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
tommy leong
By tommy leong (Feb 26, 2013)

Thanks Pentax for trying

we love you for it

6 upvotes
Essai
By Essai (Feb 26, 2013)

saying thank you to a company is really pathetic.

3 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Feb 26, 2013)

So the Q outlasts the Newson K-01. Pentax tried to "think outside the box" in both cases. Trouble is, the risks and costs are high, while the odds of payoff are low, in this post-camera era of smart phones.

The K-01's exterior design was never calculated to appeal to codgers, for whom a "camera" must resemble a warty reptile head.

Liquidated discount, the K-01 will be a good option for bargain hunters, with a fair chance of appreciation as a rare-bird collector's favorite. The "toy" appearance has a certain charm. It has an itervalometer.

1 upvote
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Feb 26, 2013)

They were thinking inside the box
The toy box.

3 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Feb 26, 2013)

How was this original thinking? It is just a pastiche of a traditional SLR design. It's like what a person would draw if they didn't know why an SLR was the shape it was and could not think of anything different, so they just made a bad copy of the original with a nod to all its elements, ignoring why they were there in the first place, whether they were still required.
What sums up the error for me is the vestigial pentaprism hump - they took what was a classic of form-follows-function design and trashed it into retro-pastiche bereft of its underlying purpose - form-follows-history.
Then they threw out all the good bits of SLR design, like an optical viewfinder, and kept all the downsides, like a bulky mirror box (with no mirror in it....).
There is taking creative risks, and then there is sheer idiocy. This falls into the latter category.
What a sad waste of a risk opportunity.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
6 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Feb 26, 2013)

Well said wetsleet.

2 upvotes
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (Feb 26, 2013)

Pentax should send a K-5 II to each of the three people that bought K-01 as replacement for their defective product.

6 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Feb 26, 2013)

On-sensor PDAF and an EVF in the corner could have saved the concept.

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

Or by dropping the DSLR mount and making a camera half the size with high quality compact lenses it could have taken a decent chunk out of the CSC market.

2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Feb 27, 2013)

"Or by dropping the DSLR mount and making a camera half the size with high quality compact lenses"

Here is the rub: making the lenses is extremely expensive and a multi-year effort. For APS-C with short flange it is practically impossible to make good (in the corners too, suitable for landscape work) small wides. Just ask Sony. Extra 20mm of extra flange do not make a camera suddenly impossibly big, especially given how big APS-C lenses have to be anyway. And you can create special lenses going inside the mount where mirror used to be, Contax style, for small overall size (maybe 1 kit lens like this, and others could just be reused - much better than recreating the whole system).

0 upvotes
dsneedmd
By dsneedmd (Feb 26, 2013)

As a owner of the K01, I will say that it is the best buy of a digital camera I have made & the best buy in DSLRSs that I have seen. It's a joy to use & carry. Great IQ & the best camera to use with older non-auto focus lenses made by anybody.

5 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Feb 26, 2013)

It could be great for child photography ;)

1 upvote
iudex
By iudex (Feb 26, 2013)

dsneedmd: and now imagine you could have the same great camera taking the same great pictures, but with a VF, fast AF and solid grip, that is only negligibly bigger and costs the same. Itś called Pentax DSLR. ;-)

6 upvotes
Vignes
By Vignes (Feb 26, 2013)

I don't think, they wouldn't have acquired Pentax to kill it. Pentax offers DSLR plus whole range of lens which Ricoh don't have.
Models like K-01 didn't really sell well and bound to be flashed when this kind acquisition happens. Take Minolta acquisition for example, Sony completely flushed the brand itself. But it was obvious that their alpha started off with Minoltas input. i think all Sony wanted was the know how, the lens mount and the Minolta user base.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
antares103
By antares103 (Feb 26, 2013)

The second half of this comment makes no sense. Minolta (actually Konica Minolta) was not acquired by anyone. They still live as their own entity. They partnered with Sony, then pulled out of the consumer imaging business, selling only that to Sony. Sony didn't kill the Minolta name, as it was not theirs to kill, nor is it dead. Beyond that, the ALPHA name was the Minolta brand of SLR's, which was continued by Sony.

