Reading mode: Light Dark

gotta say this for the K-01

Go to last post
Wheatfield said:
a stripped down version of a camera
Click to expand...
There you go, so you DO get it! A stripped down version at a lower price point, but with equal output capability, much like a Canon powershot s95 versus a G12.
Wheatfield said:
not an advanced camera for the serious photographer.
Click to expand...
Uh, oh. You've lost the ball again. If the output is as advanced as the K-5, which it may very well be, that's pretty advanced!

Now, if you want all the extra nobs and viewfinder options that the K-5 offers in contrast to the k-01, and it sure seems like you do, what on God's good earth (besides money) is preventing you from doing so? How is the K-01 preventing you from exercising your option to do this? Bearing in mind, of course, that if you do opt for an even newer, better k-5 successor you'll be paying more than you would for the k-01 (gotta pay for those nobs, you know).

And if more money flows into Ricoh/Pentax coffers enabling them to develop more nob-covered cameras with OVF/EVF plus LCD, and lenses that do wonderful things, how does this hurt you?
 
LaFonte said:
Don, I had been quite interested in the xz-1 but never had the nerves to try it... and now they don't sell it here in the big stores only in smaller ones with not friendly return policy. What are your takes on it? (sorry to hijack the k-01, but the xz1 talk doesn't seems to be too common)
Click to expand...
ive had the xz1 for 5 months now and love it. the images are very good straight form camera. i needed a p&s to carry around a take on holidays also to take shots of my daughters concert nights. its a good companion camera to the k7. ive printed a2 and the detail is exelent not quite to the k7 but damn good. low light is superb as well
LaFonte said:
Oh, and I love your k-7 shots with the kids in your gallery - such a fresh take! Big thumbs up.
Click to expand...
thanks , ive been realy enjoying the dance school shoots they are huge i shoot 1000 portraits over 2 days and try to mix the themes up each year for the kids the old motteled back drops just dont cut it any more. this year iv been booked a few more times after the success of the last shoot. ive got one comming up soon trying again to do something new.
 
math guy said:
If one is an advanced K-mount shooter, then one has become an advanced K-mount shooter using an SLR/DSLR, since until now those were the only options for K-mount. All of those SLR/DSLRs had a VF. Therefore, it seems much more likely that an advanced K-mount shooter would be accustomed to having a VF and would therefore probably prefer one. Not 100% of them, but I would have to guess the odds would tilt heavily that direction. And that isn't a commentary on the quality of the K-01, or any VF-less camera for that matter. It is a comment about the likely preferences of advanced K-mount shooters, and by extension, a comment on the marketing strategy of Pentax. Some people are understandably questioning that strategy.
Click to expand...
I think it's a mistake to assume "advanced" means "K-mount shooter". More likely in this context it means someone who has outgrown their compact camera or cell phone and is looking for something better. Certainly the K-01 is "advanced" when compared to those. These shooters have never had a DSLR and won't miss the viewfinder one bit.

I was looking for just such a camera back in 2004, and if it had existed I would have bought one in a heartbeat. I don't regret being forced into a DSLR, but it wouldn't have been my first choice. You go with what you know.
 
chiane said:
Just because Pentax says it's for 'advanced shooters' doesn't mean their target audience is Pentax enthusiasts. If they want to sell more than they've sold in the past, they need a bigger market, and pretty every other type of market qualifies. What did you want them to say it was for 'terrible rookies'? Welcome to marketing 101.

BTW, your 'jumbo' lobster tail at a restaurant may have been the 'medium' last month. Jumbo sounds better, doesn't it.
Click to expand...
I am a Nikon shooter but I would have loved to buy this camera and one of those famous Pentax prime lenses. But the lack of viewfinder kills it for me.
 
jimrpdx said:
I am among those who wished it did one or two more things, but if it sells a couple million bodies I'm all in favor! My wife likes the yellow body.. so who knows?
Click to expand...
I feel very much the same way. I understand that Pentax had to cut a few corners here and there to release this camera at a given price point, so it comes down to whether you happen to be able to live without a few things.

