DidiBaev: I want FF body from Pentax. Most pentaxians want FF body. We do not like all these bla-bla-bla.........
And Fotogeneticist gets the "1st Grader Retort Award."
raizans: Pentax:Full frame DSLR introduced with 50/1.4, 85/1.8, and 28/2.8 lenses.
Ricoh:GXR body unit w/built-in EVF in the corner.35mm-e f/2 A16 lens unit.
How hard could that be? It's clear that DSLRs with APS-C sensors don't have such a bright future anymore. Time to move on, Pentax!
"It's clear that DSLRs with APS-C sensors don't have such a bright future anymore."
I'd be happy to take a bet on that. Many companies are deeply invested in APS-C lenses and the price-point will always be lower for the consumer. Not to mention if you're into the tele end of photo taking, APS-C has an advantage.
I could accept the idea that it might be phased out someday if they can make make FF sensors that can be priced cheap enough to put into an entry level $600 camera, but to say that it's done and over is a pretty big stretch.
Tony Bonanno: I'm amazed that a company with a rich history in the camera and optics business is bragging about who the "designer" was. Who cares that Mark Newsom was the designer. Photographers do not buy a camera for those reasons.
In fairness, if the K-01 decision was made by the previous owner of Pentax, what are the new owners supposed to say? I think the answer to the question about the future of the product is much more telling.
All that being said, I've used the K-01 and as a camera, it is actually pretty darn good (nice complement to the K-5.)
d2f: I wonder how the old school Samyang lens will compare to the Sigma 8-16 lens. Since the Sigma has AF, supports a electronic interface and has a zoom range that provides another level of control. I know it produces great images since I own one. Given that current DSLR cameras have high sensitivity and the depth of field of a wide angle lens is significant is there is any real need for a 2.8 lens? It is my opinion that current DSLR cameras are fairly difficult to focus manually, since their focusing screens are not optimized for manual focusing, unless there is a focus confirmation, which appears to be missing on this lens, with maybe the exception of the Nikon mount. Also this lens does not appear to have a old school depth of field scale on the lens barrel, which may limit its usefulness when it is needed.
No, it is not a fish-eye zoom. There is some distortion but it is meant to be rectilinear. People saying that f4.5 isn't in the same world as 2.8 might want to wait and see how this lens performs. I have the 8mm Samyang and that lens needs to be stopped down to at least f5.6 for ideal sharpness (which is fine because it is a super wide lens.) Point is, maybe this lens will be perfectly sharp from 2.8 (or maybe it will need to be stopped down) but I can tell you that the outside of its size, the Sigma 8-16 is a very nice lens itself.
Michael Ma: Looks like something you would pull out of a kid's toy box.
Well the camera sure gets us all talking and thinking and maybe even realizing more about what we all really want out of cameras. Lets face it, Pentax (or any other company) could release a dozen different types (size, styles, ect.) of bodies surrounding a single sensor and there would still be people that wouldn't find something they like. For whatever their thinking is, Pentax clearly wasn't aiming this at a consumer who wanted a smaller camera (maybe they feel they did that already with the Pentax Q?)
It's probably more appealing to existing Pentax users (even though there's quite a split amongst them as well) because it works well with the old manual lenses and the newer small limiteds. I don't know whether this camera will be a one-off design, but I can say that I find it to be a useful and fun camera (imperfections and all) and to me that's what photo taking is all about.
Raist3d: My only objection to the review is that while the AF may not be as fast, the manual focus with the focus peaking on this camera is really good. I think when manual focus is that good that should be taken into account.
I think for R Butler to suggest that the lenses don't AF correctly is unprofessional and misleading. Most people who would buy this camera would get it with the 40 XS lens, which was designed specifically to work well on this camera (and it does.)
The fact that the reviewer had bad luck with his lenses is unfortunate, I've aquired over 25 Pentax lenses over the last decade (some brand new and others made as far back as the 1960's) and I have only recieved one that had a QC issue. That lens was returned for a replacement that worked perfectly. Reviewers bad luck or my good luck?
