Reader comments and the review itself suggest that the K-01 was a missed opportunity. Hopefully Pentax are finalising the K-02 as we speak, without the help of Mr Newson.

A 40mm kit lens is a bizarre choice for a 1.5x crop sensor.A cracking new 28mm or 24mm was called for and badly needed for the dSDLR range anyway. Ergonomics are a mess. For example this camera will be extensively used with M-lenses so the 'green' button ought to be right under your thumb and not somewhere else. Optional EVF at least, and an articulated screen for low-level natural history shots and suchlike.

And for heaven's sake make it look like a photographic tool not some first-year art student's styling project. Hard to believe there was marketing input at any stage. I suspect the K-01 is an embarrassment to the Pentax 'Old Guard' who, like me, have been waiting for something like a K-01 but expected it to be far better executed.

So near and yet so far.

Seen this review and another showing live in human hands - it is big.

If it was Full frame, same mount, 5 Fps for RAW AND HDR groups, preferably faster auto focus, and not too much dearer, I would buy it for all my old K-mount lenses.

The only advantage of the APS-C for FF capable lenses would be the smaller size but it isn't. The size is no problem as a user but would also almost do for a FF so the loss is the rest of the usable lens field in a camera whose major selling feature is the ability to mount all Pentax K lenses.

I await a Pentax FF follow-up with great anticipation. The K-01 is pointed right at the appropriate market and proved they are capable of delivering just what is needed, so let's be having it.

I don't understand why the camera only gets 1fps in RAW?

I thought one of the advantages of a mirrorless system was the fact that with no mirror been physically moved this would allow for faster fps.

Although the K-01 may look "big" compared to other mirrorless systems, it can certainly take advantage of the compactness and non-retrofocus lens designs that other mirrorless cameras allow. Pentax has shown a prototype (or mockup) lens with a rear element that protrudes deeply into the body and a front element which doesn't stick out much beyond the lens mount. Because there's no mirror in the way, the overall length of camera + lens can potentially be reduced compared to the equivalent retrofocus lens. The K-mount FF distance doesn't stop the whole lens from being shifted backwards relative to the mount. And any existing lens can be used straight on the camera without buying an extra adapter. Not such a bad idea.

Its lack of EVF and its slow AF make this camera a special purpose one. Landscape and still photography is what one can use K-01 for with great success. Street photography would a big stretch, on the other hand.

Yo all...just like to say something in behalf of DP.
When they first reviewed the EP-1 from Olympus and gave it a poor review I was very upset as well...I thought if it was labeled Cannon it would of come up as the greatest camera ever. then I bought one. They were right about all, and that is hard for me to say as I am a big fan of Olympus since the OM-1. OK then the EP2 came out and same poor review...then the EP3 and it got a pretty good review. now the OM5 and it is a great review...Dont you get it...if DP review did not push the manufacturers forward then we would all be in a complacent place. Also when DP review complained about lack of EVF on the EP1..I thought big whoop...Now that I have a EP3 w/ a EVF that is all I use. Just sayin...I dont think they are trying to sink Pentex..maybe they are trying to get them to build all of you great fans of Pentex a better camera...

Can someone please explain the rating process? Example:

Canon G1X: Pros 13, Cons 14 listed as having a "relative small portable body" Score 76 (Silver)
K01: Pros 14, Cons 9 listed as being bulky" and "chunky". Score 69

Yet the Pentax has a larger sensor, better output, more features, large number of available lenses. The cameras are practically the same size and price. Does any of this make sense?

I like the design. looks verny nice to me. for any photographer who onws a lot of good pentax lenses it's a nice way to go mirrorless. I am curious what thei future of this camera will be. any variety in mirrorless is very welcome. (currently pan G3)

Why do people automatically assume that the point of 'mirrorless' is to make a smaller camera? Obviously it can be smaller (usually amounts to larger lenses) but it's more about simplification by removing complex parts than 'smaller' in my opinion.

Confucius say: One large brick and many small bricks weigh much less that one small brick and many large ones.

People mouthing off about a camera they've never used and citing wrong spec's to justify their rant is just pathetic. The hatred here points to issues with the haters more than the camera I think. And the smug "I know better than Pentax" guys are just funny.

RE' the D800. Go to any camera store and they're walking out the door en masse... not bad for a B-Grade camera. There really is something wrong with the scoring system here if that camera is a B-Grade.

Where does this stupid +-0.5EV bracketing bullcrap misleading rumor come from?

I am getting the advertised +-3.0EV in 0.3EV steps, the limits are set by pressing down in drive mode menu and rotating the knob or pressing right-left.

I tell you that as an owner, F/W version is 1.0

Not trying to be offensive, but this camera seems little useful nor funny: if you make a large mirrorless (a great idea) make it as comfortable as a traditional DSLR. This camera uses classic DSLR lenses (heavy) and weighs 480 gramos by herself, yet is held by a grip a la small NEX-3.

