deadwolfbones wrote:
And Jesus, do you guys ever get tired of re-stating the same tired arguments about a camera you don't give two shits about in the first place? It's mind-numbing.
edit: A camera most of you have never seen in person or handled, I might add.
I think many of us were hoping for Pentax to answer some of the issues with the various mirrorless systems that are already out there, thus the disappointment and big reaction. If Pentax had designed a new, shallow mount, mirrorless system from the ground up that had an electronic adapter for K mount lenses, I would have definitely given several s#$%@ about it.
deadwolfbones wrote:
And Jesus, do you guys ever get tired of re-stating the same tired arguments about a camera you don't give two shits about in the first place? It's mind-numbing.
edit: A camera most of you have never seen in person or handled, I might add.
it's a thread asking if we have any thoughts about the new camera. thoughts about the new camera have been stated again since the OP obviously missed them in the first two threads. actually it is a camera i give two shits about because pentax was my last hope to produce a decent mirrorless camera with IBIS. since they didn't, i've lost all hope in such a product and am a bit miffed. it's not like we're tied to our other camera brands here and only bring up others so we can disparage them. most of us are waiting for somebody (anybody!!!) to come out with the mirrorless camera we really want and this pentax most definitely isn't it. instead its a camera that only appeals to a small subjection of the already small subsection of the camera market that already owns pentax autofocus lenses.
artd wrote:
"Well designed" seems to be a matter of opinion and because it's useless for you does not mean the same goes for me.
true, but can you honestly not think of at least two obvious easy things to change that would make the camera much better?
artd wrote:
"Well designed" seems to be a matter of opinion and because it's useless for you does not mean the same goes for me.
A camera that is designed in a way that will reduce your success rate when doing hand held photography in anything but good light and at times even then, is not well designed.
Not being able to eliminate that problem (which it is, not just made out to be) by facilitating an external EVF as an option is further cementing the notion that the camera is not designed by a photographer and not for a photographer.
The person designing the camera displays lack of basic camera ergonomics and photography knowledge and is probably a happy snapper himself.
Deadwolfbones; bashing cameras is what we do, and we are pretty darn good at it.
When anyone designs a camera that deserves praise, they'll get it.
sebboh wrote:
true, but can you honestly not think of at least two obvious easy things to change that would make the camera much better?
And keep the price low? No, I honestly can't.
douglasf13 wrote:
I think many of us were hoping for Pentax to answer some of the issues with the various mirrorless systems that are already out there, thus the disappointment and big reaction. If Pentax had designed a new, shallow mount, mirrorless system from the ground up that had an electronic adapter for K mount lenses, I would have definitely given several s#$%@ about it.
Ditto. +1 and all that.
I realize this camera was conceived before Ricoh bought Pentax but my concern remains until we see what comes of their joint efforts.
And to echo what was said above, surely even a die hard Pentax fan can think of improvements the K-01 could benefit from. Should have benefitted from, even.
kosmoskatten wrote:
A camera that is designed in a way that will reduce your success rate when doing hand held photography in anything but good light and at times even then, is not well designed.
I've been shooting cameras using hand held live view without bracing for a long time now. Compact cameras, mirrorless cameras, and even a 5DII with manual focus lenses. Not always ideal. But certainly workable.
Not being able to eliminate that problem (which it is, not just made out to be) by facilitating an external EVF as an option is further cementing the notion that the camera is not designed by a photographer and not for a photographer.
douglasf13 wrote:
I think many of us were hoping for Pentax to answer some of the issues with the various mirrorless systems that are already out there, thus the disappointment and big reaction. If Pentax had designed a new, shallow mount, mirrorless system from the ground up that had an electronic adapter for K mount lenses, I would have definitely given several s#$%@ about it.
Right, I get that.
But how many times do you really need to restate it?
michaelwatkins wrote:
And to echo what was said above, surely even a die hard Pentax fan can think of improvements the K-01 could benefit from. Should have benefitted from, even.
artd wrote:
And keep the price low? No, I honestly can't.
seriously!
tilt lcd, thumb rest, accessory port (for the folk who do like evfs) come immediately to mind just looking at pictures of the thing. none of those would noticeably effect price unless you think ribbon cables and molded plastic are expensive.
But how many times do you really need to restate it?
As many times as the camera is defended. Artd mentioned that not needing an adapter for K mount lenses was a good thing, so I had to chime in again to explain why an electronic adapter would have been a better option.
artd wrote:
And keep the price low? No, I honestly can't.