Sorry, but as I see it, R Butler would never in a million years say the same about Canon/Nikon in their review comments because DPR knows where its bread is buttered.
rfsIII: The person below said it best: This is a new digital back for your Pentax lenses. Pentax lenses are quietly awesome for actual picture taking and often less expensive than their equivalents from Canon and Nikon—especially used. So what's not to love? Plus the bodies come in fun colors that will provoke natural smiles from your subjects. People get too worked up about camera bodies—they're such an insignificant part of the imaging chain nowadays—the focus needs to be on composition, lenses, software, and lighting.
I own one and don't find ergonomics to be an issue. The rubber door takes more effort than a solid plastic door would, but (at least on mine) it closes flush with the camera body. Another person suggested an articulating screen and I would agree that would be a nice addition.
tesch: No Viewfinder?
Here's the thing though, Pentax already makes some of the smallest DSLR cameras out there. Because of the native K-mount, they can only make it so small (personally I don't care for the Sony NEX thin body with a honkin' lens hanging off it... others will disagree.) If they had stuck a viewfinder on the K-01, it would be the same size as a DSLR, so what would be the point? Some could argue for that reason maybe it shouldn't have been made, but I think to concentrate on the lack of VF/EVF misses the point. Some people swear they won't use a camera without a viewfinder and this camera isn't for them.
As someone who has tried a K-01, I can say that it is actually a pretty fun camera to use and the photos compare very well (if not better at times) to my K-5. I admit that this camera requires a bit more of an "open mind" but just because it doesn't conform to rigid camera ideology doesn't mean it is an any less capable image-making device.
justmeMN: I have a Pentax Film SLR. It's disappointing to see the company sold, then sold again. Now, they are owned by a copier company. Who will own them next...?
Sorry, but Ricoh was making K-mount SLR cameras all the way back when it was first introduced. They are a serious camera company and the investment in Pentax proves that they want to keep it moving forward. If the point of your comment is to discount them as a company, than I think you're a little misinformed.
forpetessake: And the truth is that Sony is making a lot better cameras than Nikon with the same sensors. The latter are cheaper, of course, otherwise why would anybody buy them.
Wait... what's a Holga? Does it come in metalic red with a 18-105mm lens?
Jefftan: No OIS for 20-50mm
Recipe for blurry photo
No wonder all photos taken on old film cameras are so blurry... they didn't have OIS. Well at least now I know.
Or you could try shooting at 1/30 or faster.
keekimaru: I really enjoy this camera.
I owned a K-r for a short period of time before I sold it for this and I don't have buyer's remorse for doing it.
Things I like:-The thing isn't plastic. And it doesn't feel it.-The picture quality in RAW...-The controls are simple.-Because it is designed for a screen, live view can be used all the time and not drain the battery quickly like it did on the K-r. That is of course if you like the live view.-When you put on the kit lens this camera takes up the same space as a 4/3rds. Most times you carry a camera around and want to take quick shots you don't need a zoom anyways. It is a slightly genius maneuver to make the lens smaller as that is what half the size of the 4/3rds cameras are, the lens.
More Detail :http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00740MR78/tipfla-20
Yeah... and for all that money Pentax doesn't even include a "Protentious Photog-Guy" club card!! Now how will I go around telling others they can't make any good photos with their new-fangeled "camera." I recomend everyone go look at Canon or Nikon instead.
CJ Lan: I am neither Canonian, Nikonian, Pentexian, or micro 4/3 users. I use/like a camera as long as it is good in features and practical. Honestly speaking, I do not quite understand the philosophy behind the Pentax design engineers. Not getting into full frame market before jumping into very expensive medium format 645, interchangeable lens system with tiny p&s sensor (Q), now a bulky mirrorless camera. and who knows the next in the future. Correct me if I am wrong. I thought the main purpose getting rid of mirror is to achieve portability of a interchangeable lens camera system. What does K-01 try to accomplish in this regard? If just for using the existing line of lenses, I would rather stick with K-5 or any other Pentax APSC for their professional looks, not this as bulky and toy-looking "SLR".
