ogl: The IQ from ACR is really junk. Compare with the best cameras in terms of IQ - K-5IIs, NEX-7 in RAW. Gold award - funny....Rather slow camera with very mediocre IQ.
"Sensors are different, but Fuji trick is the same..."
There is no "trick". Dxomark "measured" ISO is measuring highlight clipping. It's not measuring shutter speed/exposure. This is not standard definition of ISO.
The proof that your claim is bogus is to go see X100 shutter spreed at ISO 6400 vs ISO 1600. It's two stop faster at ISO 6400.
So there is no "trick" here.
JoeDaBassPlayer: I call B_. The K 01 is every bit as good. The Fuji is half again as much with kit lens.
No, it's not. Read the DPR review. It's worst in the class
These are all your opinions. The reviewers who have used both cameras agree with what I posted above.
If you want to review your own cameras, start your own site.
dosdan: Aptiva + Sony = An even tougher time for Canon sensor innovation.
"Maybe they know something is coming from Canon?"
Canon is not a big player in sensor technology. There are other far far bigger (for example, Samsung) players here.
Plus Canon doesn't even sell sensor, so Canon would be dead last worry for Aptina. Canon is not even relevant here ..
"The K 01 is every bit as good"
Apart from image quality, which might be equal, K 01 is worse in every single imaginable way. No viewfinder. Slower AF. Thicker. Worse ergonomics. Worse design. Worse grip.
D1N0: Great, more bland pics.
D1N0 is known to post idiotic comments like these. Yes, we are talking about RAW already, genius! The topic is sensor itself.
Tim F 101: Simple cause of death: it makes no sense to own a mirrorless camera with a SLR's register distance. If the lenses and camera body are no smaller for a given sensor size, then just buy the SLR. It will focus faster and its viewfinder will work better. Pentax tried to cheap out of designing new lenses for a new mount and got exactly the reception they deserved.
IMO the design was fine. Odd but it got people talking. The real problem was that the system as designed had no technical reason to exist.
If it's selling for $299 that's because it was a flop. No one was buying it at a price that would generate profit for the company. That's not a technical reason for the camera to exist. That just means the camera was a flop.
The fact still is that there is no technical reason for the camera to exist. It has a DSLR mount. It has the space for the mirror, and with the mirror it would focus faster.
Removing the mirror from the camera but leaving empty space means that the camera doesn't have any size/flexibility advantage.
drummercam: The canons-nikons have had their own flops and their own manufacturing defects. There were light leaks on one of the canon dslr's, and the nikon V2 looks like marc newson could have given it some badly needed design help (same with entire PS G15 line and the NEX's, as far as I'm concerned). Disagree that K-01 is in any way ungainly in the hand. It lends itself to a solid grip and thus better view-screen shooting than anything I've handled. Big enough for a good, long-lasting battery in common with my K-7 and K-5. And rubbish to all the noise about the rubber SD card flap. It's fine. Intuitive menus, great feel to the buttons and dials and the pop-up. Maybe you need to own one to know it, but the K-01 is a solid camera capable of great images, and I didn't need to buy a single lens for it.
Nex is a commercial success. K01 is a flop. Apparently that is too difficult for you to understand.
zinedi: It was predictable. No viewfinder - no camera.
RX1 does gave external EVF. K01 didn't even have such an option.
papillon_65: Entirely predictable, a concept so FUBAR it defies belief that anyone thought it could work. A large mirrorless camera with no evf, slow af and brightly coloured lights. Great for the Manga teens but if anyone had actually asked any semi serious photographer whether they would be seen dead with it then they would have had their answer, and saved themselves an awful lot of money.Sorry Pentax lovers but there is a lot more to a camera than having a nice sensor and pretty coloured lights. Please don't tell me I'm a design dinosaur who "doesn't get it", I laughed at it when it was released and I'm laughing now, a classic case of "The emperors new clothes" I'm afraid. If you want to do something radical at least ensure that you include the advantages of the chosen format and make it functional. Two of the biggest advantages were missing - size and evf, epic fail.....
