GaryDeM
Veteran Member
i own the pentax *istD, love it. its looks and functionality are fine.
you promoted a debate allright. if that was your intent you succedded.
you promoted a debate allright. if that was your intent you succedded.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
K20 was beaten with the K10's ugly stick!
- Thread starter Charlie Lucas
- Start date
Charlie Lucas
Well-known member
Thank you!
bogdanb
Member
n/t
iceblinker
Leading Member
I would like to contribute to say that I think it's wrong to value aesthetics more highly than function. Yes good looks do add to the value of a product, and the K10D could look more luxurious or futuristic or whatever, but it doesn't look bad to me. It is important that no compromise is made to the ergonomics and performance, or too much to the cost, just to improve the appearance.
One of the most wonderful looking type of objects to me is the steam locomotive. It's no coincidence that it is also one of the most functional looking. The K10D also looks functional. To me that's attractive.
If you feel that you could make the K10D look better but without spoiling its function, please get a job with Pentax!
It's easy to complain and come up with good ideas -- we can all do that -- but to actually get them into production is a different bucket of sausages altogether.Canon and Nikon cameras don't look any better to me. In fact some of them look awful.
--
Pete
I totally disagree.... "Asthetically" (sp? to me, my preference in "external design" goes to Pentax and Nikon. I own an Oly E-3 and do not find it either easy to use (control wise) or "pretty". I also own a D300 which I totally enjoy picking up and using - and personally think it is a "great lookin' machine".
I find the controls of Pentax's K10D and K20D "VERY" easy to use and a snap to pick up and just shoot with.
I will be getting rid of my E-3 for a K20D this weekend. Had a K10D and loved it but got very frustrated over the sluggish lens releases by Pentax... Now that problem (to me) is resolved.... So, I'm coming back to Pentax and will keep my Nikon stuff.
Did you know they both turn on identically?? That to me is a BIG advantage in a dual system approach...
So..... like everything in life, one size does not fit all.... and isn't it great that we live in a world where we can all get what we 'personally' want!! Very cool indeed.
--
Bob
to me, my preference in "external design" goes to Pentax and Nikon. I own an Oly E-3 and do not find it either easy to use (control wise) or "pretty". I also own a D300 which I totally enjoy picking up and using - and personally think it is a "great lookin' machine".I find the controls of Pentax's K10D and K20D "VERY" easy to use and a snap to pick up and just shoot with.
I will be getting rid of my E-3 for a K20D this weekend. Had a K10D and loved it but got very frustrated over the sluggish lens releases by Pentax... Now that problem (to me) is resolved.... So, I'm coming back to Pentax and will keep my Nikon stuff.
Did you know they both turn on identically?? That to me is a BIG advantage in a dual system approach...
So..... like everything in life, one size does not fit all.... and isn't it great that we live in a world where we can all get what we 'personally' want!! Very cool indeed.
--
Bob
Stephenhampshire
Leading Member
I'm glad you mentioned the OM-1, what a fantastic looking camera (ant it worked OK too I understand !-)
I have had several Canon AE-1 35mm slr's also pretty small but capable of great results. Of course 'Pro' cameras like the F1 were bigger and heavier, but had faster motordrives, generally meatier construction etc.
Even my K100D is huge compared to the AE-1.
I agree with the OP that design matters though, good to have this debate!
--
Everything changes
I have had several Canon AE-1 35mm slr's also pretty small but capable of great results. Of course 'Pro' cameras like the F1 were bigger and heavier, but had faster motordrives, generally meatier construction etc.
Even my K100D is huge compared to the AE-1.
I agree with the OP that design matters though, good to have this debate!
--
Everything changes
djedi
Senior Member
I find it is perfectly designed for the purpose it serves. I do not understand why someone has to find fault with SOMETHING all the time!
Buy a can of spray paint and paint it purple and add green polka dots and you won't notice its shape too much!
Better yet, why not just buy one of those good-looking Oly's if that's whats important to you?
