Lotusm50 wrote:
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?...Show more →
I imagine they chose the 40mm because it was already the most compact of their pancakes (tracing its lineage back to the DA 40mm Limited and the Pentax-M 40mm f/2.8 before it), not because of any idea that it was the ideal kit focal length (though Pentaxians do love it).
the fact that they stayed with the regular K-mount specs says to me that they are very limited in their ability to design new lenses. even the Q had 4 lenses announced with it with two of them being considered "toy" lenses which probably require far less design resources than a normal high quality lens. everyone else has released new lenses of new design with their mirrorless offerings. like you said though, without an optional EVF and such a large and heavy body, what's the point? it's just as pocketable as the K-5, which is to say, not. it's been a while now since Pentax has been more about style than substance.
Herb...
Lotusm50 wrote:
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.
HerbChong wrote:
the fact that they stayed with the regular K-mount specs says to me that they are very limited in their ability to design new lenses. even the Q had 4 lenses announced with it with two of them being considered "toy" lenses which probably require far less design resources than a normal high quality lens. everyone else has released new lenses of new design with their mirrorless offerings. like you said though, without an optional EVF and such a large and heavy body, what's the point? it's just as pocketable as the K-5, which is to say, not. it's been a while now since Pentax has been more about style than substance....Show more →
I think it's more about production capability/operating capital/market share than design capability, though Hoya did prune their engineering staff a lot.
In related news, Ricoh has been talking up re-hiring some of the optical designers Hoya let go. Good news, IMO, especially if they can get Jun Hirakawa back.
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
Well, Sebastiao Salgado shot a lot with the Leica 60mm. Is he famous enough for you?
(BTW I have a long history of 60mm lenses, no place in any hall of fame though... )
Lotusm50 wrote:
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?
The funny thing is, when you account for the K mount registration distance, this new, super small 40/2.8 XS is the same depth equivalent of mounting a lens that is 36.6mm long on a NEX camera. To give an idea of that size, the Voigtlander 35/1.4 is about 38mm long on NEX, and that is including the length of the M to NEX adapter.
Which part is too skinny, the grip or the mirrorbox? The K-01 grip doesn't look all that big, either. Plus, a leather half case goes a long way in adding a little bulk to various mirrorless camera grips. If various mirrorless cameras are too skinny for ya, why not stick with the K-5? It can live view and use CDAF, too.
douglasf13 wrote:
The funny thing is, when you account for the K mount registration distance, this new, super small 40/2.8 XS is the same depth equivalent of mounting a lens that is 36.6mm long on a NEX camera. To give an idea of that size, the Voigtlander 35/1.4 is about 38mm long on NEX, and that is including the length of the M to NEX adapter.
The big thing with the K-01 is that many lenses will be huge, though Pentax does have some very small primes, and the weight. The thing weighs more than double what the 5N or GX1 weighs. (and consequently more than both cameras together)
Yeah, this is a worst of both worlds kind of camera. Remove the PDAF and OVF of DSLRs, yet make the body large-ish and incompatible with many legacy lenses, because the mirrorbox is still there. It's kinda like an A55 without the "translucent" mirror.
Jman13 wrote:
The big thing with the K-01 is that many lenses will be huge, though Pentax does have some very small primes, and the weight. The thing weighs more than double what the 5N or GX1 weighs. (and consequently more than both cameras together)
It obviously depends on the user, but, for me, trading a DSLR for NEX was a pretty big size difference that made giving some things up worthwhile. I can't really imagine giving up an OVF, PDAF, and better handling for this size difference, personally:
My point is that the thinnest/lightest possible camera isn't always the best fit for all users.
I'm very ready to agree that the K-01 is not *MY* ideal mirrorless camera. However, I don't understand why a camera that's this compact (and it really is still quite small) should be shat upon for not being as anorexic as the NEX-5N, for example. Some people (myself included) think that the NEX takes it too far for comfort.
I do wish the K-01 could somehow both support the K-mount (which I'm heavily invested in) AND support adaptability for other mounts (who doesn't love that?), but it was never in the cards. Pentax/Ricoh aren't big enough and don't have enough market share to support an entirely new line of lenses. Retaining compatibility (particularly AF compatibility, though we'll have to see how well it works) with their current lens lineup was the best move they could make. Sure, maybe they could have jumped in with the m4/3 standard, I suppose, but what's the point of that? Go toe to toe with two established players? Nah.
I think they did a good job working within the realities of their situation. This will be a fantastic video camera and a damn good stills camera, and with the DA Limited lenses it'll be a very compact little travel kit.
deadwolfbones wrote:
My point is that the thinnest/lightest possible camera isn't always the best fit for all users.
I'm very ready to agree that the K-01 is not *MY* ideal mirrorless camera. However, I don't understand why a camera that's this compact (and it really is still quite small) should be shat upon for not being as anorexic as the NEX-5N, for example. Some people (myself included) think that the NEX takes it too far for comfort.
I do wish the K-01 could somehow both support the K-mount (which I'm heavily invested in) AND support adaptability for other mounts (who doesn't love that?), but it was never in the cards. Pentax/Ricoh aren't big enough and don't have enough market share to support an entirely new line of lenses. Retaining compatibility (particularly AF compatibility, though we'll have to see how well it works) with their current lens lineup was the best move they could make. Sure, maybe they could have jumped in with the m4/3 standard, I suppose, but what's the point of that? Go toe to toe with two established players? Nah.
I think they did a good job working within the realities of their situation. This will be a fantastic video camera and a damn good stills camera, and with the DA Limited lenses it'll be a very compact little travel kit....Show more →
I still don't understand why one would pick this over something like a K-5 or Kx, or, if not already using Pentax lenses, something like the A35? No viewfinder and crappy AF seems like a steep trade off for a rather minimal size difference, no?
Spyro P. wrote:
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.
Not many made a 58-60mm lens?
Nikon's made a 58/1.2, a 58/1.4 and two 60mm's in F mount, Konica made a 57mm in AR and a 60mm in M, Minolta's made 2 different fast 58's including the legendary 58/1.2, Topcon made a 58/1.4 which later was cloned by Cosina as the Voigtlander Nokton 58/1.4 SL/SLII, Zeiss and Leica both made 60mm macros which are popular for general use and Tamron makes a 60/2 Macro. And Canon made a 58mm f1.2 in FL mount.
Frankly, Pentax and Olympus are pretty much the only ones who didn't make a 58-60mm lens at some point. And the Konica 60mm is only unusual in being an RF lens, where focal lengths for normals are usually 50mm to match the framelines.
No one has tested the AF yet, so let's not jump to any final conclusions on that point.
As to why you'd choose it over the K-5: smaller, cheaper, newer image processing engine, maybe they like the looks?, maybe it's less intimidating (for upgraders), vastly better videography options.
I have a K-5 and I'm not sure whether I'll get this. My head says no, but another part of me wants to give it a try. :P
As to the K-01, it looks like a great combo of all the weak points of a small DSLR aside from a poor OVF and all the weak points of a Mirrorless plus no EVF option (why doesn't this support the GXR EVF at a minimum?)
Just buy a K-r instead, you won't be missing anything.
