Previous page Next page

Studio scene comparison (Raw)

This is our standard studio scene comparison shot taken from exactly the same tripod position. Lighting: daylight simulation, >98% CRI. Crops are 100%. Ambient temperature was approximately 22°C (~72°F).

For a (more) level playing field for comparison we also shot our studio scene in Raw mode with each camera and converted it using Adobe Camera Raw. Because Adobe Camera Raw applies different levels of sharpening to different cameras (this confirmed) we use the following workflow for these conversions:

  • Load Raw file into Adobe Camera Raw (Auto mode disabled)
  • Set Sharpness to 0 (all other settings default)
  • Open file to Photoshop
  • Apply a Unsharp mask: 100%, Radius 0.6, Threshold 0
  • Save as a JPEG quality 11 for display and download.

Note: this page features our new interactive studio shot comparison widget. Click here to find out more.

Previous page Next page
128
I own it
11
I want it
23
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 376
1234
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Mar 23, 2012)

Even without a single Pentax lens, I like this KO1 camera.

It's the 'form-before-function' design. One can complain whole day long about an iPhone being slick and slipping out of hand -- well, it was intended to be slick in more ways than one. And so it is with the KO1. The whole dpr office can be split on KO1, but the 'child-yellow' is just that -- it's for the junior in the family and dpr just cannot see that (well, you know, they are all "professionals.") And that is how the experts oftentimes fail to predict a success.

Secondly, the weight is taken as a minus but with legacy glass it just might become well-balanced. But of course, dpr just cannot do a bit of system thinking.

6 upvotes
Francis Sawyer
By Francis Sawyer (Apr 1, 2012)

First off, it's "DPR".

Second, this is not a kid's camera. Did you note the price? And it takes interchangeable lenses that are by no means child-proofed.

What an odd strawman to float.

1 upvote
Camp Freddy
By Camp Freddy (Mar 23, 2012)

Mirrorless are / will be cheaper to produce. Get used to it all! Pentax like Olympus before them are paving the way for bottom line on a future range of cameras.

2 upvotes
Pakio
By Pakio (Mar 23, 2012)

I agree. From the beginning, I thought that DSLR was quite a silly thing. With film, that's the only way to see what you are shooting, so you must bear the weitgh and size of a mirror and prism. But, with digital???
I wear glasses and find DSLR finders rather unconfortable, and very small, dark and useless, compared with my film cameras like my ME Super.
I have no problem getting great photos with my sigma DP2 with no finder at all.
Many people don't like that things evolve and change. They are the kind of people were against the first compact cameras, the first SLR cameras, the first electronic cameras, the first AF cameras, the first digital cameras, etc...

5 upvotes
Francis Sawyer
By Francis Sawyer (Apr 1, 2012)

This has nothing to do with people not liking change. That's such a lame canard, used in an attempt to discredit anyone who raises an issue with something you like.

I think mirrorless cameras make a lot of sense, but an optical viewfinder presents an image whose resolution is limited only by the lens and the ground glass upon which the image falls. This allows precise focusing. THAT is the purpose they serve on SLRs of all kinds, and why they are superior for some applications.

1 upvote
Charlie Jin
By Charlie Jin (Mar 23, 2012)

I don't think that DPR really understood the purpose of the
weight of K01. It was intended for "professional feel". ;-)

0 upvotes
nanoc
By nanoc (Mar 23, 2012)

I don't think nobody really understood the purpose of this camera. A mirrorless camera that isn't small... what's the purpose???

0 upvotes
bankebrett
By bankebrett (Mar 23, 2012)

The main purpose is probably to show commitment to the K-mount. If a small company like Pentax introduced a new mount and new set of lenses people would fear for the K-mount and thus they would rather invest in a different system. Now we now, Pentax will stick with this system for years to come. Investing in K5 (or a future K3) is a safe decision. BIG POINT!

The K-01 is not an expensive move for Pentax. Theyre playing it safe. No new technology is needed that they cannot use in a K3. Now I'd like to see two Pentax Ricoh GXR K-mount modules. One with a b&w only sensor (and no bayer-patern) thus possibly over 60mp with the same dynamic range as modern sensors. (Or just bigger pixel-sensors and more DR.) And a traditional color-sensor.

The main thing is that Pentax see the traditional camera, with pentaprism/mirror as their main target. K-01 is an option for the consumer market. They should be able to cut the price on this by quite a lot, and still make a profit.

1 upvote
3DSimmon
By 3DSimmon (Mar 23, 2012)

@nanoc
who said that a mirrorless camera had to be small?

4 upvotes
Causio
By Causio (Mar 28, 2012)

So what's the point of a mirrorless camera then? The decision of making this camera compatible with slr lenses defies the whole mirrorless idea. Except for Pentax's marketing department very personal idea of product design, the only thing they achieved here is lower price. So basically they invested a lot of money in defining the Q standard (with new lenses etc) and couldn't afford to define another mirrorless standard with other lenses. And about the design, this is gadget-thinking (even the designer's signature is there... good for his reputation isn't it? :D), not camera thinking, yet with pro-quality expectations (including buying more "serious" lenses for it). Weird to say the least

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
bankebrett
By bankebrett (Mar 28, 2012)

- Cheaper =) (except they made it out of machined aluminum, so much of the saved money were "lost" in build quality)
- No mirror movement(more stable).
- Composing with a screen is (for me) in most cases better than OVF. No phase detect means they will probably work harder with contrast detect.
- It will balance nicely with medium size lenses.
- Newer lenses can have a rear element closer to the sensor (to avoid using retrofocus in the construction). They might be more compact, at the same time the old ones are 100% compatible.
- The lenses doesn't need to be as big as the Sony ones. (Take a look at the limiteds)
- My collection of legacy lenses will work right out of the box. And will be even easier to use with focus peaking :D

0 upvotes
DeanAllan
By DeanAllan (Mar 23, 2012)

Anyway I posted earlier about how I think a K-01 should be held/gripped with the right hand.

