That's one very expensive grip!
This is a great travel camera when used outdoors or where you can keep the ISO's low. I have to agree with those who say that the price of admission is a bit too much when you consider what else is out there these days.
Very nice image quality. This is where other manufacturers need to learn. They provide cameras with a nice sensor, yet include a crappy kit lens. Look at the last Pentax review. Great sensor, crappy lens.
It's a photo accessory. It is supposed to be expensive.
Trollshavethebestcandy: The K-01 is one reason alien life forms seek intelligent life forms on other planets. Surely an intelligent life form could not allow such visual evil to exist.Seriously that cam is so hideous I could use it for shark repellent in a tank full of starving sharks and topped off with blood and bacon.
I don't think it was that bad. It did had a toyish look though. If you want to see the most hideous camera ever made, Google image the Konika Aiborg. The thing looks inflated, angry or just melted.
I had the Fujifilm 6800Z. It was an odd designed vertical styled point and shoot. It didn't have standout features other than the design, but it did shoot video with sound. Hard to believe it was 12 years ago already.
I can see someone walking around with this rig and tripping or stepping off of a ledge... See if the warranty covers that!
And so begins the dissolution of the Pentax name.
Images are excellent. The kit lens is atrocious. Anything not in the center is soft. I have the DL kit lens and it is much better. I'd recheck with another sample.
Looks like Canon has a new approach to noise reduction. They seem to be letting more grain show through rather than try to obliterate it at high ISOs. I think it looks much better this way. Of course people will complain about the noise now. Nikon N1 cameras and the LX7 are similar at handling the noise. Much better than looking at a smeary water color mess.
I can't stand the shills. They come in the comments or forums and shill some site, acting like it is regular conversation. One example is the user who shilled some memory card recovery service. It was their only two posts and awoke an old thread to post. Sometimes it is hard to tell if they are for real unless you check their profile.
300 bucks for any camera with a 1/2.3 sensor is asking too much.
I bought an Epson PhotoPC in early 1996. I chose it over the QV-10 because it had 640x480 resolution over the QV-10's 320x240. The Epson lacked a view screen and battery life was ~20 shots!
In the early 90's my employer bought a Canon still digital camera that took these mini "video floppy disks". It had 640x480 resolution, had a proprietary interface card that was installed in the computer's internal expansion slot. It made very good pictures for the resolution but it was very expensive. Hard to believe that was over 20 years ago now.
I learned back in the film days that shooting in overcast conditions will often yield more pleasing results because of the huge contrast between light and shadow is not an issue.
I like the new test scene, but it would seem not to challenge a D800 or a 645D much as these could out resolve much of the detail in this scene. The 645D in raw mode is amazing in the detail it pulls out. The next generation of high end cameras won't be challenged at all.
...and probably makes better images than today's point and shoot cameras.
That's about the actual size of the Pentax 67 ;)
Lower cost compacts (where I expect much of the sales to be) produce basically garbage for image quality. Might as well just use the better camera phones.
I bought one of the last good cheap compacts and won't drop a dime on the newer ones. I also bought a mirrorless changeable lens camera last year that I'm happy with, so I have no need to upgrade since the market offers nothing better.
Compared to the Canon D20, this camera looks soft, lacks detail and has lots of noise/mottling in areas of fine detail. At 6mp less, the D20 shows more detail in the face etching and is cleaner all over. Detail is smeared away in the Sony. This is why it is pointless to put high pixel counts on small sensors. But, hey, the market for which this camera is aimed is not supposed to care.
Don't you just love the reviews where the person says something like, "I don't actually own the product but I would not recommend it because...". At least they admit never buying or actually using the product, but why they bother reviewing is beyond me.