This is very impressive technology, indeed. But I still find it hard to get my head around the underlying working principal of this camera. No doubt, it would be fun to toy and experiment with it for a while. But in the long run? I'm not sure, even if the resolution was adequate for quality photography. It seems to go against everything I have ever learned about photography.
Another issue that no one has addressed so far, is that this technology seems ideally suited for the spy/kill drones of the future. And this is an aspect I don't like at all. Why does stuff like this always have to end up in the wrong hands?
Amazing stuff ... very impressive technology and very likely an extremely capable camera (in the right hands). And yet, not for me. I find the bulk and the functional overload of cameras like the new D800 distracting and intimidating for both, photographer and subject. I much prefer more simple and purposeful designs that concentrate high quality photography.
As a counterbalance to and repentance for technological excesses like the D800, Nikon should have the good sense to continue the low volume production of the FM3a with a handful of AIs primes, one zoom, lense hoods and other accessories. There is a market for this ... amateur photographers, people with their own b&w lab in the cellar, photography classes all over the world. But sadly, this won't happen because global sales of a couple of thousand units per year are not regarded as economically attractive by molochs like Nikon, Canon, Sony etc.
SheikYerbouti: Nobody can say anything meaningful yet about the image quality and the performance of this camera. I expect that iq, performance, build quality and such will be good and up there with the rest in this class of cameras (if not better).
But there are other things that we can comment about already today. When I read in the dpReview introduction ...
> The K-01 (which the company says should> be pronounced 'kay-zero-one')
... I wonder when Pentax will stop patronizing potential customers by telling them how to pronounce cryptic product names (*ist D anyone?). Why don't they just give it a name and shut up about it?
I have no idea, really. Some here, including the dp author, seem to have doubts about the camera's contrast detection AF. But we'll have to wait for the full review to find out how well it performs with a range of different lenses.
Yeah, maybe you're right. The menacing looking bulk of a D700 with grip (in the old days with noisy winder) surely can be intimidating for both, subject and photographer! Cameras like that don't lend themselves well for unobtrusive, discrete shots. In that respect the new Pentax is a far more universal camera. I also do like the K-01's utilitarian boxy design and its modernistic control elements very much. That's why I am so annoyed by its obnoxious color scheme, which makes this camera an absolute no no for me.
But the main issue with this camera is of course its outer design, which reminds me of the warning signals that nature produces ... banded krait (Death!), ladybird (I stink and taste bad!), poison arrow frog (Don't touch!) etc. To me the Pentax K-01 signales something like this ... "Incompetent photographer who wants to draw attention to himself instead of staying in the background". I mean, who other than a complete show-off would hold a piece of kit like that in front of their face? Can anyone imagine doing street photography with a camera like this?
Nobody can say anything meaningful yet about the image quality and the performance of this camera. I expect that iq, performance, build quality and such will be good and up there with the rest in this class of cameras (if not better).
SheikYerbouti: The "original" is a much better photo. It is well composed and the central object, although colorized, still remains firmly in its natural environment. The "copycat" is a strange and unnatural looking image. It's got a weird perspective and the colorized object reminds me of the cut-and-paste jobs that Terry Gilliam did in Monty Python's Flying Circus. Seen from that perspective, Terry Gilliam and many others might as well have joined and filed a class action against the defendant.
But none of this has anything to do with the issue at hand. I think the judgment is an outrage. It should be appealed and publicly fought at every possible level.
I also think that everyone who was involved in writing the law, everyone who voted for the law in parliament and the judge who passed the sentence should be shot. The two photographers should be arrested and each of them should be held in solitary confinement for one year where Justin Fielder is made to read up on ethics and morality (Socrates, Plato, Augustine, Kant) and Nick Houghton is made to familiarize himself with the concept of "original idea" and creativity in general. He should also be forced to attend a photography class.
The "original" is a much better photo. It is well composed and the central object, although colorized, still remains firmly in its natural environment. The "copycat" is a strange and unnatural looking image. It's got a weird perspective and the colorized object reminds me of the cut-and-paste jobs that Terry Gilliam did in Monty Python's Flying Circus. Seen from that perspective, Terry Gilliam and many others might as well have joined and filed a class action against the defendant.
> ... Micro Four Thirds lens to incorporate an electronic motorized zoom.
I wonder why manufacturers still bother with such useless gimmicks. There's nothing more intuitive, more instant than a properly designed, smoothly operating mechanical zoom ring. I can't imagine anyone preferring fiddly pushbuttons on the top or the back of the camera over such direct control on the lens when composing a picture. I also wonder how much extra cost went into the development and the manufacture of this "feature" and to what degree this useless extra will contribute to the overall repair returns in the long run? I think the money would have been better spent on further improvements in optical quality, choice of materials, durability and such. On the other hand ... a high quality 24-100 mm lens is almost the ideal lens for me. If it was 20 mm longer it would be even better as for me 24-120 mm cover 95% of all photographic situations. Such a lens could become a fixed feature on my camera.