This guy comes closest to what I was thinking.
http://www.mattdentonphoto.com/cameras/kiev_4.html

0 upvotes
andy amos
By andy amos (Mar 23, 2012)

LOL!-)
Shame, they also neglected to demonstrate its real world use as a fashion accessory, resistance to Chanel perfume and what colour model goes best with which outfit, amongst other design considerations!- oops, intended in reply to Charlie Jin's post!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
JoeDaBassPlayer
By JoeDaBassPlayer (Mar 23, 2012)

I went and looked at some videos made with the K 01, the new Oly and the 5D Mk3. WOW! I am getting a K 01. It is a serious alternative to the new 5D. IMHO, the K 01 is better.

0 upvotes
Pakio
By Pakio (Mar 23, 2012)

Maybe it was just the user who was better in that case...

0 upvotes
DeanAllan
By DeanAllan (Mar 23, 2012)

I guess whatever Pentax is doing is working? People are really talking about the K-01.

I'm actually more interested in the lens available, I would really like a wide angle WR lens from them. And no..... don't give me the link to their new 645D 25mm. And perhaps a 17-70 f4 WR version as well.

Anyway, I think Pentax has the ability to make some very interesting cameras, from the diminutive Q to the humongous 645D. But they also showed that they can build solid, proper cameras for the masses like us (Eggleston and etc wannabes).

The k-01? I might just get it for fun but I'll look forward to the first real mashup of Pentax and Ricoh creative juices.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
DeanAllan
By DeanAllan (Mar 23, 2012)

Anyway, isn't there a rumour going round about the replacement for the K-R?

0 upvotes
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (Mar 23, 2012)

Pentax, please introduce ASAP another APS-c (or 4/3) mirrorless camera with built-in high resolution EVF, which must be thin and smaller size. We are looking for such a camera from Pentax.

1 upvote
FTW
By FTW (Mar 23, 2012)

Your request is not a problem for Pentax, but, Sony did that, Olympus did that, Fuji did that and the result, you put all your usual lenses in the locker and forget them, unless you get an adapter to make them work partially. A thinner body will bring lens closer to the chip and then, you will not be able to focus correctly anymore unless you set up a new smaller lens system with wider coverage. On a Nex, A mount Sony and Minolta lenses need an adapter, same on Olympus from normal to micro 4/3. That is the same reason why a larger sensor like a 48-72 for example if there was one, had to fit a large body like a 645. Remember Mamiya's dslr, with larger sensor, it was a huge tool, but big and heavy. See Nikon who had to make new lenses for the smaller system as well. Here, Pentax has made the real thing, a bit smaller, a bit thinner, but, with possibility to use all ancient lenses. I wish the Sony NEX was a bit larger and I could use the A lens system. Or, Pentax had to use same mount with smaller body and a smaller sensor, but then, you would have claimed they had to do same thing with apsc. One can not have it all, if it gets smaller, all gets smaller, and a new lens system fits only the newbies.

5 upvotes
Yanko Kitanov
By Yanko Kitanov (Mar 22, 2012)

The SAME size as the K-5- just a bit smaller due to the very poor grip, no VF, much worse ergonomics and an awful design - born dead, period.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
8 upvotes
Joele
By Joele (Mar 22, 2012)

All I can say is ROFLMAO

Whats the point? a mirrorless camera using the K mount still with no viewfinder option at all and a fuggly design that looks like a kids toy, hang on maybe my 4 year old would like this?

1 upvote
Magnus W
By Magnus W (Mar 22, 2012)

A stupid idea, ineptly executed.

0 upvotes
jonikon
By jonikon (Mar 22, 2012)

No viewfinder and no phase detection auto focus is a deal killer in a camera like this. If this were a rumor, I would not have believed it. Using traditional SLR lenses on the K-01 means the auto-focus will be maddeningly slow and no viewfinder is just totally unacceptable for telephoto lenses.
The ill conceived tiny sensor Q system from Pentax along with this poorly designed K-01 make Nikon's new V1 camera look like pure genius by comparison. Sad to say, but it is obvious that Pentax's best engineers left years ago, along with most of the Pentax camera customer base.

3 upvotes
MeScooper
By MeScooper (Mar 22, 2012)

As a Pentax fan and owner since my first SLR, an ME Super I'm really beginning to worry that Pentax has lost the plot recently. I have a k-x and I'm waiting patiently for a FF offering...Been waiting for some time. While I wait I have to watch these Mickey Mouse designs come and go...trust me, this won't sell...at least not at these k-5 prices. There is obviously some political issue with Pentax using the Sony 24MP FF sensor. Such a shame.

0 upvotes
NiallM
By NiallM (Mar 22, 2012)

No viewfinder is a deal killer for me too..but Nikon V1 is genius? LOL That honour looks to be going to the Oly E-M5..

1 upvote
rusticus
By rusticus (Mar 22, 2012)

ha, ha, ha: the Nikon V1 or J1 . . .

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Mar 22, 2012)

'The ill conceived tiny sensor Q system from Pentax along with this poorly designed K-01 make Nikon's new V1 camera look like pure genius by comparison.'
That's not the same as saying Nikon V1 is genius. I don't know how that assertion could have been so crudely misinterpreted.

3 upvotes
Docrwm
By Docrwm (Mar 22, 2012)

I appreciate Pentax-Ricoh's loyalty to the K-mount. That is a huge plus in their designs. This camera is designed to thrive with old manual glass. As for IQ, there are pics available online now from consumers to check out.

1 upvote
dylanbarnhart
By dylanbarnhart (Mar 22, 2012)

Nobody praised Pentax for having the thinnest pancake lens? If they can make all future lenses thinner, perhaps by protruding the rear glass elements deep into the lens mount, then we will start seeing a system that makes sense.

Sony NEX tricked everyone by having a tiny body but ridiculously large lens. I much rather have the reverse, because the large body is easy to hold and large surface areas allow room for top buttons, flash, etc.

4 upvotes
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (Mar 23, 2012)

The stupid design of K01 make it difficult to use the fine lenses in the market; but you can use whatever lens in NEX without problem.
Besides the uncountable lenses like Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Leica.... can be mounted on NEX, you can even use C-mount, PL-mount, Panavision-mount lenses in NEX! A real flexible solution.
K01? No way.

1 upvote
sroute
By sroute (Mar 23, 2012)

Here's a review that suggests the large pound-of-butter shaped camera is /not/ easy to hold yet you insist that it is. Have you held one yet?

