new I didn't even look at updates yet... Something to do during weekend.

GLF

[btgc]

If I'm used to AF speed of Sigma DP1, probably, speed of this Pentax would be quite OK or even great :)

[giellaleafapmu]

If I'm used to AF speed of Sigma DP1, probably, speed of this Pentax would be quite OK or even great :)

Without any firmware update it is ok most of the times in good light but if you come from a Nikod D4, D800 or whatever similar Canon does or even from a K5 it's like going back to driving a Corolla after driving a Porsche. Still I really don't care, "Horses for courses" I guess...

GLF

[btgc]

Well, thinking about K-01...I've istD which I generally like so it's not a matter of bare need for me. I've small stash of K-mount glass, but nothing too fancy. Superfast AF isn't required, but I'm uncertain by LCD at daylight as only mean to compose, in this regard istD is troublefree.

I don't see "yellow + 40mm" combos anymore, pity. Do you agree AF 40mm for extra $60 is nobrainer? I could live with black body as I'm not too picky although yellow would help to use it where cameras are divided into fun cams and pro gear. Basically, I'm attracted by current sensor, good battery life and straight K-mount for the price of P&S.

[giellaleafapmu]

Well, thinking about K-01...I've istD which I generally like so it's not a matter of bare need for me. I've small stash of K-mount glass, but nothing too fancy. Superfast AF isn't required, but I'm uncertain by LCD at daylight as only mean to compose, in this regard istD is troublefree.

I don't see "yellow + 40mm" combos anymore, pity. Do you agree AF 40mm for extra $60 is nobrainer? I could live with black body as I'm not too picky although yellow would help to use it where cameras are divided into fun cams and pro gear. Basically, I'm attracted by current sensor, good battery life and straight K-mount for the price of P&S.

The largest book retailer lists the combo (with yellow body, well, rubber covers) starting at 420 US$.

GLF

[jarski]

wonder how prices reflect the K-01 discontinuation notice?

on the other hand rumors (http://www.pentaxforums.com/news/pentax-confirms-full-frame-plans-at-cp.html) about new small full frame Pentax are getting stronger. interesting times :rolleyes:

Pentax essentially states that they think full-frame is the way to go, and that development of a full-frame camera has been advancing. Wakashiro added that even during Photokina he had mixed feelings about the prospect of making such a camera, but now both he and the company are open to it. The way he phrased this implies that full-frame is about to be a permanent Pentax product line. Although what he said is still subject to interpretation, there is much less uncertainty now than there's ever been before.
Wakashiro also said that while small size is important, the full-frame will also be unique in other ways compared to what's already out there.

[btgc]

The largest book retailer lists the combo (with yellow body, well, rubber covers) starting at 420 US$.

GLF

Thanks, but I'd rather choose black set for 370 or such. Yellow cover isn't worth extra $50 :) Majot stores still have this....