0 upvotes
Vignes
By Vignes (Feb 26, 2013)

Agree with the comment, KonicaMinolta do exist but not has a camera maker.the camera side of the business was absorbed by Sony. I don't see Alpha cameras having SonyMinolta on them. The brand Minolta as camera brand is no longer there. Sony took over the entire camera division including service warranty support. minolta camera owners were advised then... i think in 2005.
Partnership means, they should have their name like Sony Ericsson or KonicaMonilta (Konica is another imaging company).
The Konica Minolta DSLR were known as Dynax (maybe Maxxum is US). they only produced two DSLR models: the 5D and the 7D before Sony took over.

Comment edited 13 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Feb 26, 2013)

Hope ricoh wont discontinue pentax too soon :P

1 upvote
nasserdjawas
By nasserdjawas (Feb 26, 2013)

lets just focus on Pentax 645D.

0 upvotes
iudex
By iudex (Feb 26, 2013)

Pentax tried to go in two different ways in CSC segment: while the Q system is succesfull at least in Japan, K-01 was a flop almost everywhere. Pentax lost a lot of time and it seems that the train has gone. They can build a completely new CSC with new small lenses, but it would cost a lot in R&D and might not pay off. So I believe it is better to leave CSC segment to Ricoh and comcentrate on DLSRs. There is space for an entry-level DSLR below the K-30 and also space for high-end DSLR above K-5II. And most importantly, the FULL FRAME which everyone has been dreaming of. So why does Pentax make CSC noone wants and does not listen to customers calling for a FF?

1 upvote
doctorbza
By doctorbza (Feb 26, 2013)

The idea that Pentax did no wrong here, and this products' failure is attributable to photographers not "having an open mind" is completely absurd. Pentax designed a camera, photographers decided that they didn't want it. It's a failure on the part of Pentax, plain and simple. If they want to blow the photographic world wide open with their open-mindedness they're going to have to do a lot better than a ridiculous looking DSLR with no viewfinder. Apple didn't invent the iphone by taking a few features off a Nokia 3310, you know?

Pentax, like many other manufacturers, chose to create a product nobody needed. They failed where others succeeded because they were unable to make it sell. It's a marketing failure. Hopefully they'll do better next time, because other companies churning out more stuff you don't need like Nikon and Canon could use the competition.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
8 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Feb 26, 2013)

Open mind an closed eyes

1 upvote
iudex
By iudex (Feb 26, 2013)

doctorbza: well said. Your description is very apt: A DSLR with few features taken off. So no advantage (size and weight) but a lot of disadvantages (no VF, no grip, no PDAF).

2 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Feb 26, 2013)

Well said.
We don't attribute the D800's success to photographers having an open mind LOL

2 upvotes
Andreas Stuebs
By Andreas Stuebs (Feb 26, 2013)

So what I would like to see would be a GXR Module with a Pentax-K mount.
Then Pentax/Ricoh would be offering K-mount capability on a Mirrorless system. Alternately would be them joining µ4/3 and then releasing a really functional µ4/3 adapter and a µ4/3 GXR module.

But perhaps I should rather wake up and face reality :)

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (Feb 26, 2013)

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.

0 upvotes
Myari
By Myari (Feb 26, 2013)

The camera didn't fail because people "don't understand it" It failed because it got universally poor reviews.

One fps (only) in RAW mode
Thicker than other MILC
Slower AF than other MILC, except probably Canon
No AF in video mode
No Focus peaking in video mode
Expensive
No EVF
Fixed LCD

That's why it failed

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
5 upvotes
doctorbza
By doctorbza (Feb 26, 2013)

Exactly. What's to understand? It's the same product that already exists in fifty permutations, in a new and exciting - and useless - package.

1 upvote
Vignes
By Vignes (Feb 26, 2013)

I thought it can AF in video mode. can have full adjustment if the video is taken when video mode is selected but with limited control when the video button is pressed in any other mode. takes better video than K-5.

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (Feb 26, 2013)

thank you for exhibiting my point. Gearheads

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

D1No why would someone choose a "worse" camera over a "better" camera? Just because it looks interesting? So they can keep it as a collectable rather than take pictures with it?

Obviously "better" and "worse" are subjective, however there are a lot of *objective* things wrong with the K-01, and many other cameras objectively do most things better than it.

