If the NEXs are too small for you, that's fine and all the points you make are true. But the one point you're not addressing is given the size and weight of the K-01, what would be the compelling reason to buy that camera versus a K-5 or a K-r if( someone wanted something slightly smaller than the K-5). With the K-01 you give up a lot versus the Pentax DSLR but you don't gain much.
deadwolfbones wrote:
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.
It shouldn't. If it were just that the body were this size, it wouldn't be a big deal. The thing is, it uses the exact SAME lenses as Pentax DSLRs, so there is no size advantage to the mirrorless solution at all. It loses a viewfinder altogether, without providing any real advantage to doing so, and it will use an autofocus method for lenses not designed to work that way, which will mean slow autofocus.
The fact is that the camera gives you essentially none of the benefits of a mirrorless camera, so why would someone choose this over a Pentax DSLR? You can use the tiny Limited lenses on those cameras too.
The Panasonic GH2 is a big body for a mirrorless camera too, but it works because:
1) The lenses are small....the overall system is still more compact than a DSLR system with a similar size body because of the small lenses
2) Excellent EVF, which is bigger than most OVFs and provides for easy manual focus capability
3) Short registration distance, so you can adapt small rangefinder lenses and all manual SLR lenses
4) Extremely fast CDAF, since the lenses are designed to work with CDAF from the beginning.
The K-01 has exactly ZERO of the advantages of the GH2, but with the same body size drawback. It's forgivable if the size gives you something the smaller mirrorless bodies do note (built in viewfinder, better handling), but isn't when it doesn't give any advantages.
Maybe future lenses will have deep rear elements so that much of the lens sits inside the body? I kind of doubt they will do this, but it could be an option.
My initial reaction is they missed the point of making a more compact mirrorless by keeping such a huge sensor to mount distance... But it does look like it will be comfortable to hold. I do think the 5N, 7 and GXR cameras are a bit too thin for comfort with larger and heavier lenses, and since most of the legacy Pentax lenses are on the larger side (the zooms) for a mirrorless camera, the camera's chunky design might make sense when taking this into consideration.
Would have liked to have seen an EVF though. I can't imagine using a larger lens on this and having to hold it at arm's length...
With decent size lenses this thing has to be an ergonomic nightmare. Imagine mounting a normal size short tele on it and having to hold, oh, 3 lbs in your hands with your arms stretched out to look at the LCD screen.
Also, to those who "like" the size: take a small DSLR, push the liveview button. There is your "mirrorless" that also has the advantage of at the push of a button transforming back into something that doesn't suck.
I have them all the time. Just put your mind in that direction and one will come along eventually. Waiting for one to be produced might take a little longer, though.
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?
The lack of the standard photojournalists lens has always been the major weakness of the Pentax system for me, and convinced me to change to Canon some years back. A massive weakness that they have never attempted to put right and it still exists.
Where is the 35/2 or better still 35/1.4 equivalent? They don't have it, and they probably never will.
They have the 40/2.8 - once relevant to full frame but to my mind, less than ideal on APS.
They have the 21/3.2 - not quite the right FL and slooow.
It sort of fits with this new camera - probably the most underwhelming new release in years - as others have pointed out - all the bulk of a DSLR and all the disadvantages of a viewfinderless mirrorless camera. And dressed up to look like a Lego toy camera to give it some 'style'. Ha, ha.
wolfloid wrote:
Where is the 35/2 or better still 35/1.4 equivalent? They don't have it, and they probably never will.
DA-L 35/2.4 (essentially the same as the...), FA 35/2 (still produced in limited quantities), DA 35/2.8 Limited (great lens, perhaps a little slow for your purposes, though).
wow thats amazing they took out the mirror and were able to shave a few millimeters off the excellent K5 and turn it into crap.
I'm not sure who would want this camera over the already excellent K5.
deadwolfbones wrote:
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.
What is the Q line if not an entirely new line of lenses? More specifically, an entirely useless dead end line of lenses.
Just stupid corporate thinking on their part. Create two still born lines that can only fail. New ILC system with crappy tiny sensor that isn't any smaller than the larger sensor competition. A "mirrorless" systems which is just a DSLR with the mirror and most important features ripped out to no benefit.
The correct solution was an APS-C (or close) sensor, a new close flange distance, a few new lenses for said system and an adapter to support K-mount. That would be a success for sure.
Instead, their new lens system is for a severely compromised sensor size and they've tried to leverage their K-mount lens line with a turd laid by a furniture designer.
That's why everyone here is dumping all over the K-01. It is a really poor product and concept. And no, it is probably the worst solution to Pentax's constraints.
DA-L 35/2.4 (essentially the same as the...), FA 35/2 (still produced in limited quantities), DA 35/2.8 Limited (great lens, perhaps a little slow for your purposes, though).
None of these are 35mm equivalents on APS, which is all they produce. They are all 50mm equivalents. So what are you saying? My point remains valid.
They need to make a 24/2 or better still a 24/1.4, and preferably keep the size down.
kwalsh wrote:
What is the Q line if not an entirely new line of lenses? More specifically, an entirely useless dead end line of lenses.
It's an entirely new but very limited line of very cheap lenses.
kwalsh wrote:
The correct solution was an APS-C (or close) sensor, a new close flange distance, a few new lenses for said system and an adapter to support K-mount. That would be a success for sure.
I would surely have welcomed that if they'd chosen/been able to go that route. I can only assume they had reason not to, though.
wolfloid wrote:
None of these are 35mm equivalents on APS, which is all they produce. They are all 50mm equivalents. So what are you saying? My point remains valid.
They need to make a 24/2 or better still a 24/1.4, and preferably keep the size down.
Ah, gotcha. I misinterpreted you. Not sure CaNikon have that APS-C equivalent either, though, unless you want to count the stratospherically expensive 24/1.4s.
deadwolfbones wrote:
Yes, it's well-established that you think that's the case.
I can't help it. I feel a bit of extra compulsion to criticize this camera, because it's one of the least desirable cameras that I've seen. I was hoping for more from Pentax/Ricoh, as I generally think they make good products.
I'll just say this by way of parting (woohoo, quadruple post):
I've got a bit of sympathy for/interest in this camera (obviously), and some of that may be instinctual (irrational) rather than rational. I just like the look of it, for whatever reason. I want to see it succeed.
I think that thinking of it as a dSLR replacement is wrongheaded. I think it's a dSLR alternative—it offers most of what you get from the K-5 in a smaller/cheaper/in some senses upgraded package, with a unique sense of style. It's not going to be for everyone, and it certainly won't be for people who already own and enjoy the K-5 or even the K-r. But for new buyers I think it's at least an interesting proposition.
Me, I think I'll end up waiting for the mythical Pentax FF (interested to see what the K-01 reviews are like, though).