Djedi
--
Old timer
Buy a can of spray paint and paint it purple and add green polka dots and you won't notice its shape too much!
Better yet, why not just buy one of those good-looking Oly's if that's whats important to you?
Djedi
--
Old timer
Roland Mabo
Forum Pro
You say that Pentax should make more compact cameras, so it needs a drop of shake reduction of weather sealing to accomplish that goal.
But it was still a flop.
Some features was removed, other features were added (like the bigger screen and SD card). All in all the *ist DS was a very attractive package and competetive with the Nikon D50 and EOS 350D. Price was in line with what the competition offered.
The *ist DL was the least expensive DSLR on the market when it was released.
It had no competition. Still, it didn't sell.
The market was willing to pay for the Nikon D50 and Canon EOS 450D and they did not offer more features, they did not offer more or better performance, and they did not offer a lower price. Pentax offered better performance in smaller and more stylish packing, at lower price than Canon and similar to Nikon.
Those bodies have SR in-lenses, so one can get SR functionality with them.
Pentax had the smallest DSLR's without shake reduction, it is not possible to make a APS-C body with SR more compact than a compact APS-C body without SR. You can't expect a D40 sized Pentax with SR.
No, I don't think they could.
The K100D is more compact than the K10D. Pentax did not make the K100D bigger than the *ist DS to get a more "professional look". You don't seek a "professional look" in an entry level DSLR. The K100D got bigger than the *ist DS because of the new chassi with room for the shake reduction system to move. The sensor is mounted on a large plate with magnets. This adds size in itself. Then there must be room for this plate to move. This adds more size.
And the K100D without SR got the same chassi with room for the SR function (even if this body did not have SR, it was too expensive to give it a different, more compact, chassi).
The K200D got slightly bigger than the K100D because of the weather sealing.
A compact SR body for APS-C smaller than the K100D is something I don't believe is possible yes. A smaller SR body is possible, for 4/3" - that has Olympus already made in the E-510.
But do note that the Olympus E-410 is smaller than the E-510. Reason? The E-410 does not have built in shake reduction, the E-510 does. So the E-510 is larger than the E-410. Built in shake reduction adds size to the body!
--
Take care
R
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raphaelmabo
Roland Mabo
Forum Pro
Because the 4/3" sensor is smaller, the viewfinder can be made smaller.
The shake reduction system in-body can also be made smaller.
That is why the E-510 is so compact.
But do note that the E-410, without SR, is even more compact.
So removing SR reduces size.
I don't believe Pentax should remove SR just to get a small body.
--
Take care
R
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raphaelmabo
The shake reduction system in-body can also be made smaller.
That is why the E-510 is so compact.
But do note that the E-410, without SR, is even more compact.
So removing SR reduces size.
I don't believe Pentax should remove SR just to get a small body.
--
Take care
R
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raphaelmabo
On a personal plane I don't agree with your analysis at all.
Three years ago I handled the D70, the 350D and the *istDS in a camera
shop. The D70+18-70 was too large and heavy. The 350D was too cramped.
The *istDS felt just lovely.
But I didn't buy a DSLR then. The Pentax was the cheapest at SEK9000/€1000,
but still more then I felt I wanted to pay. So I bought a superzoom and waited
for prices to continue going down.
I think the *istDS is still the nicest feeling DSLR I've handled to this date.
Other factors, like no stabilisation (at the time), too few affordable tele
lenses, too few modern zooms, uncertain future (this was before Samsung
and Hoya), held me back.
The size was just right.
But maybe I'm not representable. (BTW, I'm using a 350D now -- irony,
yes it's still cramped! -- awaiting someone to make a body with sensor
stabilisation in a system that ticks the right boxes on my wishlist.)
As for the OP, except for Panasonic/Leica, I think Pentax and Nikon have the
best looking DSLRs. Better than Canon and Sony, and Oly E-330 is probably
the ugliest of them all.