1 upvote
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Feb 26, 2013)

Aimed at the consumer market?
It should have been aimed at the trash can once it was drawn. Let's be real here. Marc is the problem not the photogs. Marc should stick to chairs and toasters and not real cameras. You don't let a butcher become a surgeon because he cuts meat well.

0 upvotes
Myari
By Myari (Feb 26, 2013)

No, there is no continuous AF in video mode. Video quality is not good with IS. Read the review here.

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (Feb 26, 2013)

The K-01 is not a bad camera.

0 upvotes
garyknrd
By garyknrd (Feb 26, 2013)

God I hope this is a turning point for Pentax Ricoh. I still have a couple of good lenses for Pentax mount. First the K-5 fiasco then this.
Now waiting on the next mind numbing offering from Pentax. I have my fingers crossed.

0 upvotes
Vignes
By Vignes (Feb 26, 2013)

What K-5 fiasco... what's wrong with K-5

1 upvote
Raist3d
By Raist3d (Feb 26, 2013)

The K-5 fiasco? LOL!

1 upvote
iudex
By iudex (Feb 26, 2013)

K-5 has probably been the best Pentax camera for last couple of years: perfect outcome, perfect UI and great feature set for less money than its competitors. And the sales of K-5 were (and still are) great. So what fiasco are you talking about?

3 upvotes
SRT201
By SRT201 (Feb 26, 2013)

Yeah, one of the highest rated IQ's on DxOMark. What a fiasco!!!

???

1 upvote
garyknrd
By garyknrd (Feb 26, 2013)

Here is a perfect example of the Pentax fan club....
What a joke! K-5 pretty much ruined Pentax reputation and turned all photographers away from Pentax.
Lets hope Ricoh can un do some of the damage Hoya inflicted...
Hi DxO mark scores are one thing performance is another. It's AF system was the worst in the industry. Period by a country mile. I think Ricoh will improve but will wait and see. K-5 is was a failure all around.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
SRT201
By SRT201 (Feb 26, 2013)

What are you talking about? It's a highly regarded camera from professional circles on down to users. Perfect? No.

"turned all photographers away from Pentax".
"K-5 was a failure all around."
Do silly comments like that make you feel better about your system?

While this thread is about the K-01 you chose to bring in the K-5 and invent your own "fiasco". Nikon certainly has their share of missteps or do you consider them fiasco-free?. What about the "D800 fiasco" while we're talking about being fan club members?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
1 upvote
SRT201
By SRT201 (Feb 26, 2013)

Oh my... another "fiasco'. I only hope there are a few buyers still interested in Nikon after they are all driven away by this.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/2/22/Nikon-issues-service-advisory-for-D600

Sarcasm aside, what brand doesn't have it's share of issues? Complex devices with inevitable problems. The K-5 was no more a fiasco than the D800 or D600.

0 upvotes
zinedi
By zinedi (Feb 26, 2013)

It was predictable. No viewfinder - no camera.

1 upvote
sarkozy
By sarkozy (Feb 26, 2013)

no!
the K-01 is an excellent camera -
Image quality at least at the height of the X-Pro1, if not better

3 upvotes
Wolffy
By Wolffy (Feb 26, 2013)

Sony RX-1 has no viewfinder! I know what you mean I will not buy another camera without a viewfinder.

1 upvote
zinedi
By zinedi (Feb 26, 2013)

to sarkozy > The image quality is what Bayer sensor (only) is. Definitely not better than X-Trans. But - what would even the best looking and powerful car be without a steering wheel? Some marketing gurus of some companies still try to persuade photographers, that viewfinder is unnecessary - because it is advantageous for them - but it is vain effort - because it is not advantageous for photographers.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Myari
By Myari (Feb 27, 2013)

RX1 does gave external EVF. K01 didn't even have such an option.