Have you held a NEX? Shot one for a few days or weeks or months?

I did not keep my NEX for a variety of reasons but uncomfortable it was not. Button ergonomics could be improved and the NEX-7 in fact is better. But hand-holding, using with even a heavy all metal lens - the NEX balance well and are great all day carry everywhere cameras.

The K-01 is more expensive than a NEX-5N by a good margin and not that much less than a Pentax DSLR which is a nice, ergonomic package.

I can't help but think Pentax really messed up on this one and it makes me worry about how the Pentax-Ricoh imaging division merger will affect the GXR, a camera which is well thought out in most respects.

1 upvote
JacobSR
By JacobSR (Mar 22, 2012)

I don't understand this statement: "we find the only comfortable option when holding the camera is to support the bulk of its weight with your left hand holding the lens barrel".
Well isn't that how you'r supposed to hold the camera when taking photos? Maybe I'm old school but I was always taught that the proper way to hold a camera is to use both hands for stability, even more so when using the LCD at arm's length, and anytime you press the shutter you need your left hand to hold and support the camera.

0 upvotes
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (Mar 22, 2012)

Take a look of the k01 from the top, you know there is no space for you to hold that camera by both hand as taught by other camera instruction books / textbooks.
So, I think the statement is correct.

0 upvotes
JacobSR
By JacobSR (Mar 22, 2012)

The camera should rest on your left hand, your left hand is under the camera (not holding it from the left side) the fingers around the lens holding it from underneath.

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (Mar 23, 2012)

It makes no difference from the statement because the normal size of a left hand will touch and support both the base of the camera and the lens.

0 upvotes
DeanAllan
By DeanAllan (Mar 23, 2012)

I dont get what you're trying to say.
Isn't this the way you're suppose to hold them? http://www.google.com.sg/search?q=how+to+hold+the+camera&hl=en&biw=1263&bih=719&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=JORrT6q6LMf4rQfXssioAg&ved=0CFcQsAQ

Heck even Nikon -> http://www.nikonusa.com/Learn-And-Explore/Photography-Techniques/g699vchg/1/Getting-Started-How-to-Hold-Your-Camera.html

and these guys doens't seem to have too much problem with the K-01 http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/pentax/1058470-da40xs-tested-film-mz-s-da40xs-kodak-gold-200-a.html

0 upvotes
sroute
By sroute (Mar 23, 2012)

Probably what the author is stating here is that the camera offers no comfortable and secure way to hold it -- even when you aren't taking a photo. That's my read of the quoted sentence.

In other words, you won't want to carry it in hand for very long. Pity.

1 upvote
whawha
By whawha (Mar 22, 2012)

Potentially a very interesting camera - if it didn't look like a Fisher Price toy. In yellow. Which would be ok for a £200 point and shoot aimed at kids and casual users, not for a serious system camera.
Rich posers and fashonista airheads will like it, no doubt.
I don't even want to imagine the amount this Marc Newson was paid to come out with such an obrobrium. Money? He should be staring at wrong side of a kalashnikov!

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
xoio
By xoio (Mar 22, 2012)

Looks like one of those cheap plastic Russian LOMO cameras...
Horrible styling... At least let me see it in Black anywhere?

0 upvotes
JacquesBalthazar
By JacquesBalthazar (Mar 22, 2012)

I quite like the looks. in yellow of course. In choosing 100% compatibility with the K bayonet, Pentax is forced to produce a body as thick as a DSLR, as the dsitance from flange to sensor is a given. That precludes from the compacity advantage usually brought by the mirrorless idea.

So this K-01 variation on the idea is pretty cool I think, in the way it turns the constraints into an unconventional modern design. But am not sure the idea itself of a K-mount mirrorless has real mileage to it.

Add an EVF, and you have the volume/weight of a K-r or K5.

0 upvotes
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (Mar 22, 2012)

It makes no sense to design like that.
Pentax should design a thinner body with a removable extension tube for fitting the existing lenses.
By using this method, Pentax can design some unique compact lenses for K01. Then it can fit for dual purpose.
Besides, lack of a high resolution EVF limited the usage of this camera.

3 upvotes
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (Mar 22, 2012)

I think it is logical to use adapter; otherwise it will defeat the whole purpose of a mirrorless camera, which intends to reduce the weight and size of a DSLR but with the same image quality as a DSLR.
A camera with a thinner body also allows you to use whatever lens you like. Like the Sony NEX, just simply use a small adapter, you can use Nikon lens, Canon lens, Olympus lens, Leica lens.... even the lens with PL mount.
So, a thinner camera body makes everything more flexible.
I like the Pentax brand, that's why I hope Pentax knows what are the thinking of their customers.

0 upvotes
JNR
By JNR (Mar 23, 2012)

There are good reasons why Tamron abandoned the Adapt-all technology decades ago - and far more reasons now why resorting to adapters is an unwise course of action. Tinkerers can have them, but those interested in precision, reliability and convenience have wisely stayed away. And unfortunately for Sony, the quality Pentax build into their bodies - and the ability to get the most out of their sensors - makes the somewhat clumsy NEX system an illogical choice for most.

0 upvotes
Pakio
By Pakio (Mar 22, 2012)

I like very much the idea of a mirrorless camera. With digital, we don't really need a prims, specially given the smallish finders of most DSLR...

However, I find the style of the K-01 quite wrong. You may like it or not, but one thing is for sure: It does not suit the style of pentax lenses. I love pentax Limited series lenses, and I dont see a K-01 looking good with them.

A Olympus OM kind looks would have been better...

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Indulis Bernsteins
By Indulis Bernsteins (Mar 23, 2012)

You don't need a prism *if* you put in a good EVF!

0 upvotes
Pakio
By Pakio (Mar 23, 2012)

A good EVF is a good option. A good Live View screen is a good one too. I would be happy with that. I use only that when shooting my DP2 and I get great pictures, even of shooting fast moving objects.

I found no other finder that can compares with my Pentax ME Super, so I may prefer not to have one at all that a bad one.

