Previous news story    Next news story

Pentax Ricoh discontinues K-01 K-mount mirrorless camera

By dpreview staff on Feb 25, 2013 at 19:38 GMT

Pentax Ricoh has moved its K-01 K-mount mirrorless camera to the 'discontinued' section of its website after just 12 months on the market, following steep discounts to its price in recent weeks. The unconventional-looking K-01 used a full-depth Pentax K lens mount but relied on contrast-detection AF, rather than the phase-detection systems for which all autofocus K-mount lenses have been primarily designed.

Designed by Marc Newson, the K-01 was one of the most unusual-looking cameras we've ever used, and the full-depth K-mount made it one of the largest mirrorless camera's we've ever reviewed, too.

When we reviewed the K-01 last year we praised its image quality, but were less impressed by AF performance and ergononomics. Click here to read the full review.

At this year's Consumer Electronics show, we asked a Pentax representative whether there would be a K-02, but received a determined 'no comment' in response. It is possible that the K-01's role could be taken by a long-rumored K-mount module for Ricoh's GXR system.

(From Rice High).

Comments

Total comments: 299
123
John Farrer
By John Farrer (9 months ago)

Despite its many frustrating features (and I keep finding more) this is a great little camera at an unbeatable price that takes some amazing pictures. Macro pictures in bright sunlight are difficult - focus peaking only works if you can see the screen! The rubber door is inane and the On/Off switch keeps bumping to On. Perhaps this camera is a good candidate for Eye-Fi. However I have been asked to do the photography for a music festival (indoor) and I have opted for the K-01 with a Sigma 17-70/2.8.

0 upvotes
Lightweight003
By Lightweight003 (Mar 5, 2013)

Pentax really got it wrong with the K1; - (darned shame though, as it cost them a good few quid to bring it to market). The design alone would suggest that it's designer; (Marc Newson) is a designer of basic/low cost outhouses or beach huts.

1 upvote
Ben O Connor
By Ben O Connor (Mar 2, 2013)

Its an "oficiall announcement" that all the K 01 ´s that anyone would ever buy will consider already "antique"

I think this value should consider more in coming decade and later.

0 upvotes
taktak91
By taktak91 (Mar 2, 2013)

It was a camera that made no one happy. Looked too toy-like for enthusiasts, too loaded and expensive for beginners. If the original MSRP was the same as current street price, it would have sold more (perhaps).

0 upvotes
Minolta4Life
By Minolta4Life (Mar 1, 2013)

I'm sure it's a fine piece of photographic equipment, with a good heart, natural maternal instincts, compassionate, etc..., but the shallow ones in the group, such as myself, will never give her a chance because SHE'S BUTT UGLY!!!

Hahahaha...Just having fun, but really...the b!tch is ugly, man.

Crucify me....

2 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Mar 2, 2013)

If it gave superior results while being ugly you could live with it. It's like having an ugly wife with no other redeeming qualities. Call me shallow Hal.

3 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (Mar 3, 2013)

@Trolls- we must be looking at different RAW files because the K-01 RAW files are actually pretty darn good. But then ultimately it's the photographer who creates an image, so if someone doesn't have what it takes to take a good photo, getting a better camera is not going to really help.

1 upvote
Buttons252
By Buttons252 (Mar 5, 2013)

It does give superior results. Name one camera that gives better results for less then $349 new. hell, name one camera for less then $700.. the only cameras to match it are the Nikon D7000 and Pentax K5.

who gives a rat's butt if its ugly, does anyone go through your photo album and say "oh, i dont like that picture because you took it with a colorful camera made of plastic??" I'll admit, the K01 doesnt look business, but i dont find nikon D1x or canon 5d III attractive to look at either.

The K01 at launch price was a joke, but when it dropped to $349, i sold off all my sony gear and picked one up. It has better IQ plus i have $800 left over in my wallet.

3 upvotes
zos xavius
By zos xavius (Mar 1, 2013)

http://steevemarcoux2.com/2013/02/17/pentax-k-01-one-year-with-the-brick/

1 upvote
Lightweight003
By Lightweight003 (Mar 5, 2013)

At least OTHER camera manufacturers will know what designer NOT to hire, lol!!!

1 upvote
zos xavius
By zos xavius (Mar 1, 2013)

I think a lot of people that don't like the k-01 haven't used one or held one. The design has really grown on me. I don't own one personally, but if I had $300 laying around I'd buy one tomorrow. This is a camera that has won awards and was one of the most talked about cameras in 2012. It was a total failure, sure, but I think that there wasn't enough to make the system initially appealing. A fast zoom lens that recessed into the body would have been a nice demonstrator. The price was also far too high initially. I've used my k-5 in live view to get a feel for what using a k-01 would be like and found it lacking personally. I never liked any of the point and shoots either for that reason, but I did make them work. On a tripod this would be perfectly fine though as I always use live view. An evf, even on the hotshoe would make this a lot more attractive.....wait for version 2. It will come one day.

3 upvotes
wildkat2
By wildkat2 (Feb 28, 2013)

What is with all the anger here? Some of you act like the K-01 was somehow single handedly destroying photography. At least half the posters here have never laid a finger on a K-01 or seen it in person. How the heck do you know ANYTHING about this camera? Goodness let it go! And dont pretend that this is the first discontinued camera ever. Goodness you cant swing a dead cat an not hit a Panasonic or Olympus M43 on clearance 9 months after introduction.

6 upvotes
Anastigmat
By Anastigmat (Mar 1, 2013)

Sounds like you are the angry one. People have the right to dislike this camera. Whether they have seen one in person or used one is not the point. If a camera looks so ugly that someone does not want to be caught in public with one, then it is already a failure. Frankly, the chimney looking thing on that camera is distinctive but ugly. It is the same with food. If it looks so gross that you won't even want to take a bite or even touch it, then it deserves to fail.

