Alec: Judging by the fit and finish, this must be one of the very old and/or lower end homebrew 3D printers. I've seen the results from current commercial grade 3D printers in metal and several plastics - if you know what to look for, you can still tell it was 3D-printed rather than conventionally manufactured, but just barely.
I am convinced this ugly duckling is the writing on the wall. I believe personal 3D printers will follow the path of conventional desktop printers. In 1992 many people had dot matrix printers, equivalent in the crudeness of results to the camera above. Then Epson came out with the 720dpi Stylus Color. With that relatively affordable printer and inks and good paper, everybody could suddenly produce vibrant and sharp results. You could see the dots, but more to the point, you could see a beautiful document or photo. That's the level of quality attainable today from many 3D print shops.
I think even more so at the consumer level. I see very few photo inkjet papers at a Target or OfficeMax. Folks are uploading to a Walgreens and picking up the prints in store, I believe.
Paul Janders: My favorite Nikon compacts were the 950, 4500 and S 10. Each of those had a split body that somewhat replicated the convenience of an articulated viewing screen. I still use my S 10 from time to time and I'm still waiting for Nikon to bring an articulated view screen to a professional grade SLR. The screen on the new Canon 70D really looks nice. If I had Canon lenses I would snap that body up in a second.
Just took my Coolpix 800 camera for a spin-one of the first digital cameras that demonstrated the potential of the medium. That swivel, split design is superb. I agree.
Gully Foyle: Re-posting an answer of mine from below, why do I think this is a failed product:
1. Because there are others who can do better.2. Because Pentax could do better.3. Because its lifespan measured months (except for Japan, apparently).4. Because hardly a year after announcement it sell for half its initial price.5. Because the nicely build metal body was overwhelmed by funny plastics.6. Because the design belies its enormous capabilities.7. Because it's a genuine idea spoiled by bad execution.8. Because there are SO many things Pentax could have done right and didn't.
And to be clear, I truly admire and love Pentax, a K10D is the camera I've had used the most of all the cameras I had. But as I said, I admire them, not worship them.
A mirrorless camera really needs a shorter flange distance: makes the camera more compact; allows one to use thousands of extant lenses. Then, make an affordable, quality adapter for your K-mount glass and include it with the camera.
The Samsung NX1000 (now available for $300 w/lens) runs rings around a camera like this. Same APS-C size sensor, compact as any interchangeable lens camera out there, excellent video and world-class interface and ergonomics. Only thing lacking from K-01 is in-body shake reduction.
If the reviews were harsher (i.e. more honest rating), it might encourage the OEMs to develop models with better image quality. I don't get it. This is one of the only compact camera segments with strong growth potential, but .... What happened, Nikon, to the Nikonos legacy.
Rod McD: Quote from the conclusion :- "Details are smudged at base ISO (though likely not an issue for target audience)"
Why is there this ongoing assumption that people who like the outdoors aren't interested in better IQ? In my experience, people who want tough, WR cameras to take to wild places greatly value where they go and the images they bring back. Perhaps the target audience who buy these cameras do so because there's simply nothing better available. It doesn't mean it isn't wanted and wouldn't sell. And no, one shouldn't have to carry a D4 in housing. We need something in-between - a modern day Nikonos with a fixed wide to standard zoom.
Surely someone could make a better small WR camera with a 1"- APSC sensor, a WA zoom, and real O-ring seals? Yes it would weigh more and cost more, but many would be prepared to pay more for a comprehensively better outdoor camera.
How else should an image be judged but at 100 percent pixel view. This "it will look better when downsampled" defies logic/common sense. I've looked at many a camera's output and there is a difference. My Kodak Z8612 IS can stand scrutiny at per pixel level, but of course Kodak failed in the marketplace!
Biro: Well, how about that? Not only is the K-01 still being sold, apparently it's still in production. Many people just didn't get this camera and that's fine. But I'm glad I have mine. I hope eventually there will be some kind of a K-02.
Might just be left-over unassembled kit?
Roland Karlsson: What a surprise! It was beaten to he ground and did not move any more. And then it was reborn in a bright blue coat. This was one of the last things I could guess happen.
If it is good or not I don't know. I know nothing about the Japanese market.
The good thing might be that there might come a K02, where Pentax have made some changes to make it a perfect and compact camera.
I agree but all the APS-C system that use a new, shorter mount (Samsung NX, Sony NEX, Fuji, Canon EOS-M) are really fun because with inexpensive adapters you can use an incredible number and variety of legacy lenses. Not all work well with digital sensors, it's almost a hit and miss trial basis, but it's fun.
I laud any effort to re-think the digital camera and simplify the interface and controls without sacrificing capabilities. The modern DSLR has become like the cockpit of the Space Shuttle.