Pentax lately I do not understand you.

If we accept that it cannot be super small because it takes our fine K mount lenses, there are still some mistakes.

- There is no real grip - even though its plenty of room for one. Totally 100% strange.

- The auto bracketing is only -0.5,0,+0.5. Thats a totally weird choice.

- There is no view finder. Some can live without it, I know.

- Its 12 instead of 14 bits. This does not take advantage of the 14 stops of sensor dynamic range.

- The rubber flaps. How cheap!

- The design. Some may like it. But it seems most dont.

- The weight. This camera is heavy for having no penta prism, mirror or AF optics.

- The price. It should be cheaper. Its much, much, much simpler to make than a DSLR and lacks the nice optical VF of a DSLR.

I know that the other mirror less cameras also are quite expensive. But they are totally new systems and have extreme miniaturisation.

I've been using this beast since the beginning of May, and the good (== well exposed, well composed, blur free) photo output is considerably greater than from my trusty K20D with a Katz Eye focusing screen. Like, 60 out of 100 compared to 10 out of 100.

Well, real-time histogram and better stabilization are really helpful here.

It also performs quite well in low-light, I've been able to make some really sharp and usable ISO-20k+ photos, mainly in dimly-lit restaurants/pubs.

Focus peaking is completely useless for me though.

Internal HDR is hardly useful, and HD resolution looks more like scaled SD.
I rarely shoot in JPEG, but this camera features some funny NR algorithm which tends to produce large grain, kinda high-iso film-like.

When used with 40mm lens, this camera is really quite compact and hard to damage, even more so than all these funky NEXes, and fits nicely into a soft leathery lens holster of a Tamrom 90mm Macro, so I am finally able to always have it in my backpack.

As it gives the K-01 a ready lens collection, I thought that the choice by Pentax to use the K mount was somewhat brilliant. I hadn't considered the phase detect vs. contrast detect dilemma. I hope that they can improve their auto focus.

If you squeeze it does water come out of the front?

The "chimney" on this camera gives me an idea: a drink bottle shaped like this camera, with the dial on top of the chimney serving as the cap. Twist it open, and you can drink from the liquid stored inside the camera body. Of course, the shutter release will cause the camera to squirt out a stream of water. So the camera doubles as a water pistol. I think I should patent the design. :)

Consistent Vertical and Horizontal Review Criteria

Vertical: Cameras released in different years.
If the camera was released in the year when DP introduced the scoring system, would it get a different score?

Horizontal: Cameras released in the same year.
Are the review results from other cameras released in the same year affect the score of this camera?

Human Factor:
Does different person have different interpretation of DP's scoring system?

If any of the above is not consistent, the score number is pointless and there would be a shame on DP's reputation.

The K-01 is better than it is here evaluated:
DxOMark: 79% is already a house number

One thing caught my eye in this review: the red eye problem.

In the old Pentaxes this is solved by a dedicated mode in the flash settings.
It results in a pre-flash.

I couldn't believe that this function was removed so I found the manual and it's the same here.

Fix, anyone?

I really like the feel of the K-01. In fact we used it for our Behind the Scenes video for our VOGUE Magazine China Fashion Spread coming out late summer or early Fall. The output was excellent and it was used at 24 fps to mimic that film look. The behind the scene snaps were pretty goos as well. Our videographer Frederique Renaut got some amazing rushes. The whole video was shot with the Pentax DA 18-250 lens. The still photos for the shoot were all done with the Pentax K5's. :)

I'm tired of hearing all the haters moan about DPR outsourcing this review.

Ultimately WHO CARES?.. outsourcing has been happening since the dawn of time.Canon and Nikon DO NOT make all their components exclusively in house. No business or organisation should be condemned because they outsource the labour.

At the end of the day its the Quality Control that matters, and DPR obviously feel that the reviewers Qualifications and work is worthy of their approval, and they published it.

This is business its not personal, all the Pentax loyalists are just trying to find reason to vent their fustration about the low score. Maybe they should vent to pentax, and inspire them to make a better "all round" camera.

What the k-01 NEEDS:
1) a more indented and comfortable grip with a indent for your middle finger without making it bigger
2) Much better AF (ep3 like)
3) more lenses that take advantage of the big hollow space inside
4) an optional evf

I understand its gripes, but I would only get one for its great video, good build and K-mount compatibility. Design-wise though, I'd still prefer something else...

I really enjoy Jeff Keller's reviews but would rather see them exclusively on his own DCRP. Warming them over and putting them here too doesn't really do much for anyone and to me it is evidence of further decline of this website. I for one would appreciate two points of view on the camera, rather than Jeff's posted on the two major sites for US readers. Though dpreview.com is still the world leader overall and the place I go for technical info, I think Steve Huff's reviews outclass everyone right now. He gave me a better feel for the camera than anyone else did and I think he "got" the K-01 perfectly when he wrote about it.