I can. And so can anybody who's ever handled an A33/55/35 from Sony. Which are comparable in cost (or less) than a K-01 and offer EVF's & flip/twist LCD's (on the A33 & 55), similar IQ and better AF in a similar sized & featured package.
I'm an ex-Pentax shooter who left Pentax for two simple reasons. Pentax doesn't make a reasonable selection of fastish lenses (I want f2 at a minimum for my basic lens set) and I really do like EVF's. Frankly an EVF-equipped K-r body with the K-01 electronics and AF system would have interested me (not enough to come back fully given the lens lineup weaknesses for my uses, but enough to consider buying one for fun). The K-01 body as is does not. And quite frankly the compact Pentax lenses, while nice, are not enough smaller than the compact Sony A mount lenses to make up for the speed difference (My walk-around setup with the A33 always was the 24/2.8, 35/1.8 SAM and the 50/1.4. With the K-x I could use the 21/3.2 and 50/1.4, but had no easily available replacement for the 35/1.8, the 31 is too much money, the FA35 is almost unfindable and the DAL35/2.4 is a stop slower)
tilt lcd, thumb rest, accessory port (for the folk who do like evfs) come immediately to mind just looking at pictures of the thing. none of those would noticeably effect price unless you think ribbon cables and molded plastic are expensive.
Yes, seriously.
The only thing I don't think would have an impact on the price would be a thumb rest. Saying a thumbrest would make a camera "much" better is a stretch.
It's not raw materials that increase the cost of the final product. I mean seriously the raw material costs for siliocn aren't that big either. It's extra steps in the design process, the manufacturing process, extra designs costs for incorporating the electronics for an accessory port, etc.
Regardless, the lack of those things does nothing to dimish the appeal of the camera to me.
douglasf13 wrote:
As many times as the camera is defended. Artd mentioned that not needing an adapter for K mount lenses was a good thing, so I had to chime in again to explain why an electronic adapter would have been a better option.
That would have been a better option only if the point of this camera were to compete on the basis of being in the realm of the smallest/lightest cameras. Though what would have happened in reality is it would have been yet another mirrorless system with no decent lens selection to support it at launch and would have required a very pricey and clunky adapter to use with legacy lenses.
Instead, they provided a nice compact camera at a cheap price that makes use of a huge selection of existing lenses with no fuss, many of which are also compact and optically great. I personally like that choice much better. Especially since I already have a NEX....I don't need a NEX clone from Pentax.
The only thing I don't think would have an impact on the price would be a thumb rest. Saying a thumbrest would make a camera "much" better is a stretch.
It's not raw materials that increase the cost of the final product. I mean seriously the raw material costs for siliocn aren't that big either. It's extra steps in the design process, the manufacturing process, extra designs costs for incorporating the electronics for an accessory port, etc.
Regardless, the lack of those things does nothing to dimish the appeal of the camera to me.
the design on all of the things is incredibly easy (just take a camera that has them apart to see how easy), and there are multiple cameras that have them and are cheaper than the pentax. as for the thumb rest making the camera much better, there is a reason why nearly every camera has one and why the nearly every m9 owner (who actually uses the camera) buys the thumbs up accessory.
if you think the camera is perfect as is that's great, but i think the vast majority of people would like/were expecting more.
artd wrote:
Instead, they provided a nice compact camera at a cheap price that makes use of a huge selection of existing lenses with no fuss, many of which are also compact and optically great. I personally like that choice much better. Especially since I already have a NEX....I don't need a NEX clone from Pentax.
Instead you got pretty much an SLT clone from Pentax, just without several features (but with the only usable CDAF implementation for SLR lenses, which is admittedly a nice addition)
sebboh wrote:
the design on all of the things is incredibly easy (just take a camera that has them apart to see how easy), and there are multiple cameras that have them and are cheaper than the pentax. as for the thumb rest making the camera much better, there is a reason why nearly every camera has one and why the nearly every m9 owner (who actually uses the camera) buys the thumbs up accessory.
if you think the camera is perfect as is that's great, but i think the vast majority of people would like/were expecting more.