Pentaxians are also used to being able to put any lens on their K-mount cameras which means everything from the new 40mm XS lens (slightly thicker than a body mount cap) to zoom lenses made in the 80's and 90's that are huge. The bigger the lens, the more the thickness of the K-01 is appreciated. As Pentax releases more XS lenses (which will be smaller and made specifically for the K-01) I would expect to see a quick and smaller version of the kit lenses, which will make use of short focus throw and be optimized for the contrast detect focusing.
I also think you (CJ Lan) and others have rightly made up your mind at this point and that no matter what anyone says, you will not be swayed. And I think that's great because you know what you want and this isn't it. I will offer my point of view: People complained that the Q had a small sensor and that you couldn't natively mount K lenses. The K-01 offers the flip side to the Q. It is not as small as some mirrorless cameras, but Pentax, by using the K-mount, was somewhat restricted in size (ie registration distance.) The K-01 is 1/2 an inch wider than the mount to the right and 2 1/4 inches to the left which makes it smaller than the K-5 (already a small DSLR) in height and width. In my opinion as an owner, it does "feel" more portable.
You're obviously free to disagree with the path that Pentax has chosen, but if you look at what they say when they talk about their strategy, they clearly state that they have no interest in being a "me too" camera company. They have said many times that they are considering a full frame camera, but that they will only make it if they can do it in a way that is different than what the others are doing. I personally think FF will happen and I expect that it will probably be equally polarizing. The Q, like it or not, is different than anything else (especially at release.) And I think the K-01 has followed in that same pattern. I do admit that this way of designing is not going to appeal to everyone or probably ever make them a top seller. But Pentax is at least doing exactly what they told everyone they would do.
After two weeks of using it, I am really enjoying this camera. It is easy to see how its design can be polarizing, but in real world use I have found it to fill a need (something more portable than my K-5.) It doesn't have all the bells and whistles of the K-5 but it does have some of it's own pluses. The think the boxy look makes it appear more cumbersome than it is in real life. The images and ISO performance are great and I can use all of my lenses (and with focus peaking, some of them even easier than on the K-5... I'm looking at you 50mm f1.2.) At the end of the day, I care more about the images I get than the look of the camera.
Would this replace my K-5? No. But I don't believe that is the intention. Though I haven't really had much issues with it not having a VF, I know that's a problem for some. Of course, I've been using point and shoot cameras in the sun for many years without issue and it really hasn't been any more difficult on this camera.
Chris Tofalos: "Professional standards made simple..."
Is that so? There's no EVF! I can't see any serious photographer, let alone a professional, keen to use a camera waved at arms length all the time.
Sony have shown the way to go, what their users clearly want, with an incredible super hi-ires EVF in the NEX-7. The NX200 is virtually a complete waste of time without one; a white elephant!
Yeah, and your comments in return are fair. And I'm certainly not going to defend the NX200 (both because it wouldn't be my type of camera anyway and I think it's hard to fully judge any camera before it's released.) Because an EVF is actually important to me as well (to each their own) I'm more curious to see what the NX20 brings when it comes out.
Always wanted to check out the Oly system. I'm sure Panasonic does things fine as well buy I am always a sucker for the Classic camera companies.
I think the Sony NEX series has by far the ugliest design of all the ILC style cameras (NEX-7 design is better than past models.) Unfortunately for me I feel like this new Samsung looks a little too much the same.
People demand smaller camera bodies yet apparently (above) complain when there is no EVF (BTW Chris, NEX-7 may have the EVF but also has a much higher price.) Personally, I will take the SLR design of the NX10/11 over either of these. Oh well, at least the Samsung lenses are pretty decent (size & quality.)