Just my two oere
Erik from Sweden
Three years ago I handled the D70, the 350D and the *istDS in a camera
shop. The D70+18-70 was too large and heavy. The 350D was too cramped.
The *istDS felt just lovely.
But I didn't buy a DSLR then. The Pentax was the cheapest at SEK9000/€1000,
but still more then I felt I wanted to pay. So I bought a superzoom and waited
for prices to continue going down.
I think the *istDS is still the nicest feeling DSLR I've handled to this date.
Other factors, like no stabilisation (at the time), too few affordable tele
lenses, too few modern zooms, uncertain future (this was before Samsung
and Hoya), held me back.
The size was just right.
But maybe I'm not representable. (BTW, I'm using a 350D now -- irony,
yes it's still cramped! -- awaiting someone to make a body with sensor
stabilisation in a system that ticks the right boxes on my wishlist.)
As for the OP, except for Panasonic/Leica, I think Pentax and Nikon have the
best looking DSLRs. Better than Canon and Sony, and Oly E-330 is probably
the ugliest of them all.
Just my two oere
Erik from Sweden
Roland Mabo
Forum Pro
So you see, the size of the K100D with SR is nearly as small as the D40.
If it was possible to make the K100D even smaller, while keeping SR, I do believe Pentax would do it. But they couldn't. Pentax made the K100D as small as they could.
It is of course impressive that the K100D is as small as it is, when considering it has a built in SR system and the compact D40 from Nikon does not. Pentax did the best they could. Still, this isn't enough for some.
The K10D nor the K20D can be as small.
The pentaprism viewfinders in the K10D and K20D takes upp space.
(do note the size difference between the *ist DL and DS, this was mainly because of the DS having a pentaprism and the DL having a pentamirror).
The extra buttons and dials on the K10D and K20D needs more electronics. You can't keep the size if you add dials and buttons. Those dials and buttons take up space inside the camera too, not just on the outside. You have to shrink the electronics considerably to make room for the extra space the extra dials and buttons and switches takes up. But the K100D already had shrinken electronics, so Pentax expanded the body.
The chassi in the K10D/K20D and K100D is the same, it is the larger viewfinder and extra space for dials and buttons that takes up space.
Still the K10D and K20D are smalelr than the "big boys" of the competition.
Despite having a smaller 4/3" sensor, the Olympus E-3 is quite much bigger than the K10D and K20D. Also the Nikon D300 and Sony A700 are bigger bodies!
So the K10D and K20D may not be the smallest DSLR's in the world, but they are indeed among the most compact in their market segment! Just as the MZ-S wasn't the smallest DSLR in the world, (it was bigger than the MZ-50) but it was the smallest DSLR in it's market segment - it was more compact than the Nikon D100.
--
Take care
R
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raphaelmabo
If it was possible to make the K100D even smaller, while keeping SR, I do believe Pentax would do it. But they couldn't. Pentax made the K100D as small as they could.
It is of course impressive that the K100D is as small as it is, when considering it has a built in SR system and the compact D40 from Nikon does not. Pentax did the best they could. Still, this isn't enough for some.
The K10D nor the K20D can be as small.
The pentaprism viewfinders in the K10D and K20D takes upp space.
(do note the size difference between the *ist DL and DS, this was mainly because of the DS having a pentaprism and the DL having a pentamirror).
The extra buttons and dials on the K10D and K20D needs more electronics. You can't keep the size if you add dials and buttons. Those dials and buttons take up space inside the camera too, not just on the outside. You have to shrink the electronics considerably to make room for the extra space the extra dials and buttons and switches takes up. But the K100D already had shrinken electronics, so Pentax expanded the body.
The chassi in the K10D/K20D and K100D is the same, it is the larger viewfinder and extra space for dials and buttons that takes up space.
Still the K10D and K20D are smalelr than the "big boys" of the competition.
Despite having a smaller 4/3" sensor, the Olympus E-3 is quite much bigger than the K10D and K20D. Also the Nikon D300 and Sony A700 are bigger bodies!