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Simon97
By Simon97 (Mar 22, 2012)

I have no issue with the size. It is just thick enough for a comfortable grip. With a set of pancake lenses, it is still pretty small and I can pop on my 300mm lens without having to buy some rip off $250 adapter.

The problem for me is the price. $900 is too much. $600 makes more sense.

0 upvotes
audijam
By audijam (Mar 22, 2012)

haters will always hate... go pentax! give me a FF and i will come back again...please i beg you!(or revive contax)

2 upvotes
itsastickup
By itsastickup (Mar 22, 2012)

Hate's a strong word and I don't think it's right. Strongly 'dislike' rather. While I don't like this camera's form I do love other cameras and other things. So no, not all those negative to this camera can be characterised as "haters will always hate".

And really, I don't think we can be criticised so harshly for a camera that looks like a block of lego with possibly ergonomics to suit.

I applaud the attempt to do an Apple with a camera, but the boss, who presumably ok'd it, didn't have the taste for the job, or else over-committed to the designer before it had been produced.

0 upvotes
nanoc
By nanoc (Mar 23, 2012)

It's not about hate. Pentax is already offering one of the best cameras in the market (k-5), and they go and launch a camera that has almost the same size, but no viewfinder, no phase detection AF, less controls, and butt ugly looks. Unless this cmaera performs as well as the K-5, and costs half the price, I don't see why anybody would spend their money on this one. Furthermore, people buying mirrorless cameras usually do it for the size factor... I don't know what they were thinking, really.

0 upvotes
chiane
By chiane (Mar 22, 2012)

This review seems laced thru every segment with a tinge of bias. Right from the start, the reviewer is obviously in the camp of not liking the design aesthetic. I don't recall hearing how 'ugly' and boxy the Nex 7 is! That thing will win no beauty contest itself.

And for the price, why are you comparing it to the k-5 and not the k-r? If I wanted a camera that looked like every other camera, there are plenty of smaller sensor mirrorless camera's to choose from.

So tell me, why does camera have to be just like the next one? Can nobody be original?

5 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Mar 22, 2012)

FYI this is a preview, not a review.

Also while aesthetics are subjective bad handling is easier to be objective about, such as controls awkward to reach and the grip not sufficient for good one handed operation.

No-where in the preview does it call the camera ugly, instead it lists the problems in handling that the previewer had.

1 upvote
fisherman_lol
By fisherman_lol (Mar 22, 2012)

LOL. If it was Canikon they would love this camera. A typical DPR review of Pentax Cameras.

1 upvote
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Mar 22, 2012)

That's a big accusation, can you point to a review where DPR have overlooked clear issues in a Canon or Nikon camera?

3 upvotes
JoeDaBassPlayer
By JoeDaBassPlayer (Mar 22, 2012)

I am failing to see how this camera is compromised as so many say. It gets the K5 Image Quaiity in a smaller less expensive package. It also picks up very high quality video capabilities. It may be a little bigger than a NEX but lenses available are smaller than that of the NEX. It can use a real external mic. It also looks to be a good alternative to the 5D for video and photographic use.

0 upvotes
Yamin Tedja
By Yamin Tedja (Mar 22, 2012)

K01 is only a little smaller than k5, video quality is about the same as the competition so what is so special about this camera? Nex5n has the same sensor as K5 and K01 but in a much smaller body and I think Nex 5n is a better camera than K01. By the way, the design is also bad. I don't know why anybody would buy this camera, especially if they already have a k5, the size is almost the same.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Mar 22, 2012)

I think the main problem with it is that it's not much smaller than the K5. All other comparable CSC cameras are significantly smaller so, while Pentax may have small lenses compared to other DSLRs, when compared to other CSC systems you have to add an extra inch and several hundred grams extra weight for the larger body.

While the NEX still has a relatively poor lens range the M43 and Samsung NX systems have several fast pancake lenses that on their small bodies virtually fit inside the space the K01 body alone takes up.

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Skymist
By Skymist (Mar 23, 2012)

I don't see anyone talking about the big deal Pentax retained in the K-01, the in-camera image stabilization. I have a K5 and the IS is fantastic, giving you the equivalent of extra stops in low light situations because you can use slow shutter speeds. If your hands are not extremely shaky, the IS is perfect down to 1/20s and works fairly well at 1/15. I looked at the K-01 and at first I was not impressed, and since I was interested in the video mode I began leaning to the NEX-5n, until I realized that my manual lenses adapted to the NEX would be crippled in weak light, and believe me, it is easy to build up a big appreciation of the IS in the K-5 after a few uses. The IS rules this buying decision for me - handheld video competently deshaken on the K-01 or bouncing all over with the NEX5n+adapter. No contest!

0 upvotes
Teru Kage
By Teru Kage (Mar 22, 2012)

The side-by-side with the GX1 really sums up the central flaw of this design. For most users, the whole point of the mirrorless form factor is to have a camera that's substantially smaller than a DSLR. This chubby block doesn't offer much portability over the smaller DSLRs on the market.

And for all the talk of its different look, the K-01 retains more of the DSLR form factor than the Sony NEX cameras.

Unless it delivers excellent APS-C image quality, l think this latest edition will be for diehard fans only.

0 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (Mar 22, 2012)

I think you hit the point "for most users", but that isn't all users, and Pentax being Pentax and going for niche markets, I think will have a successful camera.

I personally don't like it or don't see the point, but that is me. There are many people who already like it, and there is a movement away from traditionally styled cameras with part of the segment.

Also, with new lenses that extend into the body since the mirror is gone, they can keep a small overall form factor for lenses around 50mm or less.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
MandoBear
By MandoBear (Mar 22, 2012)

Hmm,

I really wanted to like this camera. It could have been something really great, which would have made me move away from my M4/3 gear and pick up the M-series lenses I still have from my Pentax film cameras (LX and K1000 - which I also still have). Sadly, though, for me, it's just too compromised as a photographic tool - design has triumphed over function, and Pentax have lost a sale from me. I'll be saving my pennies for the new Olympus OM-D, or Panasonic's response to it which will likely follow in the coming months.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
88SAL
By 88SAL (Mar 28, 2012)

Isn't the GX1 or G3 basically the what the OM-D is a response to? If it even works on a responsive system, as they are a partnership in the standard, isn't it more along the lines of parallel developments. This isn't the Canon Nikon war.

