K-01: A Failed Experiment

After only a single year since its announcement, the K-01 is listed as discontinued.  The pricing of the body is currently at $300 with the 40mm kit coming in at $60 more.  I think its fair to say the bold attempt to mix edgy styling with a body that lacks a VF but isn't really portable simply didn't pan out.  The images that the K-01s produce are not lacking in any way in comparison with the competition, so surely it was the ergonomic shortcomings that fueled its early demise.

My hat is off to Pentax for trying to stir things up with the design/concept and knowing when to pull the plug.

RIP, K-01.

--
-AC-

Before the K-01 was announced, I recall a lot of people asking for a K-mount MILC. I don't think the size was a big issue among Pentax shooters, it's still smaller than any DSLR. Lots of people backed out because there was no viewfinder. At current pricing, no VF is an acceptable compromise for many of us.

--
Dan

So, this is from your personal experience?

--
Variance is Evil!

I agree, it's smaller if you put on a prime lens. With a zoom, it doesn't really make much difference if the body is a little smaller than that of a DSLR.

Maybe this has been rehashed 1000 times by others but here's the paradox of the K-01 in my mind: The Pentax advantage of being able to use all of these legacy lenses on a K-01 is, in most cases, only really relevant to existing Pentax owners. So if you already have a Pentax DSLR, how is a K-01 truly providing something substantially different to the point that you'd want to own it as a second camera when there are many other good options that are far more compact and portable?

As a new user entering the Pentax realm, I really wanted to give the K-01 a try. I believe it's a great camera in itself; but it's not much cheaper compared to the K-30 in my market and while I liked it I could not chose it. I can see it as useful for someone who has a serious commitment to Pentax already, but it was in no way able to open the 'grand' mirrorless market to Pentax.

The K-30 is an EXCELLENT value indeed.  It's hard to beat a camera that's under $600 right now and features an excellent sensor AND an excellent 100% pentaprism VF.  The K-30 is really a steal.

--
-AC-

Some good points of K-01, even if you have Pentax DSLR(s): focus peaking very useful with MF lenses, or in low light, CDAF focusing is consistent no matter the lighting (no FF/BF issues), and makes good decisions in auto mode always optimizing the depth of field as well as possible, basically excellent IQ for comparatively little money spent, unique design which you may or may not like, but it is very distinctive, and high build quality. But what I like the most is the reliability of CDAF, even if it is slower, but it is there when I need it.

What is interesting is that I have a lot of existing lenses. OTOH - I mainly use the XS40 and DA21 with it. One lens came with the K 01 and the other was bought for it.

I hope that Pentax does come out with a SLR type camera similar to the K 01. I really do not want to give up the focus peaking and always accurate CDAF. However, I will not except a camera size much bigger than the K 01.

--
Variance is Evil!

What I mean is, I don't think the size of the K-01 is what turned Pentax shooters away, it was the lack of a viewfinder. A body with K-mount and SR and is not going to be small.

Other options mount my K lenses, but only the K-01 offers full functionality. I'm not interested in collecting lenses for a new mount. I am a Pentax DSLR shooter and intend to remain so. I bought a K-01 for specific purposes:

- to carry in the bag as a second body, especially when I have the DA*300 on my DSLR

- street shooting and candid shots of friends and family (smallish white body and LCD framing are less intimidating and attract less attention than raising a DSLR to your eye).

The justification for non-Pentax shooters is weaker, but the K-01 does have class leading IQ and a more complete lens line than any MILC. At the current price it's a steal and the IQ beats the hell out of a lot other choices.

--
Dan

I hope not but that may well be the case. Great camera unfortunately "designed" by a guy who knows little of cameras. Form was placed before function and that was much of the problem. Somebody should slap Marc for the placement of the green button alone!

Nevertheless... I'm glad I got in on the fire sale.

--
Any government that has the power to correct any injustice and level any inequality also has the power to do ANYTHING it wants.

While it's clear that Pentax wishes that they could have sold more K-01 at the original price, I'm curious if there's any hard data showing how many bought the K-01 as their first Pentax, and what the trickle-down effect of that over time is, i.e., the purchase of additional lenses, accessories, follow-up bodies, etc...

In the meantime, I'll enjoy what must now be considered a dead, zombie camera.

--
john m flores
johnmflores.com
http://whatblogisthis.com

Fully agree on lack of an EVF.  One reason why it's priced half (or less) than originally.

That's true but the market for a MILC as a second body for K-mount lenses is trivially small, IMHO.  Why go through all of the motions and expense of developing a new camera if it can't provide a great proposition to those who don't already own a Pentax (which is just 5% or so of DSLR users).  As for IQ... sure, it's great but that seems to be a small differentiator among many between cameras these days.

One small piece of data that might answer your question a little:  The camera store where I bought my K-30 carries in stock every Pentax model including the 645 (which I think is for rentals).  When I bought my K-30 last summer, they said they had yet to sell a single K-01.

I agree with your points Jim. The K-01 tanked, so clearly it was not a successful design. OTOH, it does what I need, so I'm glad they made it. Honestly I wouldn't have bought it, but at the price it was just too much of a deal to pass up.