0 upvotes
iudex
By iudex (Feb 26, 2013)

Hopefully Pentax learned a lesson. I am a Pentax user, but I really think this was a big fail. Not because the design, no, the exterior of K-01 is a matter of taste and I can imagine having such unusually designed camera and even like it. The trouble is the concept of using DSLR lenses, thus needing much space for them in the camera body and therefore having a big, chunky body. Omission of an EVF (either built-in or attachable) finished the destruction. In other words: why should I choose a CSC with its slover CDAF that is as big as a DSLR and uses the same big DSLR lenses? I have the same sensor in a body only marginally bigger, but with an OVF, fast PDAF, decent grip and have to make no compromises.
Enough said, one look is worth thousand words: http://j.mp/XWJ3Vw

3 upvotes
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (Feb 26, 2013)

I look forward with high anticipation to Pentax's rumoured release of a Philippe Starck designed replacement. Apparently going to feature rectangular lenses.

5 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (Feb 26, 2013)

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.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
Myari
By Myari (Feb 26, 2013)

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.

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

The K-01 may have been the perfect choice for a few people, but it lacked broad appeal because it has many objective disadvantages compared to both other CSC systems (huge body and lenses, poor AF performance, poor ergonomics) and other DSLRs (poor AF performance, poor ergonomics, no viewfinder).

Anyone who's requirements included one of those would be better served by other cameras, which is why the K-01 was never more than a niche product.

1 upvote
mervis50
By mervis50 (Feb 26, 2013)

Right on, Zvomimir.

The internet hive-mind came crashing down on this camera even before nearly anyone had even handled it. As an owner, I wouldn't say that it's terribly different from other 2012 offerings. Except for its playful looks, it's basically a good camera with average AF and excellent image quality. A decent price and affinity with the whole line of Pentax lenses made it a winner in my books.

2 upvotes
disraeli demon
By disraeli demon (Feb 26, 2013)

I'm all in favour of inventive design, but the trouble is, you have to be able to sell these things to a mass market. In this case, I think the styling really works against it; as one contributor put it, it's playful, it signals that you're looking at a toy, when in fact you've got a serious photographic tool that (was) priced accordingly.

Consider other manufacturers in the mirrorless market - Panasonic kept a fairly conventional modern look (the GF1 looked like a big premium compact and the G1 like a tiny SLR). Both cameras handled well and the AF performance was ground-breaking. Olympus first two generations of PENs were sluggish in the AF department but so beautifully retro and gorgeous and jewel-like that people bought them anyway. Fuji went the same retro path and people loved the X100 even though the handling was initially a bit of a dog's breakfast.

But the poor old K-01? Not Retro, not small, not fast... it could have survived any one of those, but the combination was fatal

0 upvotes
RonHendriks
By RonHendriks (Feb 26, 2013)

Well all that missed out on this wonderfull camera where wrong!

I have currently an photo exhibition about womens soccer in The Netherlands and there are 24 large prints (up to 20x28 inch) in the exhibition made with K-01 (out of a total of 83 images).

https://www.facebook.com/#!/fotoexpositieBeNeLeague

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
xue24
By xue24 (Feb 26, 2013)

beside the lack of viewfinder and phase detect, it is a great camera for snap. excellent image quality especially at low light, good control, easy handling, the brick actually give a tripod like function believe it or not. i got one (on discount price) and other FF cams, i just want to make a fair statement for K01. u can laugh at how it looks but it's pictures make many other cameras look like a joke.

personal opinion only.

happy K01 owner.

9 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 26, 2013)

Well said Xue, dare to be different!

3 upvotes
taotoo
By taotoo (Feb 26, 2013)

Looks like it should have been discontinued in 1984.

3 upvotes
RXVGS
By RXVGS (Feb 26, 2013)

The K-01 has been KO'd!

5 upvotes
Souciantmag
By Souciantmag (Feb 26, 2013)

A huge mistake, on the part of Pentax. The K-01 is an extraordinary camera, increasingly popular with users, sunk largely by reviewers who didn't like the form factor. It's been selling quite well since the price cut last fall, so this decision is more about press cred than it is about economics. It'll become a cult classic, for sure, especially amongst professional photographers, who constitute the K-01's core fan base.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
raztec
By raztec (Feb 26, 2013)

Good riddance! And let this be a lesson to the idiot marketers who've got no aesthetic sense. That includes the Nikon 1 system and Canon's M.

Instead of squandering money on this pile of crap, how about Pentax putting their money into developing a FF, rangefinder style camera? Heck even make it manual focus and allow people to use all those old excellent Pentax lenses.