0 upvotes
philo123
By philo123 (Mar 22, 2012)

Calm down guys! there's a lot of animosity out there towards this camera. I thought we bought cameras based on our needs? I bought a K5 because it fitted my need better than anything on the market. I live in a rainy part of the UK and wanted a weather resistant camera with top build quality and a decent set of good priced lenses. Nothing came close to the K5 with those credentials. If the K-01 is not to your tastes don't buy it- simple. I won't be buying as it's not what I'm looking for but the sensor and IQ of Pentax is superb and the prime lenses are sublime.(check out the review on digitalrev of their pancake 40mm against the opposition http://www.digitalrev.com/article/pancake-day-pancake-lens-test/OTM4NjE0NQ_A_A). Saying that I'd prefer the K-01 with a limited prime than those silly looking long lenses on the SONY NEX series ;-)

4 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Mar 22, 2012)

You're right; however, I believe the point is that this camera gives the worst of two worlds: it has the flaws of compact system cameras and negates the benefits of a DSLR (optical viewfinder, phase detection AF, ergonomics), while offering none of the benefits of mirrorless cameras, such as size and portability. I find it utterly pointless and, as I wrote before, I see no reason to buy this instead of one of highly respected DSLRs by Pentax. Even the K-x, which can now be bought for peanuts, offers numerous advantages over this flawed camera.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
RichardBalonglong
By RichardBalonglong (Mar 22, 2012)

@Manuel: The K-01 was not built to compete with compact-sized-pocketable camera. It was build to make a unique mirrorless system that still accepts any K-mount lenses that doesn't need any adapter. For me, like what Philo123 told, I bought my Pentax cameras based on my needs, so I'm going to get one K-01 for my video production needs and also for stills. Why? Better video options and I can still use my Pentax lenses on it, and I don't need a OVF or EVF for videography. Cheers!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
1 upvote
philo123
By philo123 (Mar 22, 2012)

You raise some valid points and I reiterate that this is not a camera I'm personally interested in. However, I think Pentax might be aiming this camera at beginners who are upgrading from point and shoot cameras and want excellent image quality. These users are used to camera phones also, hence the reason no EVF. This is where this camera will deliver and NOT to the majority of enthusiast/semi pros that frequent this site. Saying that it might be a decent option as a backup body........although I'm waiting for a K5 replacement to use the K5 as backup!

0 upvotes
Carlos Henrique
By Carlos Henrique (Mar 22, 2012)

@Richard I understand the point of Manuel: what is the point for going mirrorless with the K-01 if it has no advantage over Pentax DSLRs besides price?

0 upvotes
Yamin Tedja
By Yamin Tedja (Mar 22, 2012)

A lot of people don't like K01, so they will not buy it, and pentax will lose money, its that simple.

0 upvotes
RichardBalonglong
By RichardBalonglong (Mar 22, 2012)

@ Carlos: The K-01, for me, is not about the advantages over Pentax DSLRs. This K-01 is a new camera system from Pentax. This K-01 is good for cinematography (and of course for stills too) because of its full manual control features unlike the K-7 or K-5. And besides, Pentax didn't stop producing DSLRs. Just recently, there's a new rumor that Pentax is going to release a new DSLR believed to be called "K-z".

2 upvotes
vegwolff
By vegwolff (Mar 22, 2012)

Excellent comments there philo123. A shame there are not more sensible people like you writing comments here. I don't know why some people get so stressed out by manufacturers coming out with designs they don't like. As I've always said, if you don't like it - don't buy it. People are going on about this cameras size, that it's not much smaller than a K5. A K5 in itself is a small camera. I would like to know how it compares with the likes of a good 'ol OM1 or the larger K1000. That will give a better impression of how big or small the
K01 really is, not these minature mirrorless cameras. Umm, also, when you say... "I live in a rainy part of the UK" hm hmm, well, nah, I won't say any more ;-)

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
MP Burke
By MP Burke (Mar 22, 2012)

When Pentax first made a 40mm pancake lens it was used on 35mm cameras. The 40mm focal length should be replaced by around 30mm for APS-C.
The design brief for this camera appears to be to make a mirror-less camera without the need for any specially designed lenses. Hence the flange back distance of over 40mm, which is the same as it was on 35mm slrs. Pentax has retained this flange back distance for all these years yet has never made a 35mm digital camera.
While the Pentax lens range may look impressive superficially, many of the lenses were designed to cover the 35mm format image circle. Pentax ought to discontinue these older lenses and start again with its lens range with some primes that are relevant to the APS-C format, e.g. 12mm, 18mm, 23mm, 35mm f1.4, rather than the old hand-me downs from the 35mm era.

0 upvotes
PentaxNick
By PentaxNick (Mar 27, 2012)

Err, what like the 12-14, the 15, the 21 or the 35 Macro? Or perhaps the 70mm 2.4? All designed for the APS-C image circle.

0 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (Mar 22, 2012)

The K-01 is the perfect camera for a K-7 user who shoots in video mode more than still mode. I purchased the GH2 instead of the K-5 in Dec 2010 since I wanted full manual control in video mode so now with the K-01 I now have full manual control in video with my K-mount lenses along with easy focusing with manual lenses using the focus peaking feature that is also not in the K-5. My K-7 and K-01 are now perfect together. BTW unlike some brain dead people here I have been able to shoot still shots with the K-01.

3 upvotes
Dafffid
By Dafffid (Mar 22, 2012)

I have a very soft spot for Pentax and I'm all in favour of attempts to shake up the current paradigm and lack of choice regarding bodies, but only to improve outdated systems, not to exercise the designer's ego. I saw an interview in which he seemed far more concerned with imposing his own signature and style upon it than whether or not it actually worked. Like a Phillipe Starck grapefruit squeezer, this camera appears designed to sit there looking striking, not to actually be used. Shame that a once great company has, I suspect, goofed again.

0 upvotes
itsastickup
By itsastickup (Mar 22, 2012)

'Form rather than function' and with such a strong aesthetic that I, for one, am disappointed. I'm in the market for a mirrorless camera and was veering towards a Sony, despite all my pentax lenses, so this should have been a very exciting camera. But I can't stomach the form and can only suppose the ergonomics aren't so great either. And all that is before considering the lack of an EVF.