1 upvote
wildkat2
By wildkat2 (Mar 1, 2013)

@Anstigmat - I totally understand someone thinking its ugly but to go on about it being hard to hold, bulky or bad button placement when you have never picked one up? I personally dont like the vast majority of M43 cameras because of their form factor - too small - but that is based on having picked them up and used them. Same for Canon DSLRs - they just dont agree with me - something I learned after trying a friends for a few days. Yet the folks cheering the loudest about the demise of the K-01 have never even seen one in person let alone used it. Whatever. Their loss.

1 upvote
RStyga
By RStyga (Feb 28, 2013)

Pentax did well with this camera. Design is a matter of preference and ergonomics partially a matter of holding style and hand size. I own a K-01 and I can say with confidence that it is a superb camera. Pentax has updated its firmware and the AF speed & low light AF issues have been resolved.

If you have never used one, especially after its phenomenal price reduction, you're simply missing out. I have used and owned a large number of Pentax DSLRs and currently the only Pentax K-mount body I prefer to use is K-01. Personally, I love its design and -with a light/compact lens- the ergonomics are very sufficient.

2 upvotes
Minolta4Life
By Minolta4Life (Feb 28, 2013)

For most, cameras are toys not tools...especially in this class. Who wants an ugly toy? This thing looks like water will squirt out of the lens when you depress the shutter button.

Comment edited 42 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Nightwings
By Nightwings (Feb 28, 2013)

You mean it doesn't??

4 upvotes
Minolta4Life
By Minolta4Life (Feb 28, 2013)

Ok, now that's funny!!!:-)

1 upvote
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Feb 28, 2013)

LOL!
It should be made to work like that only the water squirt would not be such a shock. Maybe require toy cameras to have bright orange lenses so you know they are toys.

1 upvote
Raist3d
By Raist3d (Mar 3, 2013)

For a street photographer? I think that's awesome it looks like a toy. I will let you figure out on your own why :-)

1 upvote
Nightwings
By Nightwings (Feb 28, 2013)

This camera was doomed the moment it was decided no to include a EVF. That... and it's butt ugly imo.

I have no idea..... why..... if Camera companies want to put out a mirrorless camera .... why they don't SIMPLY swap out the mirror box for an EVF.......KEEPING the present DSLR form factor. I'd buy one in a blink.

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Feb 28, 2013)

> why they don't SIMPLY swap out the mirror box for an EVF.......KEEPING the present DSLR form factor. I'd buy one in a blink.

So, a Sony SLT then?

0 upvotes
Nightwings
By Nightwings (Feb 28, 2013)

Exactly .... but better designed so light isn't lost through the mirror.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Mar 1, 2013)

DPR says the SLTs still have excellent performance despite that. On-chip PDAF is becoming more popular, but most cameras with it still apparently struggle to focus DSLR lenses quickly so it seems there's still a bit of a way to go before on-chip has the same performance as separate PDAF sensors.

0 upvotes
xue24
By xue24 (Feb 28, 2013)

it is disappointed to see many who are happy K01 is done has never ever use one and i wonder what is the value for those comments. i will be glad to see someone come up here and share all the nonsense being a K01 owner, that's constructive! well, anyone?

all camera got pros and cons. many pretty looking camera give BS pictures. K01 may be ugly but it gives beautiful pictures!!

yes, i am a fanboy, camera fanboy, i shot many systems as habit and learning so you can save your Pentax fanboy comment just in case. write something more constructive, please.

wish your pretty or "mirrorless must be this and that" camera gives you pretty pictures as a successful camera should be.

personal opinion only.

happy shooting.

1 upvote
istscott
By istscott (Feb 28, 2013)

Had they designed it in the form of an LX or other historical Pentax film camera, I doubt it would have flopped nearly as hard.

1 upvote
drummercam
By drummercam (Feb 27, 2013)

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.

7 upvotes
Myari
By Myari (Feb 28, 2013)

Nex is a commercial success. K01 is a flop. Apparently that is too difficult for you to understand.

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
drummercam
By drummercam (Feb 28, 2013)

You have a point about my understanding, Myari? Please clariify. I don't like the look of the NEX. I like K-01. Does that bother you?

Maybe you're just flaming someone you don't know?

0 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Feb 28, 2013)

Drummercan - 'Looks' much like photography is a matter of taste.....but there is such a thing as 'bad taste'...such as anyone who thinks the K01 isn't ugly.

0 upvotes
wildkat2
By wildkat2 (Feb 28, 2013)

@Myari says "Sony Good, Pentax Bad, ugh!"

I dont care how many people buy the NEX I am personally not interested in buying a camera that forces me to hold the lens because the body is too small for normal hands.

2 upvotes
drummercam
By drummercam (Feb 28, 2013)

Clint - I said nothing about the "look" of K-01 at all. My original post is about K-01's functionality as a camera and how it suits me personally. And too Myari, I never disputed his opinion that K-01 was, in his words, a flop. I merely pointed out that other brands have their share of the same problems as complained of in the K-01, and then I stuck to how the K-01 suits me. I didn't dispute "flop" and I didn't dwell on how good (or bad, for that matter) I think K-01 "looks." I addressed function. You and Myari are apparently fixated on flaming people who like the K-01 at all. Since I like it for its functionality, not its "success" or "looks" please leave me alone.

1 upvote
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Mar 1, 2013)

Drummercan - I actually don't care what you think about the K01...if it works for you great. Call me shallow but I like things to work well AND look good...so for me the K01 is a pass. There are a tonne of cameras out there and almost all of them will give world class photos....so I figure why not buy one that looks good too:)

0 upvotes
xue24
By xue24 (Mar 1, 2013)

oh, just realize where are all these non constructive, bias, personal nonsense come from. only because many having their pretty camera are not getting better or actually having worse photo than an ugly camera (pretty and ugly in their own opinion). while you can't respect other's opinion and what makes you think we should care about yours!! call me shallow!!