I suppose I'm a no-frills kinda guy :shrug:
I'm not an expert in mass manufacturing, so I really won't pretend to have the knowledge necessary to go into an analysis of how extra features influence product costs (though if you do, I'm happen to learn). I do know that if I want to use K-mount lenses with their full functionality in combination with a top notch sensor then the K0-1 is the cheapest game in town. Some people might expect more, and that's fine. Personally, if I wanted more, then I would be looking at a K-5. But since I already have a DSLR system I don't feel I need another. Just a simple little camera to mount my favorite old Pentax glass on.
mawz wrote:
Instead you got pretty much an SLT clone from Pentax, just without several features (but with the only usable CDAF implementation for SLR lenses, which is admittedly a nice addition)
Since I there are a lot of Pentax lenses that I love, and not a lot (or any) Sony lenses that I love, I guess I can live with that.
artd wrote:
I suppose I'm a no-frills kinda guy :shrug:
I'm not an expert in mass manufacturing, so I really won't pretend to have the knowledge necessary to go into an analysis of how extra features influence product costs (though if you do, I'm happen to learn). I do know that if I want to use K-mount lenses with their full functionality in combination with a top notch sensor then the K0-1 is the cheapest game in town. Some people might expect more, and that's fine. Personally, if I wanted more, then I would be looking at a K-5. But since I already have a DSLR system I don't feel I need another. Just a simple little camera to mount my favorite old Pentax glass on.
If you have mostly A or later lenses then you get full functionality with the K-01 (but tracking down a K-r produces the actual best value for these lenses, Pentax did a bang-up job with the 12MP sensor in the K-r and K-x and aside from absolute resolution it's nearly a match in IQ performance with the K-01). If you have M or K lenses (numerically the most common Pentax lenses) then you get less functionality than with a NEX and an adapter (the Pentax is limited to the Green Button metering hack in M mode for K mount lenses that aren't A or later, the NEX or Samsung NX (which has an official K adapter) offers Aperture Priority and Manual modes with any K lens with an aperture ring (and the NEX at least can do Shutter/Aperture priority with manual lenses in Shutter Priority mode with Auto-ISO enabled, a Pentax-originated mode which the K-01 lacks). Remember that no Pentax DSLR (or the K-01) has mechanical meter coupling which is necessary for full-aperture metering with M/K lenses.
The only reason why the K-01's a good deal for K mount shooter is because Pentax isn't currently offering a low-end DSLR. But it's not appreciably smaller than a K-r or K-x and while the sensor is better I have to conclude that otherwise Pentax's excellent compact DSLR's are a better choice for everyday shooting with A and later Pentax lenses due to superior handling and a viewfinder allowing eyelevel shooting.
mawz wrote:
If you have mostly A or later lenses then you get full functionality with the K-01 (but tracking down a K-r produces the actual best value for these lenses, Pentax did a bang-up job with the 12MP sensor in the K-r and K-x and aside from absolute resolution it's nearly a match in IQ performance with the K-01). If you have M or K lenses (numerically the most common Pentax lenses) then you get less functionality than with a NEX and an adapter (the Pentax is limited to the Green Button metering hack in M mode for K mount lenses that aren't A or later, the NEX or Samsung NX (which has an official K adapter) offers Aperture Priority and Manual modes with any K lens with an aperture ring (and the NEX at least can do Shutter/Aperture priority with manual lenses in Shutter Priority mode with Auto-ISO enabled, a Pentax-originated mode which the K-01 lacks). Remember that no Pentax DSLR (or the K-01) has mechanical meter coupling which is necessary for full-aperture metering with M/K lenses.
The only reason why the K-01's a good deal for K mount shooter is because Pentax isn't currently offering a low-end DSLR. But it's not appreciably smaller than a K-r or K-x and while the sensor is better I have to conclude that otherwise Pentax's excellent compact DSLR's are a better choice for everyday shooting with A and later Pentax lenses due to superior handling and a viewfinder allowing eyelevel shooting. ...Show more →
I'm not so concerned about M or A lens use, I've got K mount adapters for both e-mount and EF mount. It will be nice to have autofocus on FA and DA lenses again though.
I like the 16mp sensor much better than the 12mp, that's a reasonable enough number of pixels to get to 16x24 inch prints without interpolation becoming too bad. But for those who don't print larger than 12x18 12mp though should be enough.
artd: I am glad you like the concept. For most people a camera that you cannot cradle comfortably for handheld shooting with face/body brace will render a lot of "just out of" focus images and worse low speed hand holding limits than the regular dSLR.
My hit rate went down before I got an EVF for my mirrorless cameras. And I am quite a seasoned photographer and I have done field archery. The K-01 for portraits with a fast lens? No thank you.
To me, the K-01 is more a concept than a camera. If they omitted ergonomic aspects in favor of looks, then Pentax did a poor choice.
Surely cost was not the main issue. I think Marque Nuisance went for a clean look, shaving off the ergonomics in the process.