0 upvotes
DeanAllan
By DeanAllan (Mar 22, 2012)

I'm not disappointed, I don't think Pentax have ever been a me too kind of company and it shows. The K-01 is not their flagship camera, I just get the feeling it is to test the water and at the same time build something that differentiate them from the crowd and get them talking about Pentax.

That being said, alot of people said it looks ergonomically wrong. I will agree with you there, if it was held like a traditional SLR is held (with OVF and at eye-level)with the hand cupping the grip vertically). To me, it looks as if you need to hold the camera slightly away from your body, your right hand cupping from the bottom and your index finger and middle-finger at the green button and shutter-button respectively - all this while your left hand supports the camera+lens -> like how kids and older folks sometimes hold a compact camera. Well I might be wrong but meh.

0 upvotes
Skymist
By Skymist (Mar 23, 2012)

The design of the K-01 looks boxy but it was deliberately designed so that it stands up, without a tripod, on either end solidly, or the bottom. Sit it on a couple of books on a table pointing at your party, start it, and you can go without a tripod in a number of situations. This is actually an advantage few cameras have. Of course,the balance only works if you use one of the pancake lenses.

0 upvotes
Zoltan Csuka
By Zoltan Csuka (Mar 22, 2012)

I am not getting it... What is the point of releasing this camera without an evf? Size is the same.

0 upvotes
DeanAllan
By DeanAllan (Mar 22, 2012)

I don't know.... maybe if they did have an evf, it will be the same size as the K-R?

But you never know with Pentax, they tend to give me both a mad-genius and retard vibes sometimes.

1 upvote
steveh0607
By steveh0607 (Mar 22, 2012)

I think the market is going to move away from mirrors, at least below the pro level. This could have been a replacement for a mirrorless intro model. Why they did't include an EVF is a mystery. For this reason alone the camera may bomb.

0 upvotes
Joseph S Wisniewski
By Joseph S Wisniewski (Mar 22, 2012)

DeanAllan, five minutes with a NEX 7 would show you that a camera much smaller than the K-01 can have a world class EVF.

And, that it's possible to make something that's basically a block, brick, or slap actually look pretty nice.

0 upvotes
RichardBalonglong
By RichardBalonglong (Mar 22, 2012)

@Joseph S W: the K-01 was not built to compete with tiny cameras. And here, can the NEX 7 accepts lenses for Sony's DSLR or old Minolta lenses without using any adapter? That's the point of the Pentax K-01, it was made to start a mirrorless system that still accepts any Pentax K-mount lenses without using any adapters and without investing on new lens line-ups.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Yamin Tedja
By Yamin Tedja (Mar 22, 2012)

The good thing about pentax K01 is that it can take K mount lens without an adapter? Well the point that pentax want to make is good, but people buy a mirrorless because they want to small camera, not adaptability, and besides, whats wrong with using adapter. And if they have to make a new lens system, so be it, They make a new lens system with q, why not a new mirrorless lens system also.

0 upvotes
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (Mar 22, 2012)

I think it is logical to use adapter; otherwise it will defeat the whole purpose of a mirrorless camera, which intends to reduce the weight and size of a DSLR but with the same image quality as a DSLR.
A camera with a thinner body also allows you to use whatever lens you like. Like the Sony NEX, just simply use a small adapter, you can use Nikon lens, Canon lens, Olympus lens, Leica lens.... even the lens with PL mount.
So, a thinner camera body makes everything more flexible.
I like the Pentax brand, that's why I hope Pentax knows what are the thinking of their customers.

0 upvotes
RichardBalonglong
By RichardBalonglong (Mar 22, 2012)

@ Yamin T: Pentax having a mirrorless is not about having a small camera; and having a mirrorless system is not all about owning a small-pocketable camera. What's wrong with adapter? Well, if you are going to use a 35mm format lens on an APS-C sensor you are going to multiply your focal length by 1.5x then multiply it again because of the use of the adapter, let's say your adapter is by 1.7x: so if you are going to use a 50mm (35mm format) lens with 1.7x adapter, your focal length would be around 127mm. Instead of enjoying at least a 75mm focal length from a 50mm (35mm format) lens on an APS-C sensor, you're now hooked-up on a longer working focal length.
And besides, Pentax already made a really small interchangeable lens camera: and that is the Q. Take a Q system if a small sized camera is what matters for your photography.

1 upvote
RichardBalonglong
By RichardBalonglong (Mar 22, 2012)

@ Edmond: there's nothing wrong using an adapter. But with the Pentax K-01, you don't have to use any adapter to use your old or recent K-mount lenses. And if you want to use Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. lenses, that is when you would only need an adapter. This K-01's K-mount lets you reduce on burning more of your budget and lets you use your recent and/or old Pentax lenses.

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (Mar 23, 2012)

RichardBalonglong,
Two things,
1. An adapter (or an extension tube) is different from a telephoto converter. There is no magnification effect as what you mentioned 1.7x... I think we should be clear in quoting terminologies.
2. Cost is absolutely not an issue. The manufacturing cost of an adapter is so cheap and it will not increase the total selling price so much when Pentax sells it as a bundle with K01. For sure, if you separately buy an adapter, it will cost you between US$40 ~ US$200 (in Hong Kong); anyway, this is just a very small amount when compared with the price of K01.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
DeanAllan
By DeanAllan (Mar 23, 2012)

@Joseph S Wisnlewski
I have no doubt about that - I have actually tried a nex-7 with the 24mm and it is "Schhhhwweeet" but then again so is the price.
I think if you try to recall how long it took for Sony to have a proper lens lineup, a proper evf. The alpha mount lens mounted on the nex with the adapter looks ridiculous - you have to admit that, right? Right now they only have 7 nex lenses (I dont count the converters). K-01 has wham-bam 31 lenses for it out of the gates. Give it another year - maybe a better mirrorless cam as well.

0 upvotes
RoyGBiv
By RoyGBiv (Mar 22, 2012)

wouldn't they be able to design lenses that mount to the K-mount ring, but with their lens elements recessed into the cavity a bit, or does the electronic contacts get in the way?