Any manufacturers other than Fuji out there listening? Give photographers what they really want and we'll reward you big time. Continue to chase the highest profit margins and let your marketers lead your company and we'll punish you big time.

1 upvote
Vignes
By Vignes (Feb 26, 2013)

Actually what does photographers really want, another Canon or Nikon camera with Pentax logo. I used K-01 for a short time and it does take good photos. I was able to use my K-5 prime lens. the AF is slow and it doesn't have a VF. I'm not a great fan of focusing using the main LCD. Anyway, it has focus peeking like the Sony cameras. I find the RX1 customers are happy with the camera which is claimed by many as slow (i never got a chance to test that) and it doesn't come with built in VF. What's the issue.

2 upvotes
SRT201
By SRT201 (Feb 26, 2013)

Really... you think a manual focus body would sell? That would be an even bigger mistake than any made in the K-01 design. You can only sell that kind of silliness to prancing Leica elitists. Everybody else knows that having AF on a camera is a basic function these days.

1 upvote
Vignes
By Vignes (Mar 3, 2013)

K-01 can do AF, its not MF only camera... please read the K-01 specification.

0 upvotes
Eddy M
By Eddy M (Feb 26, 2013)

And Pentax Ricoh...please don't hire this Marc Newson NOMORE PLEASE!

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
JEROME NOLAS
By JEROME NOLAS (Feb 26, 2013)

I hope the Q is next...

5 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (Feb 26, 2013)

Sorry to disappoint you but the Q has been a Pentax best seller in Japan, so doubt it.

3 upvotes
fakuryu
By fakuryu (Feb 26, 2013)

The Pentax K01, the camera that was judged more on its aesthetics rather than its capability. The body that looks and feels like a brick (in a good way) with the image quality and low light capability the OMD5 can only hope for.

6 upvotes
d3xmeister
By d3xmeister (Feb 26, 2013)

I judged it on its concept. A camera as big as a small DSLR, but much slower, without a viewfinder that costs the same or more. It was pointless

6 upvotes
Souciantmag
By Souciantmag (Feb 26, 2013)

Ibid on the superior low light capability. The OMD5 can't touch it.

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

@Souciantmag but then you can also get the same IQ, same lenses, a viewfinder, much faster AF in a body only slightly smaller bigger by buying a Pentax DSLR...

1 upvote
Dave Luttmann
By Dave Luttmann (Feb 26, 2013)

Shame they didnt funnel the money they put into this ugly piece of junk into a FF DSLR....something Pentax users have been requesting for nearly a decade.

3 upvotes
LWW
By LWW (Feb 26, 2013)

Behold the turtle. He makes progress only when he sticks his neck out.
James Bryant Conant

1 upvote
highwave
By highwave (Feb 26, 2013)

Good.

And let this be a lesson to all those camera manufacturers out there. Either stop making hideously ugly cameras or we will vote with our money and kill it off for you anyway.

Are you hearing this Nikon V2 team? You're next ..›:<

0 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 26, 2013)

So companies should just make the same old thing time after time than risk trying anything new?

Pentax have always been one of the most adventurous design companies - they gave us most of the things we take for granted about SLR design - but it seems they got one wrong. Big deal.

It's a given that people vote with their cash but I hope camera companies don't stop trying because of a bit of whining about the occasional turkey, it's a tough market out there and sooner or later they just might come up with another revolutionary winner.

4 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Feb 26, 2013)

New and hideous are two different things.

1 upvote
anthony mazzeri
By anthony mazzeri (Feb 26, 2013)

Stop making hideously ugly cameras? Are you advocating they stop making DSLRs altogether?

The K-01 is a marvel of design and elegance next to the amorphous black-blob DSLRs. I have to assume then you've voted with your money on a camera you've never actually even seen or touched in real life, which is a shame.

I wonder with all such opinions and buying decisions being made purely on pics and reviews on the internet whether the K-01 would have actually fared better in the days before the web where people would actually pick one up and likely be impressed with the look, feel and build of it, especially more so compared to its plastic entry-level DSLR competitors.

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

anthony mazzeri DSLRs look the way they do mostly because it makes a lot of sense ergonomically, the shape puts all the controls within easy reach. Having used the K-01 for around an hour I found the ergonomics very poor, while with my current camera I can change almost any setting easily with one hand I found it hard to change the shooting mode on the K-01 with both hands.