I have to wonder why Pentax made this body, but i don't think they put a lot of effort into it, since all of the internals are shared with the K-30. They probably learned some things about MILC from this experience.

--
Dan

I have no idea about the market this was intended for and why it missed (I assume), but I do know why I didn't buy.... 1 FPS in raw.... I was prepared to give it a go without an evf (but would prefer an evf) but the FPS thing just amazed me and showed Pentax had not intended it for me and my requirements. So I went for a K-r then when the K-30 dropped in price I jumped on that as well. I use a panasonic G2 with my pentax lenses and really enjoy the manual focus experience with an evf and it's ability to magnify, I would really like to try that with a native K-mount. However I've spent all my money now so no need for a new K-02 yet... Pentax.... you'll have to wait....

--
Walt
http://picasaweb.google.com/waltdall
http://www.flickr.com/photos/anotherwalt

I count the K-01 as the last of the failed Hoya experiment and I think its "failure" is directly linked to failue by Hoya:

1 - Pricing:  The initial price, $750 body/$900 kit, was just too darn high.  I have no doubt that they were trying to protect sales of the K-5 and k-r but they did do by not selling any K-01s. Had they priced it at $300/450 out of the gate they would have had a winner.  They would have gotten a ton of "legacy" sales from existing owners and a lot of new sales from people who were never going to buy something even as big as a k-r.

2 - Weather proofing:  Pentax has built a successful niche in the "adventure" (read to dumb to go back inside!) market.  Then they introduce a camera almost perfect for "adventure" (big knobs, minimum controls) and it is not weather proofed.  Worse it is not weather proofed AND heavy.  THe K-01 is a solid little camera.  It FEEL like it should be WR.  I cant imagine a few rummer seals would have added that much more weight and they would have created a HUGE selling point.

3 - The "zoom" factor:  Face it, most camera buyers are idiots.  They will always choose the camera with a zoom over one without.  Never mind the vast majority of them use their zooms like two crappy primes at either widest or longest.  Most of us who have used a camera for more than a day know the joys of Primes but its a tough way to sell a camera.  The K-01 begs for primes.  Pair it with the DA 21mm, 40mm, 70mm series and toss in the new DA 35 and DA 50 and you have an amazing fit that covers 27-105mm eq with fast, sharp glass that is small enough to fit in a hand bag.  And it will fail miserably against a camera with a 17-70 f/4.5-6.3 that will never take a sharp image.

4 - Lowball/crippling:  Pentax either put a crippled processor or low balled it.  No way a new camera without a mirror should show slower than my 5 year old K-200D.  Weather proofing and pricing follow this too.

A couple of non-factors IMO:

1 - Viewfinder:  Yes it might have been an issue for us "legacy" users but not for new ones.  If you grew up with camera phones and P&S putting the camera up to your eye is strange.  Ever had your DSLR to a non-photographer?  I have and the results are comical.  Having said that there is no reason why Pentax couldnt make a $50 OVF to clip on to the K-01.  The $250 one for the Q is insane.

2 - Color/design:  Ill admit I was a skeptic but having played with it for a week I LIKE the design.  The on/off switch is a joy and it handles well.  As for the color, more!  People LIKE color.  Yes it causes inventory issues but much of that could be solved with just in time inventory management.  And I think Pentax is REALLY missing an opportunity in certain markets.  Offer a red and white version in Alabama - Roll Tide!  Burn Orange in Texas - Hookum!  Purple for my fellow K-Staters (plus Northwestern, Ravens and Sacrament Kings fans).  People buy color themed CASKETS for goodness sake.

3 - Size:  Everyone seems to be hell bent on making everything smaller.  Yet consumers have consistently opted for small enough over smallest.  Some of us are old enough to remember tiny cell phones.  Well they are still around (http://blog.comparemymobile.com/10-smallest-mobile-phones-in-the-world-2013/) yet very few people buy them.  The Honda fit is a great car but it poses no danger to the Honda Civic.  Why?  Because most of us are willing to give up space before function.  I dont know how Sony convinces people to hold a lens with a camera stuck on the back but in my mind its a stupid way to take a picture.  If Pentax could slim the K-01 down to the size of a Pentax ME/MX/LX and make it WR they would have a killer camera.

In the mean time I am enjoying the hex out of my K-01.  $328 for a K-5 class sensor and a TINY 40mm lens,  Bargain and a half.  I hope ther eis a K-02.  If Pentax makes a FEW changes it could have a real winner.

--
Very happy K5 & K200 owner!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ksuwildkat/

I think you're all being too kind. It failed because of its ridiculous My First Camera styling. The fact that it's a compact system camera the size of a house brick just added to the lolz.

From a sales perspective, I cannot disagree with your assessment. However, I purchased one at the same time I bought a K-30; I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to get TWO 16 megapixels bodies for under $1k. And curiously enough, I enjoy shooting with the K-01 *more* than the K-30. Go figure.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pixelstatic/
http://www.pixelstatic.com

That's not data, that's an anecdote.

--
john m flores
johnmflores.com
http://whatblogisthis.com

The number "zero" as of August 1, 2012 (approx.) at Dodd Camera in Cleveland is a data point.