1 upvote
Tim F 101
By Tim F 101 (Feb 27, 2013)

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.

Comment edited 14 seconds after posting
6 upvotes
waxwaine
By waxwaine (Feb 27, 2013)

Answer:
DOF, top notch sensor, Hi IQ, Hi ISO performance, hugh lens compatibility, retrofocusing(posibility), soft/silent shutter, as consecuence the flattest sharpest 40mm f2.8 kit lens created, most affordable HI IQ camera available...

4 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Feb 27, 2013)

Waxwaine, you missed Tim's point completely.

4 upvotes
wildkat2
By wildkat2 (Feb 27, 2013)

My K5, K200 and K-01 are all bigger than my Pentax MESuper. If the ME, MX, and LX can be that size there is no reason a DSLR cant. And of course all of those film cameras had mirrors.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
waxwaine
By waxwaine (Feb 28, 2013)

Reason to exist: low production cost, low users price with HI IQ results. Try to Find an equivalent camera at us299.
ManuelV...: Tim missed Pentax point. If you couldn't understand an idea doesn't mean the idea was wrong.
wildkat:Try to put in also a darkroom, for images processing, on a LX. Remember today camera body do the process job as laboratory on film days.

3 upvotes
Myari
By Myari (Feb 28, 2013)

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.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Feb 28, 2013)

FYI waxwaine its launch price was $749 so I don't think it was designed as a low-cost solution. I mean the concept (no mirror but SLR mount) sort of works as an ultra-budget SLR, but in the end it's not what the market wanted.

0 upvotes
anthony mazzeri
By anthony mazzeri (Feb 27, 2013)

I liken the design to the Volkswagon Beetle.

Obviously not to everyone's taste who would prefer a small sleek Porsche or big black SUV etc instead. But to those it does appeal to it will become a cult classic, if it hasn't already.

8 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Feb 27, 2013)

I liken it to ugly. At least the VW beatle has decades of sales.

1 upvote
waxwaine
By waxwaine (Feb 27, 2013)

Uglier than your useless lowlight(>800 iso) big dof m43 camera.

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Feb 28, 2013)

How did all those amazing images from the masters get made in the film days. Art begins at 800 ISO

1 upvote
fakuryu
By fakuryu (Feb 28, 2013)

"How did all those amazing images from the masters get made in the film days. Art begins at 800 ISO"

I did not know that they already have digital backs during the film days.

Ahhh the good ole Kodak Gold ASA 100

1 upvote
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Feb 28, 2013)

I dont want pics above 400 ISO usually but everyone shoots diferent.

1 upvote
waxwaine
By waxwaine (Feb 27, 2013)

Nice camera. I´m not decided if I get now a K-01, save money for the K-30 or wait till I can buy the K5II(s). All best of they class/price range.

0 upvotes
NiallM
By NiallM (Feb 27, 2013)

If Newson did anything, he at least got people in the photography world talking, particularly the conservative old bags. It's different, no VF, not really that compact..yet it takes pics with outstanding IQ.

11 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Feb 27, 2013)

I feel quite sorry for Newson; everyone's blaming him but in my opinion it's Pentax's fault for using their full-size DSLR mount, resulting in a completely hobbled design that's too big to use comfortably with the physical styling.

If Pentax had created a new shallow mount the camera could have been half the width, making the control layout more comfortable to use and allowing a whole set of reduced size lenses to be developed rather than a single (slightly awkward focal length) f2.8 pancake. The lenses could also be CDAF optimised rather than all the PDAF optimised lenses which make no sense on a CDAF-only body.

If they'd done that then I'd actually be willing to put money on it having sold quite well and this announcement being the K-02 rather than the discontinuation of the line.

5 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Feb 27, 2013)

This jumping of the shark was done by Marc and funded by Pentax. Pentax put too much faith in a butcher when they needed a surgeon.

1 upvote
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Feb 27, 2013)

@Trollshavethebestcandy ok then, given the requirements (full-size K mount with no mirror) how would you have made it a good camera?

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Feb 27, 2013)

" ok then, given the requirements (full-size K mount with no mirror) how would you have made it a good camera?"

1) Fast on-sensor PDAF (see Nikon 1, only on a bigger sensor), or better yet fast PDAF+CDAF hybrid, able to fast K-mount lenses as fast as K-5 II.
2) EVF in the top left corner.

Done.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Feb 27, 2013)

@peevee1 I don't think Newson got to pick whether it had PDAF or an EVF.

1 upvote
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Feb 28, 2013)

AC...
If you dont know what makes a good camera or what would be innovative than telling you the answer will not make you any smarter. there are tens if not hundreds of ways to make a cool camera at this price point.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Feb 28, 2013)

@Trollshavethebestcandy, my point is there's nothing Newson could have done to make it a success given Pentax's technical requirements for the camera. All you seem to have been doing is criticising Newson for "ugly design" when it's clearly a poorly thought out specification from Pentax that's to blame, so I ask again given the same technical spec for the camera what would *you* have done that Newson didn't?

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Feb 28, 2013)

@Trollshavethebestcandy, my point is there's nothing Newson could have done to make it a success given Pentax's technical requirements for the camera. All you seem to have been doing is criticising Newson for "ugly design" when it's clearly a poorly thought out specification from Pentax that's to blame, so I ask again given the same technical spec for the camera what would *you* have done that Newson didn't?

I disagree but the ugly did not help. Liken it to a home. It may be nice on the inside but you would chose another house if you could that had better curb appeal.