1 upvote
highwave
By highwave (Feb 27, 2013)

@hugo808

I didn't say don't try anything new I said don't introduce hideously ugly products.

What's ugly is ugly and there is no two ways about it. Same thing carries in the auto industry. Ugly cars lose sales so bad that sometimes they have to modify the looks.

0 upvotes
I shoot guitars
By I shoot guitars (Feb 26, 2013)

I bought one at the fire sale price of $325 with the 40mm lens. I've only shot a couple of hundred photos so far, but the picture quality is remarkable. There is a 3D effect on some of the shots that I have never seen from my old cameras or my newish Sony A77. It is quite different handling than any other camera I have, but not annoying or awkward. I like it! I would have preferred an articulating screen, but for the price, I can live without it. Again, picture quality makes this a worthy camera. A Pentax K5IIs may be in my future.

8 upvotes
kff
By kff (Feb 26, 2013)

Indeed, but here is still prince about 800 USD (Czech Rep.) Waiting for a better price doesn't have any effect.

0 upvotes
harrisoncac
By harrisoncac (Feb 26, 2013)

"Indeed, but here is still prince about 800 USD (Czech Rep.) "

Who will pay for that stupid price?

1 upvote
joe6pack
By joe6pack (Feb 26, 2013)

even $325 seems over priced.

1 upvote
Peter Lacus
By Peter Lacus (Feb 26, 2013)

for a camera, maybe. For a camera with a high quality lens - frankly I don't think so.

3 upvotes
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (Feb 26, 2013)

Pentax, don't go to the wrong track again!
Do you remember how successful was your Pentax Spotmatic?
Don't make toys anymore. Focus on optical instruments.

5 upvotes
johnparas11zenfoliodotcom
By johnparas11zenfoliodotcom (Feb 26, 2013)

i want one! now that the price has dropped..maybe by this Christmas season.. it will still be available for half of what it is selling now :-) I will buy one just to have a mirrorless cam for video :-)

2 upvotes
chillgreg
By chillgreg (Feb 26, 2013)

One down, two to go...

(Nikon JV2 whatever and Canon M)

14 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 26, 2013)

Canon M has dropped in price significantly, it seems they can't give them away. Serves Canon right for hobbling it with poor autofocus when they could have done so much better.

Will they dare give the M2 decent focus and risk taking custom away from their SLR sales, or will they bury it in a shallow grave at midnight alongside this poor old Pentax?

1 upvote
Rupert Bottomsworth
By Rupert Bottomsworth (Feb 26, 2013)

What they should've done was to make the body in pink. They would've sold truckloads!

3 upvotes
sroute
By sroute (Feb 26, 2013)

Anthony, any camera can be a great fit for some. Don't take criticism of the camera personally. The K-01 isn't a commercial success because it doesn't appeal to enough people and like it or not, consumer oriented camera makers can't afford to design products of limited appeal.

If Pentax wants to dig a hole for itself and bury their future, they should design more cameras like the K-01.

The camera isn't a failure due to the Newson design; it's a failure commerically because it is too big for a "compact mirrorless camera". The K-01 is almost as big as the DSLR it purports to replace or augment. Because of this, there isn't a space in the bag for this camera for most potential buyers.

I bet if it had a built in EVF it would have sold much better, but perhaps not well enough to be considered successful.

8 upvotes
Peter Lacus
By Peter Lacus (Feb 26, 2013)

Arguably as a complete package, i.e. camera + lens, it's comparable to even Sony NEX with their kit lens, size wise. But still I'd prefer a thinner and lighter CSC from Pentax (with an optional adapter for mounting legacy K lenses) and a couple of optimized Limited quality lenses, say 35/1.8 and 60/1.8...

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

The K-01 is the nicest camera I've ever owned. I am so glad I listened to the actual K-01 owners with their almost universal praise for this camera and not to all the negative people who have likely never even seen a K-01 in the flesh but are all too willing to express their bad opinion very publicly.

16 upvotes
Eddy M
By Eddy M (Feb 26, 2013)

I don't care it's FUGLY!