Yes on this planet. Check OMD review. Compare studio shots. Read the DPR conclusion. Only rabid Pentax fanboys claim anything negative about OMD image quality.
fakuryu, that's BS. OMD more than holds image quality compared any APSC on the planet. OMD has incredible image quality. It's one thing to be a Pentax fanboy, and it's another thing to be a liar.
D1N0: It's a designer object aimed at a consumer market. Destined to fail because people don't understand it. Hopefully some people will pick one up, now that they are cheap and get hooked on pentax.
No, there is no continuous AF in video mode. Video quality is not good with IS. Read the review here.
Zvonimir Tosic: One nice proof that photography community today is led largely by very conservative, unimaginative reviewers, who already have "a clear idea" how camera should look like before it's even made. Even from the point of exploration of different and unconventional mirrorless design possibilities, K-01 was a good exercise because it does fit many people who tried it. And it was a risk, that has paid itself off. Understanding from the Photokina interview, the K-01 was yearning some profit for Pentax.Those who ignored reviewers and listened to their own common sense, as every self-respectful person today should do, have in fact discovered something of great value.
If it was generating profit, they would have K02 by now. It wasn't that's why it's dead. No one throws away a "profitable" camera.
The reviewers understood the cameras very well, and they listed all the problems with the camera. Read it.
The camera didn't fail because people "don't understand it" It failed because it got universally poor reviews.
One fps (only) in RAW modeThicker than other MILCSlower AF than other MILC, except probably CanonNo AF in video modeNo Focus peaking in video modeExpensiveNo EVFFixed LCD
That's why it failed
chickensalad: awesome samples, Sony !!
Aside from A99, Sony also makes RX1 and VG900 with the same sensor, so these would be same as D600.
And Sony is still making money every time Nikon sells a D600. At least $500 of that goes to Sony
tommy leong: if there is a K-01 with a smallish 30mmf1.4 then, its will really take off
in light of Sony RX1 and such, we really got to give credit for Pentax for takingthe lead for such small interchangeable camera...too bad that "whats-his-name" branding got in the way.
Taking the lead? It was Nex-5 two years ago that took a lead with small APSC ILC camnera, especially with the 16mm pancake.
MPA1: Why do Hassy keep getting together with TV manufacturers to make cameras?!
Fuji put the sensor made by the same TV manufacturer in their X100, and got a new life because of that.
PhotoKhan: I don't get it...all that "real-estate" to the right of the individual items evaluation bars and, still, it gets a "golden award"?
The only individual item where it seems to shine is "Movie / Video mode" whereas something as critical as "Image quality (jpeg) " gets 8/14...far from gold.
This is still a photography site, right?
K30 isn't free of problems. The focus peaking on K30 is disabled during video mode. K30 cannot AF in video mode either. The audio is mono, but there is no mic input. A57 has stereo builtin mic and mic input, both. The battery life is low on K30 for a DSLR. K30 doesn't have 1080p60. K30 doesn't have articulating screen like A57. K30's jpegs are not good with low DR in jpegs -- that part of K30 review was posted by DPR a week ago
The RAW buffer on K30 is much smaller than A57 (something like 8 for K30 vs 21 for A57), despite lower frame rate (6 for K30 vs 10 with full resolution on A57). K30 doesn't have hand-held multi-shot NR, no incamera panorama, and other nice software stuff like that ..
And K30 launch price was $100 to $200 higher than A57 ..
A57 is a one good camera for the price. A class on it's own. Anyone claiming it doesn't deserve gold is just a troll from other brand
Lofi: Does it overheat?
This is covered in the review
"Sony claims the A57 is free of the overheating concerns during movie shooting that affected the A55 (recording times could drop as low as 6 min at 30°C with SteadyShot switched on). Sony estimates the A57 can shoot for its full 29 minutes at 30°C, dropping to 13 minutes only when the ambient temperature rises to 40°C."
Mannypr: I concur with RedFox88 . I'm not saying that DPreview doesn't have credibility . If that were true I would not be reading their reviews . But a camera that has vague JPG output does not deserve a gold award . Maybe a silver award would be more for it . In any event it does seem to be a really nice camera and for the price it's feature set is great .
If jpegs are so bad, why Nikon D7000's and D5100's jpegs look worse than A57 in DPR studio shots? Hmm ... Something to wonder about. Jpegs can't really be that bad, can they?