The camera does look pretty cool, but... it is like a Pentax DSLR (which are already compact) minus viewfinder, minus phase detect AF, minus mirror, while retaining the DSLR thickness because of the lens mount used.
Why??
I'll hazard a guess that the reasons are mainly marketing ones. The K-01's target customers are mainly Pentax owners. It's also posible that they just wanted to be unique (see the Q example). Another possible reason is a financial one: They just don't want to invest in a new mount (which means making a lot of new lenses). Maybe a MILC concept is cheaper to R&D than a convential DSLR one because there are less parts. Cameras could be smaller still and a small MILC is very fashionable these days. Note: I personally think the Q is too small.
Sure, but this camera isn't small. In fact, it is the same size as the Pentax *ist Ds DSLR (which I owned once). Price-wise it is not particularly cheap either, so we are basically getting a DSLR minus some of the DSLRs advantages.
I cant wait to see all these photos shot at 61mm effective focal length.
It reminds me of that famous photographer who shot all those photos at 60mm, what was his name again?
Spyro P. wrote:
I cant wait to see all these photos shot at 61mm effective focal length.
It reminds me of that famous photographer who shot all those photos at 60mm, what was his name again?
Oh yeah... he didnt exist
Maybe not famous but Yanidel has done some very nice work with the Konica 60mm f/1.2 on the M9...
The camera does look pretty cool, but... it is like a Pentax DSLR (which are already compact) minus viewfinder, minus phase detect AF, minus mirror, while retaining the DSLR thickness because of the lens mount used.
Why??
Very close to the Sony SLT cameras in concept, only Pentax got rid of the mirror completely. I would expect Nikon to launch similar models within a year or two, and maybe even Canon unless their alarm clock is broken.
Why? Because it's cheaper to make and requires less maintenance than an SLR. No moving parts.
rscheffler wrote:
Maybe not famous but Yanidel has done some very nice work with the Konica 60mm f/1.2 on the M9...
The Konica is a nice lens, but there must be a reason not many made a 60 (or 58)
I just I find the focal length bizarre, especially for a slow lens (by prime lenses standards), but I suppose with all the K mount selection behind it it's just another option to have.
On the other hand this is not just another lens, its the bundled lens and the smallest lens, so by definition the best fit for the camera. I just wish they had picked something more versatile.
LightShow wrote:
Looks ok, but you're stuck with m42 & K mount lenses, which makes it mostly useless to me,
LightShow wrote:
I'd rather use my 1DIII.
Yakim Peled wrote:
You should be fine with every mount 45.5mm or longer. That includes Nikon (46.5mm), Olympus OM (46mm), Contax RTS (45.5mm), Contarex (46mm), Leica R (47mm), Ricoh (45.5mm), T2 (55mm), Yashica (45.5mm) and probably many others.
I must confess I don't understand how such a beast is related to this. I'd understand if you said a Rebel which is small and light but a 1D3?
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
But I still can't use FD or other shorter registration lenses on it, so usability it gets C-
As a design it looks ok, but ergonomically it looks awkward and therefor I'd rather use something that feels right, that has the buttons and switches where I want & need them even if it's 2X as big.
After watching some of the early vids on this, if I actually owned Pentax glass I would get it. It makes an intriguing crop body. Hope Canon does the same thing.
Really? Philippe Starck is much more well known (and better, IMHO) as is Karim Rashid (at least to me) and Frog Design (but they are a company). I've barely heard of Marc Newson.
VinnieJ wrote:
You think he could have done more with the design without the VF. Then again I'm not "the most acclaimed and influential designer of his generation".
To be honest, I don't know what to think of this. I think Pentax owners might embrace it as they can use all their lenses, the design is sort of cute -- almost toy-like (especially the yellow one!), it is relatively inexpensive, and with the K-5 sensor it should perform well.
I'm not sure anyone else will be running to buy this however. There just aren't enough reasons for others to switch, They may get get a few people upgrading from compacts -- but I'm not sure what this gives them what a Panny or Oly Pen 4/3rds, or a Sony NEX doesn't (a whole raft of existing Pentax lenses, but I'm not sure they care about that).
Finally, that new pancake lens is interesting. It will be interesting to see how it performs relative to more conventional designs, and whether Pentax will follow-up with similar pancake lenses in other focal lengths. Why 40mm (60mm effective focal length), and not say, 30 or 35mm? What is interesting to see is what are the relative strengths are weaknesses compared with a larger approach like Sony's. What does the Pentax design approach sacrifice, if anything? Clearly the Sony NEX would benefit from such pancake designs. I don't think Pentax is alone in their capability to design such lenses, but why do they seem to be the only one willing to do it consistently?