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Feb 27, 2013)

hmmmm What cameras have you owned?
Did they say Fisher Price or Hello Kitty on them?

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

Here's a hint - anyone who still denigrates the K-01 as some sort of toy is clearly demonstrating that they have no idea what it looks or feels like in real life because they have never actually even seen let alone handled one.

Reminds me of a kid trying to troll on a computer forum once by declaring the MacBook Pro was cheap plastic because it looked like that to him in the pictures of it.

1 upvote
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Feb 27, 2013)

Sooooooo this is a success story?

1 upvote
jon404
By jon404 (Feb 26, 2013)

Bought one recently at the discontinued price. Two great kit zooms, and an APS-C camera with superb image quality-- what a deal. Love this camera! It is an ergonomic delight -- feels really solid, good in the hands.

Shocking price drops of so many fine products -- not just the K-01. We bought an older Cadillac XLR for a song... way, way down from its $85,000 original price. Maybe when a company is on the ropes or is reorganizing, that's the sweet spot for consumers...

7 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Feb 26, 2013)

I won't buy a Pontiac Aztec even from the 99cents store.
It'll cost me all my friends...

2 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Feb 27, 2013)

Your friends are pretty lame. Mine can appreciate a good deal and don't really care what products I own.

1 upvote
sroute
By sroute (Feb 26, 2013)

Pentax ought to have run the design past a bunch of real life users - take a random selection of folks here as a good start - before committing to building it.

They'd have saved a bunch of money and could have used that time for something else, something... saleable.

No EVF = not that usable with full size lenses, certainly not for my purposes.

Comment edited 56 seconds after posting
1 upvote
wildkat2
By wildkat2 (Feb 26, 2013)

Im a real life user and real life owner and I like the design.

3 upvotes
sroute
By sroute (Feb 26, 2013)

Like I said to Anthony above... of course the camera will appeal to some. BTW, when I spoke of the design I really wasn't speaking of the Newson tweaks but of the brick like design which is barely smaller than the K-5 by virtue of having the same back focal length.

Sure, it might be a good body for someone who already has a K-5 and wants a second, or has a collection of Pentax lenses, but as a primary camera it lacks some, at least for most. We don't need to argue about this - the camera did not sell well due to comments like mine - the market spoke. Buyers didn't like it. I betchya a nickel they didn't like it because of the size... they wanted a nice small "compact" mirrorless.

1 upvote
Michael Alex
By Michael Alex (Feb 26, 2013)

Capable tool with K-5 guts with easy video and fun focus peaking. If one had a chance to handle K-01, "like a plastic toy" verdict is VERY laughable. Have it in silver, like it & will keep it.

7 upvotes
CHAS RX1
By CHAS RX1 (Feb 26, 2013)

Poor Rusticus, he'll be heartbroken...

0 upvotes
Craig from Nevada
By Craig from Nevada (Feb 26, 2013)

One less entry in what continues to be a market with too many cameras chasing too few buyers.

0 upvotes
Nikon007
By Nikon007 (Feb 26, 2013)

It looks like a plastic toy camera. I'm sure it's capable but I wouldn't buy it.

0 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (Feb 26, 2013)

With a user name like that I am sure you would not buy it.

8 upvotes
bossa
By bossa (Feb 26, 2013)

It's made of Aluminium (Aluminum) not plastic.

2 upvotes
SRT201
By SRT201 (Feb 26, 2013)

I agree it looks different but it feels rock solid unlike so many entry to mid-grade nikons and canons that really do cheap-out on build. You really have to handle it to appreciate it. It is amazingly well built.

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 26, 2013)

People seem to love to make fun of this camera, but it's actually an extremely capable shooter, and has better IQ than most of the mirrorless cameras on the market.

The design is not for everybody, but anytime you get the urge to snicker at a K-01, perhaps go on Flickr and browse some images from it. I'm guessing if you do see it's output, you'll start thinking about it's quirky looks and how it might not be so bad after all.

12 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (Feb 26, 2013)

Plenty of cameras offer excellent image quality while also being easy to handle. From what I've read about the K-01, one of its biggest failures was the latter. Who wants to use a camera that's cumbersome when it doesn't have to be and when there are plenty of alternatives that handle better?