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Mar 1, 2013)

A much shorter list would be what is not ugly about it starting with the concept then the form, toy like appearance, excecution and working our way down to the stove pipe dial in front to the grip ect ect. It hit about every branch falling down out of the ugly tree. Dont get me started on the yellow one.

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Mar 1, 2013)

So the "brick" is your muse? Please show pics of K-01 inspired pics please.

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (Mar 9, 2013)

"By Andy Crowe (1 week ago)
@peevee1 I don't think Newson got to pick whether it had PDAF or an EVF."

I did not say Newson should have picked it, but some product manager should have. Of course Newson should have worked on making the form lighter and easier to hold.

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
88SAL
By 88SAL (Feb 27, 2013)

Id like an EVF option, inbuilt, in ko2 and they will sell them. There is a great and acheivable product design in ko2 just by reading commebts of this thread. First company to directly use mirrorless tech to support native brand lensmount. Bad start but we all saw this cameras demise on the horizon. Thats not to say a few revisions and we would have a solid product. Pentax is brining the fight to cost/benefit APSC - DONT RETREAT!

2 upvotes
Low Budget Dave
By Low Budget Dave (Feb 27, 2013)

I agree. I hope Pentax spends some time reading the comments. It is not hard to identify the trend:
1. People will buy any camera that takes good pictures, no matter what it looks like.
2. People will only go crazy for a camera if it is well above average in some way.
3. If you have a camera with average AF, average size, average IQ and average looks, people will only buy it when the price is attractive.
4. That means average cameras end up on the discount rack, which is not where you want your product.

Dear Pentax: Either make it faster, smaller, or better. If you don't do one of those three, then the only thing you can do is make it cheaper.

2 upvotes
snapshtr
By snapshtr (Feb 27, 2013)

If Pentax ever releases a K-02, they don't need to come up with some ground-breaking k-01 or GXR type configuration. Just stick in the awesome K-5 II sensor with 14-bit color and it will give the X-Pro 1 and NEX-7 a run for its money.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Souciantmag
By Souciantmag (Feb 27, 2013)

You're absolutely right. It'd make sense. Unfortunately, a Pentax forum poster, (who sounded like he works at Pentax) said that a K-02, or an upgraded K-01, had been ruled out by the firm.

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
draschan
By draschan (Feb 27, 2013)

I really liked the design. the image qualitiy was very very good for this class and for anyone with pentax lenses this would have been a great option to go mirrorless or have a second body. I was astonished how many people complained about the looks, almost everybody here as it would be a hasselblad lunar. Pentax should make a Ko2 with more manual control, faster foucus, 24mp, and slightly less bulkier looks...

4 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (Feb 27, 2013)

Could an actual owner please comment on AF and burst performance? I shoot outdoor sports.

The reviews generally lack action shots.

How is it? Which lens did you shoot?

Thanks.

0 upvotes
afterswish1
By afterswish1 (Feb 28, 2013)

It is really not for sports at all in my opinion, nor for 'machine gun' style social reportage. The focus is very much improved by recent firmware updates - not quite as quick as a dslr but not so slow as to become an issue for me at least.

With the kit 40mm XS it arguably has the best IQ/price ratio of any digital camera currently available (and therefore in the history of digital imaging?) and has the ability to mount the fabulous Pentax Limited lenses without an adapter.

For me its size and weight advantage versus a dslr makes sense, it is the perfect second camera or walkaround, without sacrificing image quality. I wouldn't buy it for speed though. Over on the Pentax forum there are BIF shots using the K-01 but I don't have personal experience in that kind of shooting.

1 upvote
rallyfan
By rallyfan (Feb 28, 2013)

Thank you for the detailed response, I appreciate it!

0 upvotes
RStyga
By RStyga (Feb 28, 2013)

Owner of a K-01 and second that. AF speed is sufficient for everything but fast action (it can handle "normal" action shots).

0 upvotes
jimrpdx
By jimrpdx (Feb 27, 2013)

Update the FW to 1.02, and you'll find the AF comments would be different. Not amazing by many standards, but impressively better. Still, owners can determine how it works best for them, and non-owners will move blissfully forward. The closeout prices are amazing for a camera using the 16Mpix Sony sensor, that's what put one in my bag.

4 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Feb 27, 2013)

I could get one of the "Look at how ugly I am" yellow ones and use it for target practice at 1,000 yards. Maybe post the video. I'll wait till I see it in the bargain basket at the dollar store.

2 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Feb 27, 2013)

Maybe it would look better covered in a roll of duct tape. That might contain the ugly.

3 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Feb 26, 2013)

It's becoming a collectors' item, get one while the supply lasts!

4 upvotes
RonHendriks
By RonHendriks (Feb 26, 2013)

It is amazing how much fuzz there is about the ending off the K-01. Most camera's go down easy, so all this fuzz is about something special!

5 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Feb 26, 2013)

Yes, one of the ugliest cameras in the world is now gone. It was a monumental failure, hence the interest.

3 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Feb 28, 2013)

What do I find ugly about this camera? It is a silly question, because taste is not quantifiable; but, in a nutshell... everything.

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Mar 1, 2013)

Popetographer: you've just employed the adjective that best describes the Pentax K-01's aesthetics: «grotesque»!

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Feb 26, 2013)

I just love that 40mm/F2.8 lens in the picture. From the looks of it, lens weights 80 grams, 5 grams of which is actually glass.

1 upvote
Tee1up
By Tee1up (Feb 26, 2013)

Thank goodness. Even people that have never used a camera were apologizing for this thing.

5 upvotes
Nuno Souto
By Nuno Souto (Feb 26, 2013)

Memo to all companies who pretend to "redefine" the mirrorless market:
the market is micro-4:3rd. Full stop.
Don't waste any more time with "parallel streams" and other such marketing devices to make you waste money and resources.
And FIRE the nincompoops who keep telling you to "redefine" the market!
No? OK, keep running to the edge of the abyss...