So the K10D and K20D may not be the smallest DSLR's in the world, but they are indeed among the most compact in their market segment! Just as the MZ-S wasn't the smallest DSLR in the world, (it was bigger than the MZ-50) but it was the smallest DSLR in it's market segment - it was more compact than the Nikon D100.
--
Take care
R
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raphaelmabo
That is what you say. I think you are wrong. (I've said this already.) I believe thta SR cameras with APS-C can be smaller than the K100D.
But not such a big one. (How long do we want to go on like this?)
Not in my memory.
And still:
These models were more expensive than what the market was willing to pay for
them.
Why? Because they were pentax. And noone wanted Pentax.
So? In-Body SR is seen as a big advantage by many people, so people go to Nikon or Canon despite them having no in-body SR - to have a smaller camera. Not many, maybe, but some. And Olympus is happy: They have small and in-body SR cameras.
This is incorrect logic. A correct statement would be:
"The smallest non-SR camera is smaller than the smallest SR camera for otherwise identical specs." So, unless you can prove that noone can build a smaller APS-C camera than the DS/DL, your statement is wrong. And hence the D40 is smaller, you are wrong.
An APS-C inBodySR camera could be smaller than the DS/DL.
Why not? This is just a claim, assuming that a D40 cannot be reduced in size so much that it compensates the extra volume for the SR mechanism. You have no way of knowing this.
Wow. I have more trust in Pentax designers than you. #marks day red in calendar#
I was talking about the size increase of the k10D. Now you bring up the K100D, okay. Let's see what we have.
You really think I do not know that SR needs extra room?
But there are other components which can be shrunk in size - if the designers are allowed to do this.
Of course SR has a volume requirement. I am not doubting that. But it can be compensated, if one wants to do that.
Jens
--
'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de
Roland Mabo
Forum Pro
I was one of the first who bought an *ist DS in Sweden (I got it directly when it was available), and I bought mine for 7 500 SEK. There was nothing wrong with the price. The competition sold bucket loads of Nikon D50 and Canon EOS 350, at higher prices. So price was just right in the market.
So you did not buy the *ist DS, but then you did not buy the Canon or Nikon at that time either, you bought a compact superzoom instead.
Pentax did not had an uncertain future, but I know that they have had a reputation about "uncertain future" ever since the late 80's. In the late 80's it was said that Pentax would close down it's SLR business and concetrate on p&s.
So Pentax released the SF-serie and later on the Z-serie.
Then it was said around 1994-95 that Pentax should close down their SLR business and concentrate on the p&s compacts.
So Pentax released the MZ-serie, which was hugely successful.
Then came the digital era and Pentax was said to kill it's camera business.
So Pentax released the *ist D.
Then Pentax made a deal with Samsung and the market got nervous again saying that Samsung would kill Pentax.
So Pentax released the K10D.
Hoya showed interrest in Pentax and they started discussions.
The market and the magazines got nervous again, like so many times before, and it was seen as a fact that Hoya would kill Pentax. The Pentax history was over.
Pentax was dead, end of story.
Then Pentax released the K20D and the K200D plus many new lenses.
And now? Well, this forum starts to have messages about Pentax will die if they do not enter the 24x36 market, or Pentax is soon dead if they are not releasing compact DSLR's, and Pentax is soon no more.
Well, this behavior is called "The sky is falling"-phenomen here.
We have it all the time.
Now, what is the moral of this story?
Pentax has been declared as dead and buried more times that I can count, ever since I bought a Pentax in 1988. The future has always been declared "uncertain".
And Pentax is still not dead. Pentax is alive and kicking, just like they have been since they started out so many years ago.
--
Take care
R
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raphaelmabo
Roland Mabo
Forum Pro
If that was possible, Pentax would have done that with the K100D.
But they couldn't.