2 upvotes
wildkat2
By wildkat2 (Feb 26, 2013)

I doubt those writers were real users. I find the handling exceptional

1 upvote
highwave
By highwave (Feb 26, 2013)

Goes to show you that IQ isn't everything in a camera

Just look at how the OM-D outvoted the D800 for camera of the year as another example of this fact

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 26, 2013)

Outvoted? The D800 beats the OMD in every single performance metric but small size.

The fact that you would even imply that the K-01 and D800 share any similarities tells more about this fantasy world m43 fans seem to live in than anything else.

I'd be harping on a solitary online poll too if everywhere I looked cameras were being released that outclassed my gear (D7100 anybody?) . So maybe if m43 ever actually challenges APS-C or figures out how to actually track a moving subject, then it can worry about cameras like the D800 or 5D3.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Vilniz
By Vilniz (Feb 26, 2013)

The D800 or 5D3 costs around 2000 pounds and are aimed for pro use only. The OMD EM-5 costs around 1000 pounds it is not fair to ask from them the same performance.
I guess, that what highwave meant was that at half the price the performance is close. Check the iso tests here at dpreview and see for yourself.

would you buy a camera for 2x of the price of your current gear because it is 10-20% better in some areas? Maybe if the price is 200 GBP vs 400 GBP. but how about 1000 GBP vs 2000 GBP?

Or yould you upgrade to a lets say 4000GBP body ( I asume you own a D800 or 5D3 because it has a 10-20% better performance?

1 upvote
SRT201
By SRT201 (Feb 26, 2013)

It has better IQ than most of the DSLR's on the market!

0 upvotes
highwave
By highwave (Feb 27, 2013)

@ marike6

Yes outvoted as per the dpreview poll.

And I'm not talking about your openion I'm. Talking about popular vote. And no Dppreview isn't solitary either.

And my reference of the D800 to the pentax is pointing out IQ isn't everything. I have no idea where you got therest of your claims. Now who's worried about his gear being outclassed ?

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Feb 26, 2013)

Why am I not surprised?

0 upvotes
Rupert Bottomsworth
By Rupert Bottomsworth (Feb 26, 2013)

I'm surprised it made it to the market in the first place.

0 upvotes
Kurt_K
By Kurt_K (Feb 26, 2013)

"Unconventional-looking." That's definitely putting it nicely. :-)

Not sure what Pentax is planning on coming out with next, but I, for one, would love to see them join the M4/3 consortium. Not going to happen, I know, but it would be cool.

2 upvotes
3enson
By 3enson (Feb 26, 2013)

when i first saw this camera i knew it will not be a hit on the market,
just thinking how pentax approved the design of this camera...
and where did they get this guy? mark newson, oh architecture to camera?

1 upvote
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (Feb 26, 2013)

Compare the K-01 w/40mm F2.8 XS & built-in flash vs the Canon EOS M w/EF 40mm F2.8 / EF-EOS M adapter & 90EX flash. The EOS M must have been designed by Pee Wee Herman.
http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1228488/Pentax_K01-5.jpg
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-m/images/mount-adapter.jpg
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-m/images/90ex.jpg

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
wildkat2
By wildkat2 (Feb 26, 2013)

If Pentax had priced this correctly out the door it would have sold better. THe K-01 is an excellent camera and when paired with a small prime "plays smaller than it is" to borrow from sports. It is a perfect size for parties or other times when you dont want to intimidate people.

I hope Pentax makes a K-02 that corrects some of the issues of the K-01.

2 upvotes
Illumina
By Illumina (Feb 26, 2013)

It's not like a plastic toy, it is solidly built, but i don't like the handling, it's like holding a brick, all square..

0 upvotes
yonsarh
By yonsarh (Feb 26, 2013)

I have thought this camera would not last long because it looks like more

toy camera. Not just K-01 but most modern dslr has toy camera features like

miniature, panorama mode, and so on...

1 upvote
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (Feb 26, 2013)

This level of camera typically has a 12 month life-cycle anyway. The K-01 was never going to be mainstream, and unlikely to ever see a successor.

I wonder what their next trick will be?

0 upvotes
Karroly
By Karroly (Feb 26, 2013)

Discontinue the Q...

1 upvote
Total comments: 299
123