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
Essai
By Essai (Feb 26, 2013)

I wouldnt get a M43 camera even if it was free

9 upvotes
Phoque
By Phoque (Feb 26, 2013)

I would get an SLR camera if it was free, but I'd sell it and buy myself another M43.

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Feb 26, 2013)

In the race for the most idiotic post in this discussion we finally got a winner. Congrats, Nuno!

8 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Feb 27, 2013)

Would you take this camera for free? That would say a lot about your taste.

2 upvotes
sroute
By sroute (Feb 27, 2013)

A sensor size does not "define" the mirrorless "market".

What does?

A lack of a mirror.

4 upvotes
adrianf2
By adrianf2 (Feb 27, 2013)

If you wouldn't get a mirrorless camera if it was free you obviously have more money than sense. Some of the best cameras on the market today without a doubt, but you stick with whatever it is you use.

1 upvote
Nuno Souto
By Nuno Souto (Feb 27, 2013)

In the race for most idiotic troll post, we finally have a winner!
Thanks Pete and get off the Sake: it's not good for your credibility...

0 upvotes
GentlemanJim
By GentlemanJim (Feb 26, 2013)

papillon is being a bit harsh, but he does make valid points on the Pentax mis-cue in the mirrorless market. I don't know if Pentax was trying to re-define the segment with this camera, but it did lack in two key features; focus and EVF.

Looks are subjective and an objective user can look beyond to evaluate an item. The look of the camera is a secondary issue IMHO.

The focus issues have kept me away from this model - and I'm a Pentax user, but at the current price point I'm be willing to suffer through a slow focus.

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
kindofblue7
By kindofblue7 (Feb 26, 2013)

I think Pentax really misunderstood the MILC market; hence the Q and the K-01. But, the camera companies in general have misunderstood the market. They seem to think that MILCs will appeal only to novice or recreational users; people who are "intimidated" by dslr's and that mirrorless is only a "step up" format.

In truth, MILCs are serious tools and in markets outside Japan professionals and serious amateurs are the ones who are primarily interested in mirrorless.

I would recommend that you grab one of these. I don't know what kind of photography you do, but I mostly do portraits and landscapes, so AF speed is really a non-issue for me. Also, the K-01 has focus-peaking, so using MF is simple despite the lack of an EVF.

3 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Feb 26, 2013)

"Looks are subjective and an objective user can look beyond to evaluate an item. The look of the camera is a secondary issue IMHO."
Except that in this case "the look" is the camera. It is defined first and foremost by the self-conscious design statement it makes.

0 upvotes
fakuryu
By fakuryu (Feb 27, 2013)

@kindofblue7

Pentax did not misunderstood the MILC market, they understood the Japanese MILC market quite well since that is their main market. AFAIK the K01 is quite popular and the Q is one of the best selling cameras there whick also became the number 1 selling camera there and is hugely popular.

0 upvotes
bzanchet
By bzanchet (Feb 26, 2013)

I think it`s a shame, at the studio comparison tool, the IQ is one of the best I have ever seen.
There is no need to complaint about the design, just buy something else, IMO I think it could bring some new ideas to the manufacturers... They are so short minded nowadays that all we see is some vintage designs coming back, where is the creativity?

3 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Feb 26, 2013)

The problem with the K-01 was not so much its looks, but that it was always at a loss to find its own spot. It was too big for a CSC camera, too small and fiddly to replace a DSLR. And, for its price at the time of launch, you could have bought a K-r body, or even a K-x, and you'd have got a proper handgrip and an optical viewfinder without adding too much to the bulk.
Of course, when the K-30 came, Pentax buried the K-01. The latter's advantage of allowing K lenses to be mounted became irrelevant (and so did its image quality) in face of its flaws. I don't see why people should hesitate in choosing the K-30 over the K-01.
Pentax could have done much better, but apparently they were too jaded to understand the market's demands.
And being fugly didn't help the K-01's case...

1 upvote
djrocks66
By djrocks66 (Feb 27, 2013)

I agree with you. I own a K-01. I bought it when it hit $300 to have as a second camera to my K5. I did think of getting a K30 instead but the price drop of the K-01 convinced me otherwise. While it does take great pictures I really miss a view finder on it. At least an optional one like Olympus does would be great. I don't mind the looks but it is a bit awkward to hold with a solid lens mounted. With my 15mm limited mounted it is very front heavy. It wont even stand on it's base if placed on a flat surface. This camera has become my tripod landscape camera. If it had a flip screen it would be so much better for my use but I guess I can't complain as it only cost me $300 and delivers outstanding image quality. But in the end I sort of wish I would have spent the extra and got the K30. :(

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
kindofblue7
By kindofblue7 (Feb 26, 2013)

Reading these comments it seems that I am largely alone in my opinion of this camera; I think it's a great camera and it's a shame it's being discontinued. I too thought that the design was ugly when I first saw the press releases on this site last year, but I still wanted one because it was a cheap way to get into the K-mount and the quality of the sensor was on par with the K-5. After I recieved the camera and held it in my hands I began to appreciate the design and the high quality construction. I liked it so much I bought another one because I new that the camera would soon be discontinued. I bought my K-01's 3 weeks ago, so I was able to take advantage of the low price they sell for now. I hope that Pentax continues with this concept but the next camera in this line should have vast improvements to autofocus, ergonomy, and an EVF should be added.

12 upvotes
papillon_65
By papillon_65 (Feb 26, 2013)

It's camera so ugly that Pentax decided to kill it rather than offer it for adoption.....'nuff said.