It was a big flop. It has been said in interviews by Pentax representatives that the r&d personell was depressed because of the poor sales. Didn't you read the translation of the interview in DC Watch Impress magazines where they state that they made compact DSLR's because the market guys told them that they should make compact DSLR's. The result was a flop. So they understood that they should stop listening to market guys.
It was in my country.
Yes, noone wanted Pentax. Not even at good prices.
So it was never about having as compact size as possible. The customers wanted more features. Unfortunately, those features came at the price of added size. This did not held back the customers, they bought the new - larger - cameras.
Yes, shake reduction is the key.
A camera without SR is dead on the market.
Olympus E-510 sells better than the E-410.
Then proove it.
Then you have no way of knowing that Pentax can make a smaller camera than D40 without removing SR.
The K10D is increased in size over the K100D because it has a pentaprism viewfinder, more buttons and dials that takes up more space. K100D has a pentamirror viewfinder.
The *ist DS is larger than the DL because the DS has a pentaprism viewfinder and the DL has a pentamirror. Button layout is the same, so no change there. Just the viewfinder. This was enough for add the size of the DS to the DL.
Like the viewfinder and by removing buttons and dials, that was what Pentax did between the K10D and K100D. That is why the K100D is smaller.
To make the K100D even smaller you need to put in an even more inferior viewfinder and remove even more buttons and dials. Such a camera wouldn't be useful. The K100D is the limit for usability.
According to Pentax it is because of the weather sealing.
It is also because of the added electronics, like DDR memory etc. It is a K10D in a smaller package. It is smaller than the K10D because of pentamirror viewfinder instead of pentaprism, and fewer buttons and dials.
--
Take care
R
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raphaelmabo
Roland Mabo
Forum Pro
The *ist DS sold better than the *ist D, but it wasn't a success. It was a dissapointment to Pentax. Pentax expected much more of it than it did, so yes it was a failure on the market. In the DC Watch Impress interview from spring last year, it is even said by K D Torigoe and Tatamiya that the r&d personell got panic when the *ist D-range flopped, that they became depressed. They released a compact, stylish and high performing DSLR - and it flopped. They were caught by surprise of this. This is the official history from Pentax.
So they got panic and tried to keep the boat floating with *ist DS2, DL, DL2 while trying a totally different approach at r&d center with the design of the K100D and K10D
--
Take care
R
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raphaelmabo
So they got panic and tried to keep the boat floating with *ist DS2, DL, DL2 while trying a totally different approach at r&d center with the design of the K100D and K10D
--
Take care
R
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raphaelmabo
Yes but the Nikon lenses twist the wrong way....I totally disagree.... "Asthetically" (sp?
in "external design" goes to Pentax and Nikon. I own an Oly E-3 and
do not find it either easy to use (control wise) or "pretty". I also
own a D300 which I totally enjoy picking up and using - and
personally think it is a "great lookin' machine".
I find the controls of Pentax's K10D and K20D "VERY" easy to use and
a snap to pick up and just shoot with.
I will be getting rid of my E-3 for a K20D this weekend. Had a K10D
and loved it but got very frustrated over the sluggish lens releases
by Pentax... Now that problem (to me) is resolved.... So, I'm coming
back to Pentax and will keep my Nikon stuff.
Did you know they both turn on identically?? That to me is a BIG
advantage in a dual system approach...
Ray
Chris Strobel
Senior Member
Well I've had the D70, 20D, 5D, and now K20D, and think its the coolest looking yet, but my Shen-Hao is still king of cool.Not that it even matters though
--
A few of my shots:
http://www.pbase.com/cloudswimmer/image/77798595/original
http://www.pbase.com/cloudswimmer/image/80091221/original
http://www.pbase.com/cloudswimmer/image/53748575/original
No. Shake reduction doesn't take that much space. Weather sealing doesn't take up any space worth mentioning. Pentax first decided on the size of the thing, then built the camera to that size. This is the same way as Canon do it; the EOS-1 series of cameras could have been smaller. However, miniaturization is expensive.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum