A CCD sensor is a godsent. I have the SX130, and the best feature about is is the CCD sensor. No rolling shutter effect at all. So much better when taking videos...
Edmond Leung: Good for Pentax. Ricoh is strong in sales and marketing.But the recent new product (mirrorless camera) is no good. They should study the market more carefully.
I bet they do. Why would they design a camera that is only for dpreview posters? This thing is not meant to be a professional tool. It's meant to mix up the market, to give people a designer camera, a fashion statement, that effortlessly takes great photos. Something a mom or dad can use to take photos of their kid growing up, without having a huge camera or having to use a viewfinder.
There is a market for that. And a more professional K-02 or whatever it will be called will probably follow (when EVF tech has matured, and unlike Sony etc. they already have a great upgrade path for the K-01... their DSLRs).
Anastigmat: let's hope the reorganization gets rid of whatever obstacles that have so far prevented the marketing of a full frame model. With Sony working on its second generation full frame model, and Nikon bringing out its 3rd generation full frame, Pentax needs to start working, or it may be condemned to doing what Olympus is doing: putting old wine (M43 sensor) in an older bottle (a camera body that apes the OM series inelegantly).
@qwertyasdf: You want massive DOF and resolution? Buy a Pentax 645D. Makes the FF Canikons look like toys where everything is in focus.
Rupert Bottomsworth: Bad move Ricoh. Now all your cameras will look like abominations à la K-01.
The mid range cameras from Canon and Nikon are huge though, they are expensive, heavy and the layout is weird (ok, I shoot Pentax, but from the first moment I held my Pentax in my hands I pretty much knew where everything was, and could use it blindly pretty fast, furthermore the buttons are where they can be reached easily).
Also the plastic on entry level Canons feels extremely cheap (even many of their compacts seem to be better!), while the plastic on the K-x/K-r is okay-ish, and good on my older entry level Pentax (ok, what was entry level back then).
Gothmoth: why would you spend your money on a pentax system when your starting with photography?
imo canon or nikon have far superior systems.pentax may has some nice cameras and a few nice lenses.but looking at the whole system around it.... why buy into pentax?
Because of the old lenses, because Pentax is the only company to offer a semi-pro camera (all I'll ever need) that isn't a goddamn brick. Does Canon expect me to go to the gym to use a 7D for an extended period of time? It's just too big and heavy, and for what? I fail to see the advantage of it over the K-5.
I like the compact Canons... I have 2 (one that I use regularly, and the other one I used a lot too), my mum one. But their DSLRs either feel like cheap toys (materials are awful, like a toy camera) or are too big and heavy. Pentax strikes a nice balance.
And lets not forget that Pentax knows how to make lenses, even the kit lenses are fairly decent.
tessl8d: I almost bought the K5 just over a week ago, everyting about it felt and worked right,a few days later I saw the KO1 and the money's stayed in my pocket. If this is the Ricoh/Pentax way, then I'm afraid that they will find themselves with some big problems, I'm not buying into a system from a company that might not be there in 3-5 years. If the slim,light and capable NEX7, was weatherproofed, I'd be happy to wait 6 months for it. Hint Pentax.
The K-01 is what might SAVE Pentax. With the Q I was thinking WTF, but the K-01 is almost perfect, from the wonderful design to the lens mount, what it needs now is a cheaper brother and a more professional version, plus a few of the typical lenses modified for the K-01 line of cameras (imagine a NEX-5 with the 18-55... hard to hold, awkward, weird. Now imagine the fat K-01 grip with a lens that sticks out of the camera just so much that the whole combo is as fat as the NEX-5 with that sort of lens. Vastly improved balance, grip, comfort).
I mean... look at this: http://koreatech.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/img_4032w400x300.jpg WTF? Really, what is the point of a slim body when the lens sticks out like that? If anything I would have wished the K-01 had a bigger, more pronounced grip, just like their DSLRs.
M1963: This is good news. Let's just hope Pentax (which seems to have lost their way with those ridiculous colour schemes, Swarovski distractions and silly mirrorless cameras) can get back to its days of glory. When I shopped around for my current camera, I felt tempted to buy either the K-x or the K-R, but I was pulled away by all the indecision regarding Pentax's ownership. They need to do something about that hedious K-01, though...
If they would produce normal DSLRs and ILCs, who would buy them? Great, so a few in the know perhaps (but it's not like there isn't a black K-x/r), but the majority will just buy a Canon or Nikon... or perhaps Sony, because that is a big name too. ILCs everyone and their mother seems to buy a NEX, no one a Samsung NX (despite being relatively competitive).
Pentax isn't big enough to churn out boring me-too cameras, they need to grab attention. The only thing I can think of is an old school (and I mean really old school) DSLR that mimics one of the classic Pentaxes of the 70s/80s (including the usage, something like the Epson R-D1 or Leica M9 but as DSLR), but it is cheaper and probably more effective to just paint the cameras.
WordsOfFarewell: Well let's hope the direction the company goes won't change to much from serious photography to more of those colorful amateur stuff. I guess I'll still have to wait some years until they release a Full Frame for professionals instead of mirrorless and weird colorschemes. Somehow I don't like the recent direction at all despite the brilliant technical specs of my K20D or my K5.
Those colors help sell cameras. Pentax main objective is to earn money, not to please a few. FF is completely in the hands of Canon and Nikon, entering that market would probably be pretty idiotic and more of a status symbol. But Pentax has the 645D as a status symbol, in a market with less competition too.
Look at the Pentax cameras. They are different, and they have to be. K-5... only tiny semi-pro DSLR... there is no alternative. K-x and K-r: Colorful, attention grabbing, and still good cameras. People who buy these may upgrade to the K-5 later. Q: Tiny... totally unlike all other ILCs (not sure if that's a smart idea, but look at Nikon, even THEY didn't dare to enter the APS-C ILC market! And where is Canon?). K-01: Stylish, different, bold, probably most comfortable to use, and tons of lenses. Again, owners of these may buy a K-r/K-5 later or already have one.
Doing yet another me-too camera won't help them (look at Samsung's NX series).
waxwaine: I love it Tough-Macho look.IMHO the point on this camera is the exclusion of the mirror slap, wich produce little shakes affecting the resulted image keeping the venerated K mount.. GREAT IDEA!!! I consider the K-01 a serius attempt and not only an intent of a fetish camera like new Fuji's and others wl knows.
I agree... until you mention the Fuji. This one has hardly any manual controls. The Fuji only has manual controls. IMHO the Fuji is trying to capture the traditionalists market, or photographers that like to shoot with analog cameras. Also a nice niche. This one is weirder... between a fashion statement (look at the design! They hired a famous designer for it, but the controls are just not there) and a serious tool (K mount).
The price makes it tempting to me (as I already have a couple of K mount lenses), but I don't think I could use it as my primary camera, so I'll rather save and buy a K-5 instead.
simon65: I was aghast to look through the electronic viewfinder of a Sony NEX-7 recently and be told it represented the "state of the art" and was recognized as the best in the market.
What I saw was lots of noise and pixels and colour distortion.
The Sony guy explained that, "Well we are inside".
Hmm, well, defintely lots of room for improvement there by MicroOLED and then some, before electronic viewfinders can claim to replace optical viewfinders as found on DSLRs or indeed on Leica and Fuji's rangefinders.
Surprise surprise. That's what your photo would probably look like too. Ideally it gives an accurate representation of what your sensor is seeing, and thus what the photo will look like. It might not be as fun to use, but to get the best shots an EVF is the way to go. You can correct poor exposure before you take the photo and take a look at the screen.
eyewundr: 'See a lot of comments about the representative effectiveness of EVF's to, ultimately, the mind of the photographer.Quick analogy:A good pair of earphones, or even a good pair of earbuds, deliver as good a music listening experience as most decent speaker systems.Similarly, a good EVF can deliver as clear and useful a visual representation as glass (prism). To match top quality glass will require an EVF I have yet to read about.But either way they're for FRAMING the scene to be captured.Just as neither speakers nor headphones can match a live concert performance, neither prism nor EVF can substitute for pulling the camera away to LOOK at the scene BEFORE you frame it in the viewfinder.
That being said I haven't seen an EVF that I consider superior to a good OVF. Yet. But I'm sure the time will come when EVF can equal or surpass OVF, and that day I'll switch (as soon as possible). It also means we can get rid of the noise a DSLR makes (yes, it's nice and cool, and in 20 years we'll find that hip, but for the moment it annoys me most of the time).
Unless you are listening to an unamplified life concert (at least singer and instruments that don't require an amplifier like the e-guitar) then a great set of speakers can deliver better sound quality than what you would hear standing in the audience. They also only use speakers, and usually low quality ones that have one priority: Being loud.
People say the EVF can never catch up. Are they sure? All APS-C cameras have tiny viewfinders, even those with big viewfinders. If find it very hard to determine what is sharp or what is not. With a bigger EVF that has a very high resolution (something that will come, it's just a matter of time) that is less of an issue, also the center can be enlargened to assist in manual focusing. Ideally an EVF will be able to show you exactly what you will get... something an OVF will never be able to do.
tcab: Isn't there a fatal flaw in the inability to use Lightroom 4 on our old Lightroom 3 databases? Ideally I'd like to migrate my LR3 database to LR4 but this is not allowed. So these are the problems:
1. Having to boot up LR3 for some photos and LR4 on other photos will end up being a royal pain. Switching between programs all the time?
2. And what if I move photos and folders (which are referenced by LR3) around in LR4 and go back to LR3 - LR3 will go out of its mind not knowing what happened, and I will have to spend time repairing the LR3 catalog regarding photo locations.
This is potentially a real mess. The only way around it is to strictly use LR4 for new photos in new directory locations, and NEVER mess with your LR3 photos or your LR3 directory and photo locations using LR4. And vice versa.
You shouldn't have to worry, LR3 has the option to use the LR2 processing version etc. as well, I am sure LR4 will let you use and edit photos using the older processing versions too, only new ones will automatically use the latest version, old photos will work like before.
(I haven't used LR4 beta so far, but I'd be very surprised if they didn't handle it that way).