3 upvotes
anthony mazzeri
By anthony mazzeri (Feb 26, 2013)

It's easy to pan. So what's your yardstick for a currently beautiful camera then?

1970's deceased estate retro? 1990's amorphous black-blob DSLR? 2000's digital consumer-gadgets?

4 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Feb 26, 2013)

"....but the next camera in this line should have vast improvements to autofocus, ergonomy, and an EVF should be added."

I have to admire your relentless forgiveness of those sins!

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Feb 27, 2013)

So take the K-01. Add in a viewfinder, good AF, nice ergonomics. What do you have? A K-30! good idea!

1 upvote
papillon_65
By papillon_65 (Feb 28, 2013)

@ anthony mazzeri - nah..anything that looks great but is also functional, i.e not the K-01. But hey, you got it right because it's been a blazing success......hasn't it???

1 upvote
Jimmy jang Boo
By Jimmy jang Boo (Feb 26, 2013)

I hardly think the K-01 failed because most people care more about how a camera *looks* than the images it produces. People who think that way are more interested in bling than photography. Any self respecting photographer would prefer K-01 IQ to anything m43.

IMO the K-01 didn't succeed because Pentax missed the point of why people want a mirrorless camera--which should be smaller and lighter than a DSLR. Sony succeeded with the NEX because they put a very good sensor in a small light weight body, that retained a VF and included a flip out screen. But that also entailed a whole new line of *lighter* lenses to keep the weight down.

5 upvotes
papillon_65
By papillon_65 (Feb 26, 2013)

You clearly didn't read the initial comments on here when it was released, derision doesn't even begin to cover it. If people think it looks cr@p then they're hardly going to bother going to a shop to try one are they? (let alone order one online.). It failed because it looks rubbish and it doesn't offer the main advantages of the format, it's as simple as that.

2 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Feb 26, 2013)

A camera isn't only either its looks or its image quality, it's also about how well it handles as a tool. A camera can look amazing and take the best photos, but if it isn't enjoyable to actually use it then you're likely to use a different camera.

The problem with the K-01 is that it doesn't make a good tool, the image quality is no better than Pentax DSLRs, it's large, the controls are poorly placed and has relatively slow autofocus.

When compared to Pentax's DSLR line there's almost no reason to pick it apart from its unique look, and worse many reasons not to pick it.

1 upvote
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Feb 26, 2013)

@Andy Crowe
and the wonder is that nobody at Pentax Towers understood that problem!

1 upvote
bossa
By bossa (Feb 27, 2013)

"the main advantages of the format". That would be NO MIRROR wouldn't it? Please don't say small body (with large coke can lenses attached) because that's not an advantage. The K01 is a nice looking camera to anyone with an eye for design and it's obvious to me, from all this gleeful vitriol, that there's something else in play here. I think the lesson to Pentax in this should be "don't waste your time trying to bring a new aesthetic to cameras because most *photographers* aren't artistically sophisticated enough to appreciate it". There must be some reason for why most cameras in this market segment pretty much all look the same.

0 upvotes
papillon_65
By papillon_65 (Feb 26, 2013)

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.....

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Jimmy jang Boo
By Jimmy jang Boo (Feb 26, 2013)

Sigh, if only your chic m43 could produce K-01 image quality!

3 upvotes
papillon_65
By papillon_65 (Feb 26, 2013)

My OMD produces image quality well up to par thanks, I don't need to pixel peep and navel gaze over minute differences that won't matter in real word usage. If you feel the need to do that then may I recommend the Nikon D800, that should just about cover it. Unfortunately it doesn't have a traffic light system of lighting or a purple version but you can't have everything.

2 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Feb 26, 2013)

Jimmy jang Boo A Pentax DSLR will produce K-01 image quality, with better autofocus, a viewfinder and only a relatively small increase in size.

0 upvotes
fakuryu
By fakuryu (Feb 26, 2013)

@papillon_65

Lol! The OMD5 cannot even hold a candle against the K01 when it comes to IQ

5 upvotes
LensBeginner
By LensBeginner (Feb 26, 2013)

@ Andy
"Jimmy jang Boo A Pentax DSLR will produce K-01 image quality, with better autofocus, a viewfinder and only a relatively small increase in size..."

...For thrice the cost.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 47 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Myari
By Myari (Feb 26, 2013)

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.

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Jimmy jang Boo
By Jimmy jang Boo (Feb 26, 2013)

@Myari

"OMD more than holds image quality compared any APSC on the planet"

Not on this planet!

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Feb 26, 2013)

@ papi, you have basically stated here like 4x so far that the K-01 is ugly. But is there ANYTHING ELSE you might know about it that you want to share with us? Thanks!

0 upvotes
Myari
By Myari (Feb 27, 2013)

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.

0 upvotes
fakuryu
By fakuryu (Feb 27, 2013)

@Myari

Instead of a studio comparison, when was the last time you held or used a good DSLR? The K01 might be a mirrorless but it does have an APSC sensor. The last time I used an OMD, liked the handling and all but the IQ is over rated, its just near previous 12mpx APSC DSLRs.

Yep not on this planet, maybe in a parallel universe.

2 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (Feb 26, 2013)

It just looks like a toy. It may be great for photographs but that is not always what determines how well it will sell.

1 upvote
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (Feb 26, 2013)

I guess the Execs at Pentax didn't get the Joke either.

3 upvotes
Essai
By Essai (Feb 26, 2013)

about time

1 upvote
Ashley Pomeroy
By Ashley Pomeroy (Feb 26, 2013)

It looks like a design concept from the 1980s - I used to have a book called AppleDesign that was full of things like this. The only things missing are some upside-down triangles and the big pastel polygons that Patrick Nagel used to put in his pictures.

They should have handed Marc Newson an old Pentax Spotmatic and told him to make something like that, but smaller, and with a screen on the back. Keep the self-timer level on the front. It would have sold loads.

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Vignes
By Vignes (Feb 26, 2013)

I think the idea come from Leica Digilux 1. it has similar squarish shape. Not sure how popular was Digilux 1 but its a Leica and brand lovers would have liked it, i assume?

1 upvote
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Feb 26, 2013)

To be honest I think if they'd ditched the full sized K mount and released the same camera half the thickness with a shallow lens mount and decent selection of compact lenses it would have sold quite well.

0 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Feb 26, 2013)

Here's proof that while it should be what's on the inside that counts....we're all still hung up on how a camera looks on the outside. This K1 is ugly...and that's why it didn't sell.

6 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Feb 26, 2013)

There's also plenty of objective things wrong with it - much larger than other mirrorless cameras, larger lenses, poor autofocus speed and poor control placement. By using a full size K mount it had the worst of both worlds - large body and lenses but no PDAF or optical viewfinder.

2 upvotes
anthony mazzeri
By anthony mazzeri (Feb 26, 2013)

Beauty is relative. If the K-01 is ugly to you, what is your idea of a currently beautiful camera then?

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Feb 27, 2013)

Face it Anthony. You are throwing a life line to a dead camera.
If you like the looks so much buy them in ten pack for the price you paid for on in a few months.

1 upvote
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Feb 28, 2013)

Yes Anthony...beauty is relative. Relatively speaking the K01 is ugly.....and if you disagree you are in the minority....which is fine....

2 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Feb 28, 2013)

Beauty is relative to a point. This crosses that IMHO

1 upvote
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (Feb 26, 2013)

It is just a toy, who cares its existence.

3 upvotes
ybizzle
By ybizzle (Feb 26, 2013)

I can't wait to pick this up for pennies and get paid for the images it produces! ;)

6 upvotes
Essai
By Essai (Feb 26, 2013)

you sell your pictures to your family ?

7 upvotes
gillamoto
By gillamoto (Feb 26, 2013)

the image quality is fantastic.. get one now!
I've been paid almost 3000 dollars from this yellow camera in 2 months as a side job. clients don't care what camera you are using. they see the results.

5 upvotes
NineFace
By NineFace (Feb 26, 2013)

lol

3 upvotes
ybizzle
By ybizzle (Feb 26, 2013)

Exactly Gillamoto! Clients want quality images. They don't care if it comes from a 60D, 5DMK2, or K-01. It's all about results. I've been using my X100 and 60D for paid work so far and this Pentax actually beats them both on the IQ side!

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
6 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Feb 26, 2013)

Clients who never saw the camera might be unbiased. Unfortunately, others pick photographers the way they pick cars, business suits, attorneys, or CPAs. The one that mixes pink, green, and yellow loses. However, in the case of the K-01, there is a chance that it's innocent appearance would get better candid or family shots than a "threatening" conventional camera.

0 upvotes
javidog
By javidog (Feb 26, 2013)

Absolutely nothing wrong with this camera at all. I highly recommend picking one up discounted before they vanish. It is a great quality, great results, feels good in the hand and is a solid camera. It is not a DSLR or a pocket camera. Who cares about no viewfinder? The fact that it is discontinued does not mean failure. Some of the biggest and most successful companies have discontinued products and they have done quite well. Kudos to Pentax for trying new designs and concepts. In Japan, the K-01 is seen often on the streets but the Western world has been brainwashed into worshipping all things Canon and Nikon--both flawed camera producers with their own list of failures.

13 upvotes
drummercam
By drummercam (Feb 27, 2013)

Agree than the canons-nikons have had their own flops, and their own manufacturing defects, like the unfortunate original K-5 sensor stains. 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. Disagree that K-01 is in any way ungainly in the hand. It lends itself to a solid grip and thus better viewscreen shooting than anything I've handled. Big enough for a longlasting 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.

0 upvotes
Jay Ellbee
By Jay Ellbee (Feb 26, 2013)

Buh-bye, Marc Newson brick. The time I tested a K-01, I found it to be heavy, awkward and ungainly in the hand. It felt much less enjoyable to use than competing models from Samsung and especially Panasonic, and even worse than some of Pentax's own entry level dSLRs from a few years ago (see the K-m).

If Pentax is looking for a niche to fill, here's one field entirely to themselves: a truly affordable, prosumer friendly medium format system priced in the $4k range for body and lens. I'd love to bump up to the 645D but the price with a couple of useful lenses would get me a new Kia Rio. Integrate the sensor (32MP or so), license Sony's translucent mirror technology for faster operating, throw in the sharpest OLED viewer available, and Pentax might find thousands of grateful pro shooter rushng to the camera. Just an idea, of course, but lower level consumer camera fields are pretty much played out. (Even a d-medium format rangefinder would be welcome...a la Mamiya 7D, for instance.)

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting
6 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Feb 26, 2013)

Yeah... I remember that... they actually hired a "designer" for this ugly toy-camera-like thing!

7 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Feb 26, 2013)

Sad but I felt it was doomed from the start. I hope Pentax did not lose too much money with this K-01. For my part, it was a "hate at first sight" for that camera, but at least was it a nice try to propose something different. I hope that this unfortunate attempt won't prevent camera makers from taking some risks in the future...

2 upvotes
tiberiousgracchus
By tiberiousgracchus (Feb 26, 2013)

great ideas come from some bad ones or so called bad ones and lessons are learnt but only when you put something into production do you realize it was perhaps not the best thing to do...but you take risks and sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. good on pentax for sticking their neck out.

1 upvote
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Feb 26, 2013)

There can only be one!
Hassy is the Highlander of ugly.