0 upvotes
DeanAllan
By DeanAllan (Mar 22, 2012)

Actually with no mirror blocking the lens, they should be able to. Hopefully that is what the XS lens are for.A more compact and better lens design I hope.

And maybe a better body in the future?

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
RoyGBiv
By RoyGBiv (Mar 22, 2012)

The body design absolutely doesn't warrant discussion. Even as an industrial design exercise, Newson mailed it in.

Unlike most other mount standards, 7 of the 9 pins are contained *IN* the lens mount ring itself. The other two obstruct a small portion of the lower right. m4/3 contains inwards of the mount ring, inside the cavity.

I think it's possible to have a substantial portion of the lens assembly recess inward towards the sensor from the flange. That would buy back the compactness that people are discounting here. It still needs to project out to an APS-C image circle without vignetting, so it'll still be larger than m4/3. But it will be smaller than what people imagine.

1 upvote
Yamin Tedja
By Yamin Tedja (Mar 22, 2012)

I think my pentax me super is thinner than K01 , why they cannot make K01 in a pentax me super body, I don't understand.

0 upvotes
Pakio
By Pakio (Mar 22, 2012)

Your right, Yamin. I also havea ME Super. However, there is a reason for everything, so there must be one. When you design a product that must be manufactured you find so many issues: available parts and materials, compatibility with other products manufacturing lines, etc...

0 upvotes
sapporodan
By sapporodan (Mar 22, 2012)

No Sensitivity Priority mode on the dial!
Is it just me or does it seem a bit stupid to remove such a useful feature, there's plenty of space so why leave it out?

0 upvotes
zebarnabe
By zebarnabe (Mar 22, 2012)

Can't one set/force the ISO to a certain value leaving all the modes to work with that set ISO? ... IDK about Pentax ISO button on the back, but my camera has a button labelled ISO (on the same spot I believe) that does that...

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Mar 22, 2012)

Many cameras now simply allow auto ISO in manual exposure mode, which is essentially the same thing, so I guess maybe Pentax are now doing the same?

0 upvotes
cheddargav
By cheddargav (Mar 22, 2012)

Ha, I had to laugh at this...
"Furthermore, it's worth remembering that the GX1's lens covers a 28-84mm equivalent range, while the K-01's pancake prime leaves you stuck with a fixed 60mm equivalent field-of-view."

Is it not also worth remembering the wider aperture you get with this lens? Much more useful to aid creative photography than the same old standard zoom lens these cameras come with...

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Mar 22, 2012)

f2.8 isn't much faster than the zoom, and of course Micro Four Thirds and the Samsung NX also have much faster pancake primes at potentially more useful focal lengths.

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
1 upvote
snake_b
By snake_b (Mar 22, 2012)

K5 performance in a lower-cost package that can do fantastic video: win.
Pentax lenses: win

Its performance is lightyears beyond current mirrorless cams that are derived from compacts in many ways. This is truly a scaled down SLR, from near-top of the industry K5 performance to shots per charge.

Enjoy your 200 shot mirrorless cams from other companies, along with their slow zooms and waiting forever for lenses to come along that will make the system competitive.

2 upvotes
digifan
By digifan (Mar 22, 2012)

Dream on, Nowhere near K5 performance. The K-01 is CDAF with PDAF lenses veeeeeery sloooow.
Oh you mean sensor IQ, well m43 is not much different in the E-M5, but Olympus' E-M5 has much more going for it even.
I'd say fail for this K-01 allthough there will be buyers of it but not nearly as much as for the Sony Olympus Pana and Nikon products.

0 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Mar 22, 2012)

Its for devoted Pentax fans. Probably devoted to that degree that they are willing to sacrifice themselves on altar of Pentax.

Pentax made some pretty good cameras, original Asahi, MZ series, great MF cameras (altought 6x7 is bit quirky and that battery.. sigh). Decent lens for film age (not for today APS-C sorry, they work nice on Canon FF cameras tho :D).

Well.. K-01 is something that should be forgotten as soon as possible.

0 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (Mar 22, 2012)

I recall how short my battery life in my K-5 and K-7 were when shooting in live view. I really hope the K-01 is better. I also hoped they fixed any over heating issues.

0 upvotes
Dirk Rieke-Zapp
By Dirk Rieke-Zapp (Mar 22, 2012)

Leica M8 and M9 are heavier and dpreview has handled those. This is also not a micro 4/3 camera. I don't see any point in featherweight cameras. Pentax offers a different system in the feather weight class. Still, this little design offspring needs a serious big brother in the future.
The camera is integrated in a system that assumes a mirror in the path of light - I would expect new wide angle lens designs here. A real electronic viewfinder would be a breakthrough. Forget all your AF and on screen focusing.
Can this camera to anything else than look pretty (to some) and have no mirror???

"The K-01 is by far the heaviest mirrorless camera we've handled. Even more disappointingly, the lack of a sufficient hand grip makes it not only awkward, but uncomfortable to hold. While the red and green buttons atop the camera are customizable, it is impossible to actually reach the green one with your hand in a shooting position."

1 upvote
snake_b
By snake_b (Mar 22, 2012)

It would be quieter in situations where a mirror swinging around would be problematic.

I'm guessing that this could possible become a cult favorite for video.

3 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Mar 22, 2012)

Seriously.. you even think about comparing this and M8 or M9? :D

Bwhaahahhaa..

0 upvotes
DeanAllan
By DeanAllan (Mar 22, 2012)

With M8 ? Yeah defintely. With M9 with their sucky lcd, stupid menu layout and freakishly hard to get storage card.

Where leica wins out?...... their lens. IQ, yep but paying thousands or dollars more for it, it better be good.

A Leica definitely looks sexy.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Korim
By Korim (Mar 22, 2012)

...a mirrorless system for slr lenses makes sense when you're famous for pancakes, though

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Mar 22, 2012)

They may make good DSLR lenses but apart from the 40mm their other pancakes are similar size to equivalent CSC pancakes but slower, and once added to the extra body depth ends up being a bigger overall package.