However, the K-01 is an excellent design, but it is not groundbreaking. The gestalt reminds of me of several of the earliest digital cameras. Pentax did simplify but not re-invent digital cameras in any way that would improve "user powers."
I hope someone does. The K-02 could be more compact and offer a much better viewing system. Gestures over precision, screens we can't see in daylight seem to be what the future is bringing.
Anepo: What is the POINT of having a camera with interchangeable lenses that is worse than SEVERAL compact camera's with non nterchangeable lenses? This is basicly a TOY mirrorless rather than a REAL high quality mirrorless like the gx1, om-d, epl-5 e-pm1 e-pm2 & such.
Just to have fun. Small primes, special lenses. Etc.
markgregorwoods: Why not just be called PR or the camera formerly known as Pentax. I think this is a huge marketing blunder and one that sounds like it came from a failing student in branding 101. If Ricoh is the name then change it all and get it done. Frankly I think Pentax is a more recognizable name and one that holds a much high reputation in the camera world. Either way this branding will not have the strength it needs since it appears the company itself is uncertain of it's own name.
Don't say that to my Ricoh 500 35mm RF or Ricoh Diacord TLR! Really, of all these entities, it is amazing how many still remain as camera or imaging companies: Yashica/Kyocera, Mamiya, Pentax, Ricoh, Olympus, Casio, Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Konica, Fuji and so on.
What is needed is a strong compact camera LINE name. Nikon has Coolpix. Canon has Powershot. Minolta had Dimage; Olympus Camedia and Pentax Optio. (BTW: Pentax Optio 450/550/555 is an outstanding camera for its era and type.) Casio has Exilim and I forgot what Sony's was.
I would go back to Optio or find a new name for the compact cameras: then it's doesn't matter if it's Pentax OPTIO or Ricoh OPTIO.
Adrian Van: Maybe Canon can explain why in a camera of this class priced $1199 USD for body has only one SD card slot.It would be more attractive to semi pros or sports/events users if it had backup file capability, like some of Nikons cameras (or the Canon 6D). Or is this considered advanced amateur camera or for more serious users? Do pros/semi pros want or prefer backup SD slots especially if the video is now getting better in movie servo AF mode?
The specs are impressive though, with its new AF system and sensor, and like the full articulating screen.
But the more you look at this, it makes the argument (like Sony) for a fixed mirror, i.e. the pellicle mirror solution. Either view should have equal capability and always be on.
Jacques Cornell: First thing I did in setting up my Panasonic M43s was to disable the touch screens and program the buttons so I could make all important adjustments with my eye to the viewfinder. Touch screens just slow me down. GPS geotagging would be nice to have, though.
Yes-a touchscreen world. Has its uses but why folks want to work with their hands in their field of vision all the time is beyond me. The proprioception available with a mouse, dials, joystick is FAR superior, although there are unique things that gestures can do.
Glen Barrington: I like the idea, I'd like to see this actualized in a more serious camera though. I don't care that much about upload connectivity, I don't see batch upload of 500-1000 or so photos from, say, shooting a wedding being fast or cost effective, (or not battery draining!) but I'd love to be able to use my phone or tablet as a remote control/tethering device for the camera, maybe with the ability to control focus, zoom, and exposure from said phone or tablet.
How about a remote control motorized tripod as well? I'm not talking about wheels to move the tripod, but the ability to pan or tilt, or change the axis. That would be very useful in many situations.
RC lighting umbrellas and boxes anyone? Possibly RC gel spots, etc.
With something as simple as the NX1000, a smartphone can control some operations and preview images.
Would have shaved 1/2 inch or more off rear dimensions width ,but that would probably have necessitated rewriting/reworking the adapted tablet.
Shunda77: I wonder if it's the Sony sensor?
Andy, I hope you are doing the review.
Marvol: If this AF system really - *REALLY* - works, the obvious question is: why still the 1970s mirrorbox at all?
It's pretty obvious that the DSLR form factor is, by and large, past its sell-by date. Give it five more years tops and the DSLR form factor will be considered old hat. And after another 5 it will be considered 'retro' again :p.
It needn't be if it were modernized to bring in some "EVF-like" features. What about customizable head-up display or some of the things Fuji is doing. The OVF became like many other components in photography-the TLR, the Lecia RF, just slowed or stopped being developed. So, you are probably correct.
Looks great. Also, glad I waited. Nice that WiFi isn't an add-on like Nikon. However, I do agree about not having 2 memory cards.
What's in a name. A lot. Carl Zeiss means more to me than Zeiss. There really was someone behind a great legacy.
If only Konica Minolta had changed to just Konica soon enough ...