Looking at the samples fro DPreview, I can understand why DxO ranked this camera so high.
IQ is really impressive if we consider RAW alone. A hair above the NEX-5N in high ISO performance.
However, the in camera JPEG processing seems to be very destructive. That is a shame, since most K-01 users will go for OOC JPEGs.
All that said, I would go for the K-30 if I were intending to become a Pentax customer. Much better product at almost the same price point.

Looks like something you would pull out of a kid's toy box.

It's probably better than it looks but when I see an "O Product" like this I always wonder if the reason for the design was just to be different, to stand out, or if they felt the need to turn things over to a "designer". Either way, this approach suggests they are trying to compensate for some shortcomming. It might be a great tool, if it looks less threatening than a regular camera or it might appeal to people to go with those white sunglasses, for example.

History is full of failed cameras that produced spectacular images. Both Pentax and Ricoh have a long history of producing excellent cameras producing superior images. But images aside, the camera simply lacks the look and the features that will make it a seller. The design of the camera makes it the Pontiac Aztec of the photographic industry; truly ugly. The lack of an EVF, either built in or as an accessory is a deal breaker. The images from my NEX5N and OM-D (EM-5) are equally spectacular, as is the focusing speed and fps speed, and both cameras are in great demand. If this camera is an example of what we may expect from the marriage of these two fine brands ( Ricoh and Pentax), I predict that we will ultimately find them in the dustbin of photographic history.

The only weird thing I can find about the review is that you have let it to somebody who isn´t familiar with Pentax gear, so a big part of this review sounds a little bit strange (like the remark of the by default "strangely" turned off distortion control - every Pentaxist knows how much this is slowing down things in Pentax cameras, as opposed to Nikon, for example). Could you please the next time "invite" somebody who knows his Pentax stuff.. :=)

I strongly suggest DPReview staff to be less sarcastic, especially Mr. Britton: reader's complaints are much valuable because even if some of you think like "if you don't like don't read", in the end your salary depends on readership, even if we don't pay directly the "magazine" called DPReview.
C'mon guys, in your about page you say that the staff is made of 8 (eight!) editors, and you say you can't manage to publish 8 full reviews per month? 8 editors it's a huge staff, I'm in the publishing industry and I know that many magazines are made of far less editors, what's going on? You don't have the resources to make a single review per month per editor?
I mean, if we had 8 full review per month plus Jeff's reviews it would be great, but Jeff's reviews are published because 8 of you can't do what he do alone!

the review (69% conclusion) seems a bit harsh considering what we've seen of IQ and a DXOMark of 80 -- all in a $749 camera? It seems easy to overlook the quirky design/ergnomics for that.

Sorry to have to say that again: but the IQ of the posted images in the sample gallery is simply BREATHTAKING. No matter, what the flaws of tha camera are, it is, and this in jpeg, capable of some of the best real-world images I have seen lately (and especially for this prize!). So, thanks DPR to posting this!

DPReview always pride themselves that image quality comes first. And yet, the conclusion to this review, clearly ignores that. How can this camera be rated so low, and the Fuji X100 receive a silver award? I think that if this camera would have been reviewed in-house, it would have been rated much higher.

No Viewfinder?

It is not so much that it is a recycled review but one that had some obvious out of the ordinary issues. As a result, the original is tainted and should not have been chosen to be reused.

DPR also admits it is the only review of a serious camera to be outsourced. Why make an exception and then use a flawed review as that exception.

"Pentax’s new mirrorless compact system camera has edged out 4,500 applicants from 58 countries for the honor. The judging criteria ranged from innovation, ergonomics, functionality, durability and ecological compatibility – the consensus being that the K-o1’s design excelled in each facet for the “Entertainment Technology and Cameras” category." Say what you want about the design and looks. The folks at Red Dot obviously like it.

So, there is absolutely no reason for anybody to buy it over K-30. The price should have been half.

On the other hand, I do not mind larger and heavier body than other APS-C mirrorless. If you are going to use APS-C lenses, you might as well have a body which balances better with them, both in the hands and on a tripod. Look how unbalanced NEX-C3 or NX1000 with their lenses are, especially in the tele range, like a lens with LCD attached to it's back, except tripod mount is for some reason placed in the LCD. :)

To be in balance with Pana G3 or Oly E-M5-sized body, you need m43-sized lenses. And for even smaller, "compact-sized" bodies Nikon One-sized lenses would be actually even better (if there were any good).

This thing is ugly! That's what happens when crazy designers put their hand on a camera. I prefer when they spend time designing garden furnitures.

The most important thing I got from this article, and my only real reason for reading it: the image quality on the K-30 is going to be excellent!