2 upvotes
LensBeginner
By LensBeginner (Feb 26, 2013)

Ok, you don't like the looks, and you've been trollin' on that point since the moment the news broke. I think that by now we got the message...

I'm looking forward to live in a world populated by people like you, who like firearms, prefer form over function (and thus can't recognize a good item when they see one), and like to spew ridicule over something just because they don't like it.
Really.

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
iudex
By iudex (Feb 26, 2013)

Troll: No doubt about that. :-) But just as LensBeginner wrote, enough of trolling.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Feb 26, 2013)

Trolling is like eating potato chips: once you begin, it is f(word) difficult to halt !

5 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Feb 26, 2013)

I like Pentax. I like the Q even albeit I wish it had a bit larger sensor. It's Marc I'm bashing or trolling. The more we speak out the less likely this does not happen to a good company. Camera companies need to rely on market research and not on a diva designer who obviously knows little about what the market wants. I hate to see Pentax tarnished by such an abomination.

3 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Feb 26, 2013)

By the way. I am an inventor and a designer by nature and have created products for tge market that have succeeded so I know a little bit about creating products. I hate hate hate when companies tell the market what they should want and what is good. Companies that listen succeed. Look at Fuji for a good example. They are not only listening and improving but innovating in great ways. I dont own any fuji cameras now but have in the past but they have the formula right. Don't create products that nobody wants. The Q is a bit off but its at least close to te mark. This was waaaaaay off and came out of ego and not listening.

2 upvotes
LensBeginner
By LensBeginner (Feb 26, 2013)

I understand what it is that you're saying, and in principle I agree
Things I'd like to add:
1) Q is more of a "toy" than K-01, hell I was reading yesterday about a guy who broke Q lenses by putting on focal converters!
2) K-01 never had ORBS... ;)

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Feb 26, 2013)

Orbs of genius ;)
The orbs thing was a bad patch for Fuji but I'd rather have orbs than this ugly thing lol. I like the Q more in theory than reality but if it was that size with the 1" sensor you would truly have something.
The gold miners have saying. If you want to find gold look where it's been found before. Look to examples of success rather than the name cahé of a non related product designer. Don't tell the market what it should want. Look for a viable market niche and innovation with something that is not hideous at a good value. No system is perfect yet but a few are well on their way.
Please list what they got right with this camera?
It works but what else?

0 upvotes
LensBeginner
By LensBeginner (Feb 26, 2013)

It's a pocketable alternative to a dslr that lets you use K lenses.
It's even better if you consider M lenses as I can't find a Pentax DSLR that has focus peaking = dirty cheap hi-IQ manual focus camera.
You could use a NEX, but the size of the K-to-E adapter negates the small size advantage.
Don't tell me m43, as I consider even 1.5x to be a barely acceptable ratio.
You can't shoot buildings on the other size of the street when you're sightseeing with a 50mm (=75mm fov), they're too close and you can't take a step back 'cause there's a wall behind you.
So you go out with the SMC-M 28mm, which is f/3.5 instead of f/1.7, and it would be a 56mm on a m43, but I digress.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Feb 27, 2013)

It's a pocketable alternative to a dslr that lets you use K lenses.

What size pants do you have that make that brick pocketable?

It's even better if you consider M lenses as I can't find a Pentax DSLR that has focus peaking = dirty cheap hi-IQ manual focus camera.
You could use a NEX, but the size of the K-to-E adapter negates the small size advantage.
Don't tell me m43, as I consider even 1.5x to be a barely acceptable ratio.

The Metabones speed booster will change this.

You can't shoot buildings on the other size of the street when you're sightseeing with a 50mm (=75mm fov), they're too close and you can't take a step back 'cause there's a wall behind you.

There are a few ultra wide angle lenses to chose from not to mention an adapted lens.

So you go out with the SMC-M 28mm, which is f/3.5 instead of f/1.7, and it would be a 56mm on a m43, but I digress

A gentlemans disagreement but I think the M43 system is great and the Fuji system is verging on it.

1 upvote
LensBeginner
By LensBeginner (Feb 27, 2013)

You never wear jackets, do you?

I've seen metabone's samples: its quality is definitely not great, it adds bulk, and all this for the cost of another camera.
UW lenses are big or (for M lenses like the 24mm) expensive.
If you're rich then good for you, not everybody on this planet is.

I never said that the m43 system is not good. I said that I have more than enough lenses already, some of which are pretty good, and I don't want to dump more money to buy something I already have, only smaller.
The m43 system doesn't allow me to use my lenses effectively for the purpose I have in mind, APSC and FF do.

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Feb 27, 2013)

Yeah I can see it in a jacket pocket if im wearing a polar jacket. Maybe it could be good in the poles where only the pengins wont laugh or barf when they see this camera.

0 upvotes
LensBeginner
By LensBeginner (Feb 27, 2013)

It's interesting to se that when someone can't substantiate his view with facts they often resort to irony, contempt and offer subjective takes on the matter at hand.
Nice picture - the one with penguins and stuff - though.

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Feb 28, 2013)

All in good taste and humor LB
I am not taking this thread too seriously obviously

0 upvotes
LensBeginner
By LensBeginner (Feb 28, 2013)

Indeed, there are more serious things to worry about IRL ;-)
Cheers.

0 upvotes
Matt1645f4
By Matt1645f4 (Feb 26, 2013)

Thank God that idea has been scrapped now take a leaf out of fuji's design book, I for one would love to see a Pentax K mount designed like an old ME/ME Super. Sepically with all those lovely Ltd lens. Thats what the K-01 should of been nor a stupid designer piece of rubbish.

Comment edited 54 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (Feb 26, 2013)

In related news, price of K-01 shoots up from $270 to over a thousand as photographers everywhere worry they will run out of cameras to throw through Marc Newson's window.

9 upvotes
Total comments: 299
123