Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Digital Cameras > CSC : Digital Compact System Cameras -

CSC : Digital Compact System Cameras - This new category of digital Compact System Cameras with interchangeable lenses was mislabeled for a time as "Mirrorless Cameras" by those forgetting about "Mirrorless" Rangefinder cameras.  Such confusion is easily understandable, since interchangeable rangefinder cameras were only recently introduced in 1932.  hmm.    CSC or Compact System Camera is probably the best category description to date, although I am fond of the old RFF desigation of  CEVIL  indicating Compact Electronic Viewfidner Interchangeable Lens.   This forum is here at RFF because via adapters these cameras offer an inexpensive way to use rangefinder lenses on digital cameras -- in addition of just about every 35mm SLR lens you can think of.  All  offer the photo enthusiast an incredible array of adopted lenses which was not possible before these new digital formats.   This group continues to grow in popularity and new camera models! 

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 02-02-2012   #81
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,556
Compare this ugly dog to the elegant LX. Too bad that Pentax has slipped into a pit.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #82
kshapero
Rangefinder Finder
 
kshapero's Avatar
 
kshapero is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Florida, USA
Age: 66
Posts: 9,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbelyell View Post
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.
__________________
Akiva S.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kshapero

Yes I have 2 Rangefinders.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #83
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is online now
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by kshapero View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #84
btgc
Registered User
 
btgc's Avatar
 
btgc is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,736
LCD in bright light? Not a problem anymore!


Photographer's assistant by mm35exp36, on Flickr
__________________
MyFlickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #85
jbielikowski
Jan Bielikowski
 
jbielikowski's Avatar
 
jbielikowski is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 933


yeah, its ugly.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #86
Jamie123
Registered User
 
Jamie123 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,744
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-jo...rorless-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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #87
Travis L.
Registered Userino
 
Travis L.'s Avatar
 
Travis L. is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: yellow springs ohio USA
Age: 46
Posts: 369
hmmmm..

  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #88
nightfly
Registered User
 
nightfly is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,677
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #89
celluloidprop
Registered User
 
celluloidprop is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 882
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..
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #90
thirtyfivefifty
Noctilust survivor
 
thirtyfivefifty is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: 대한민국
Posts: 273


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

Old 02-02-2012   #91
Paddy C
Unused film collector
 
Paddy C is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Too far north for my liking
Posts: 851
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?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #92
rolleistef
Registered User
 
rolleistef's Avatar
 
rolleistef is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Paris (France, not Texas!)
Posts: 925
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...
__________________
Stéphane
Rolleiflex T, Rolleicord Art Déco, sweet Minolta XD5, dead XGM, X300 and X700 ; Hi-Matic F, Hi-Matic 9, Pentax SP1000 and K20D
My Flickr


RFF EuroMeet 2010-Florence !!!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #93
CK Dexter Haven
Registered User
 
CK Dexter Haven is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corto View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #94
btgc
Registered User
 
btgc's Avatar
 
btgc is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,736
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?
__________________
MyFlickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #95
CK Dexter Haven
Registered User
 
CK Dexter Haven is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris00nj View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #96
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is online now
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by btgc View Post
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).
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #97
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne VIC
Posts: 4,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by f6andBthere View Post
The top view is interesting ... to say the least! (I'm biting my tongue here!)



Gulp ... there appears to be an HDR setting!
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.
__________________
NO PRAISE
@gavinlagrange
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #99
rolleistef
Registered User
 
rolleistef's Avatar
 
rolleistef is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Paris (France, not Texas!)
Posts: 925
Wasn't there a film called "the Blob"?
__________________
Stéphane
Rolleiflex T, Rolleicord Art Déco, sweet Minolta XD5, dead XGM, X300 and X700 ; Hi-Matic F, Hi-Matic 9, Pentax SP1000 and K20D
My Flickr


RFF EuroMeet 2010-Florence !!!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #100
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne VIC
Posts: 4,855


__________________
NO PRAISE
@gavinlagrange
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #101
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by CK Dexter Haven View Post
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.


The whole "only picture quality matters" only holds water if you only see pictures and never use a camera.
__________________
Have a good light,
Will



Last edited by shadowfox : 02-02-2012 at 12:56. Reason: added picture
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #102
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavinlg View Post
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
__________________
Have a good light,
Will


  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #103
Teuthida
-
 
Teuthida is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 633
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruby.monkey View Post
Still less ugly than an M5.
You are insane. The M5 is the best M Camera ever produced.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #104
f6andBthere
-
 
f6andBthere's Avatar
 
f6andBthere is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 445
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!

  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #105
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 7,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie123 View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #106
f6andBthere
-
 
f6andBthere's Avatar
 
f6andBthere is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 445
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!

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?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #107
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
 
ChrisPlatt's Avatar
 
ChrisPlatt is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Queens NYC
Age: 55
Posts: 2,135
The more you guys kvetch the more I like it.

Chris
__________________
Bring back the latent image!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #108
f6andBthere
-
 
f6andBthere's Avatar
 
f6andBthere is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 445
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!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #109
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 7,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by f6andBthere View Post
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!
No, I want one of these:




It looks really like bitching.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #110
Archlich
Registered User
 
Archlich is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 617
Quote:
Originally Posted by f6andBthere View Post
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!

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

Old 02-02-2012   #111
f6andBthere
-
 
f6andBthere's Avatar
 
f6andBthere is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archlich View Post
I specified Digilux 1...which is like the Argus C3 reborn.

Even that oddball looks better than the Pentax IMO!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #112
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,157
Well that was fun.
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand – object size and the angle of view included in the picture is determined by focal length." H.S. Newcombe

williamchuttonjr.com, FLICKR,
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #113
benlees
Registered User
 
benlees is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB
Age: 44
Posts: 1,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by f6andBthere View Post
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!

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

Old 02-02-2012   #114
Pablito
coco frío
 
Pablito's Avatar
 
Pablito is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Salsipuedes
Posts: 3,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthfeeble View Post
How about the quality of the picture that it takes? Does anyone care about that? S
That's up to the photographer!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #115
f6andBthere
-
 
f6andBthere's Avatar
 
f6andBthere is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by benlees View Post
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!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #116
PhotoMat
Registered User
 
PhotoMat's Avatar
 
PhotoMat is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 480
I'm sure that there are some who will like the color scheme.

__________________
www.natural-light.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #117
Jamie123
Registered User
 
Jamie123 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by charjohncarter View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2012   #118
Spyro
Registered User
 
Spyro is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Melbourne, VIC, Oz
Posts: 921
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.
__________________
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2012   #119
mugent
Registered User
 
mugent is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 475
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2012   #120
Paul T.
Registered User
 
Paul T.'s Avatar
 
Paul T. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,801
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.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 14:11.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.