0 upvotes
Korim
By Korim (Mar 22, 2012)

No bulb mode, no buy

0 upvotes
Pablom
By Pablom (Mar 22, 2012)

of course there is a bulb mode

0 upvotes
robbo d
By robbo d (Mar 22, 2012)

Lol, thats in the next firmware update..........and you have to use a pin to put a hole in the front of it yourself, but I believe the flow regulator technology is already in place...........can,t say I personally find the looks to my taste, but doesnt stop it being a good camera nevertheless.

0 upvotes
wlad
By wlad (Mar 22, 2012)

wait, you have to put real lenses on it ? I thought you only have to fill the water tank.

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
1 upvote
robbo d
By robbo d (Mar 22, 2012)

firstly, never seen a law that says mirrorless should be small. There are other advantages.
Secondly, no cameras have to look the same as others.
Thirdly, It will appeal to non forum geek, traditionalist, unimaginative people.
Fourth, It uses an established, top quality lens system, which is set to grow.
Fifth, It opens up a whole new market.( Modern users who use smart phones and couldnt give a flying razoo about a OVF, EVF, DR, ISO or IQ)
sixth, Much improved video application, which many customers want and Pentax havent been so good at.
Seven, Low Entry cost, esp considering it will drop in next few months and look what you get in terms of quality.
Eight, can get a high quality prime at a great price with it.
Nine, smart phone users wont care about ultimate DSLR AF speeds, it will be perfectly acceptable.
THINK OUTSIDE THE SQUARE PEOPLE............if you dont like it, dont buy it..otherwise dont bag what is easily a great addition to the WHOLE range of Pentax.

12 upvotes
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (Mar 22, 2012)

From the customer point of view, they are happy to have a lot of products to select from Pentax and they have no interest to know whether Pentax can sell it successfully in the market.
But I think the negative voices here are from those loyal customers of Pentax, they don't want to see Pentax going to a wrong direction (might be this is the right direction, we don't know yet) and lose its market share.

0 upvotes
hanenashi
By hanenashi (Mar 22, 2012)

Believe it or not it actually feels good in (my) hand. It is a fun and quite capable camera. And there are plenty of people who will like it for what it looks like, like it or not...

3 upvotes
Digital Suicide
By Digital Suicide (Mar 22, 2012)

There is only one positive thing about this camera: Lens mount that takes any of pentax lenses. Other manufacturers would never do this in their life...

0 upvotes
ljmac
By ljmac (Mar 22, 2012)

This thing must surely get the award for the dumbest camera design ever (and IMHO the ugliest too), at least in my lifetime. This thing quite simply misses the whole point of being mirrorless (less bulk and weight), introduces huge disadvantages (e.g. slow AF, no EVF), and compounds it with downright un-ergonomic design. It's hard to imagine how Pentax could have screwed this thing up more.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (Mar 22, 2012)

Not that I necessarily disagree with all the points, but the sensor at the price it is plus full K-mount lens choice out of the box aren't exactly disadvantages.

2 upvotes
bradleyg5
By bradleyg5 (Mar 22, 2012)

I understand why the mount side of the camera needs to be boxy, but couldn't they do something with the hand grip side of the camera? The grip just looks terrible, couldn't they make it thinner in the middle and then provide a more substantial hump?

It's like they wanted to make a mirrorless camera but couldn't afford to create a single new part, so they just sawed as much off the K-5 as they could.

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Khun_K
By Khun_K (Mar 22, 2012)

I have tried the camwera at B&H, it looks a lot nicer on website than in reality. The screen is very slow, training the camera around and the screen seemed can't catch up, I made a quick comparison with my getting old NEX-5 (the old version) which screen responded a lot faster. It would be difficult to catch up moving subjects and shoot.. The camera can be a lot more attractive if it is lighter and smaller but it is not. There is something about design that one can compromised, but one really does not need to. The original Contax RTSIII by Porsche Design is one perfect example, everything works just beautifully. Marc Newson did not match this time.

0 upvotes
tiarez
By tiarez (Mar 22, 2012)

The RTSIII is a mere third-generation-Copy of the original Contax RTS which has been designed by Porsche.

0 upvotes
raimaster
By raimaster (Mar 22, 2012)

For sure, its not camera for long time .. looks boring. Pentax, just give me K-3.

0 upvotes
JoeDaBassPlayer
By JoeDaBassPlayer (Mar 22, 2012)

I have never seen a NEX 3 or 5 out and about with the optional evf. I have seen them with some rather long and awkward lenses. The K 01 will balance better with them. Also, Pentax has a more complete line of thinner high quality lenses.

The big draws for the K 01 for me are the better live view with focus peaking (compared to the K5), a real microphone input and hotshoe (which the NEX lacks). The K5 IQ in a smaller package does not hurt either.

I know the Pentax Menu systems work, unlike some other brands. The designer looks and build quality add to the overall package.

0 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (Mar 22, 2012)

Well I think this is an interesting camera at a very interesting price considering what I think we can expect of the image quality, but if dpreview in general found ergonomic issues (and I am not talking about the lack of view finder), made in the name of design, I think that's a fail.

0 upvotes
JoeDaBassPlayer
By JoeDaBassPlayer (Mar 22, 2012)

From the location of the green and red buttons, they look as if they are for the thumb and not the index finger.

1 upvote
falcon_wizard
By falcon_wizard (Mar 22, 2012)

One thing I am surprised no one brought up to date: When I looked at the various mirrorless offerings, I could not help but thinking that wanting a compact package really made sense with a 4/3 sensors or smaller, to take advantage of smaller lenses also. The Sony NEX is a really cool camera, but once you've put an APS-C lens on it, it looks unbalanced and is not portable anymore. So from that stand-point, I think the K-01 design is a more coherent design with using an APS-C sensor in a mirrorless package, with a more balanced camera to match the lenses.

My read on the feature set of the K-01 is that the audience was the entry level to intermediate customers, not Enthusiasts+, who will require additional controls (like second ctrl wheel) and an EVF.
The looks is a personal thing, I prefer lower profile stuff myself, but hey, it's certainly catchy... I expect that the next mirrorless will use the lessons learned from K-01 to offer advanced users a mirrorless that suits their needs.

2 upvotes
Total comments: 376
1234