At this price, BTW, it goes head to head against the Canon G1X, which it should knock out of the proverbial ball park in terms of IQ and functionality. Yes, there are cheaper SLRs, but that's not quite the same market, is it?

In my case, I like many things about the K-01. My DA35 macro rarely leaves the body (a K20D), and I frequently resort to composing and focusing in live view, then dropping the mirror to shoot. This approach should be much more fluid in the K-01.

On the other hand, people who shoot mostly telephoto would almost certainly better served by an SLR.

As for the other respondents casting aspersions at each other in this thread: please calm down. This camera isn't for everyone, and your choice in this matter has no bearing on whether or not you're an old fogey. Horses for courses, live and let live, and all that.
 
bansal98 said:
I am a Nikon shooter but I would have loved to buy this camera and one of those famous Pentax prime lenses. But the lack of viewfinder kills it for me.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt that Nikon and Canon are watching the reception of the K-01 very carefully. If it proves to be a success you can be sure that they'll release comparable products in short order.
 
Mark Ransom said:
I think it's a mistake to assume "advanced" means "K-mount shooter". More likely in this context it means someone who has outgrown their compact camera or cell phone and is looking for something better.
Click to expand...
Well, that is not the way the Pentax website presents it. The progression is as follows:

Find your camera
Interchangeable lenses vs All-in-One
(After choosing interchangeable lenses) First time vs Advanced

The K-01 then shows up in both categories. So it refers to both.

But like I said before, I'm not saying the K-01 isn't advanced. I'm just saying that I can certainly understand why many folks question its being called an advanced camera. If you can afford to have two cameras at once, I'd say it would make a great second body. But I just wouldn't expect a ton of folks used to using a DSLR to be willing to give up having a VF if they only have one camera body.

Mind you, I'm not saying Pentax is wrong. I'm just saying that I'm surprised by it and that I understand why many others are surprised and frustrated as well. I am by no means claiming that I know more than the market researchers at Pentax. They may very well be right on this. In fact, I hope they are, as it is in all of our best interests to have more money flowing into Pentax.
Mark Ransom said:
Certainly the K-01 is "advanced" when compared to those. These shooters have never had a DSLR and won't miss the viewfinder one bit.
Click to expand...
In all fairness, though, those shooters have never shot with a big 300mm zoom lens hanging off the front of their iPhones either.
Mark Ransom said:
I was looking for just such a camera back in 2004, and if it had existed I would have bought one in a heartbeat. I don't regret being forced into a DSLR, but it wouldn't have been my first choice. You go with what you know.
Click to expand...
That's true. I'm just curious to see what will happen when those folks get really interested in photography and start trying to mount heavier lenses on their VF-less cameras. Maybe Pentax's strategy is that by then the technology will allow them to put an affordable EVF into the camera. And again, I sincerely hope that works out.

--
-- Joe S.

"We make a living by what we get; we make a life by what we give." ~ Sir Winston Churchill

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/josephschmitt
 
I'm sure that the market research done before this camera became reality had a big influence on its production. Producing it at as low a cost as possible meant keeping it as basic as possible.

If it is successful financially there are likely to be further models with variations, such as a viewfinder.

Call me old school or just old if you like, but as I am currently mainly using lenses of 300mm plus, often handheld, I want to keep the outfit as steady as possible. That means a viewfinder to help with stability.

I'm not too worried how I get the image, but the end result is what counts. That's perhaps not quite correct. I want to be able to get the image with the least fuss and comfortably as possible.

If there is no viewfinder on a camera then it should have a movable screen. Not really suitable for longer lenses, but for general photography quite usable.

Ideally I want the best viewfinder possible, sometimes that maybe a straight through OVF, not even reflex, but if it is a EVF then it needs to match an OVF in all ways. Some are close and I can use them, but I will keep looking for better.

Current cameras have a lot of things that most of the time don't get used by many people. Video is one, but it is there for those who want to use it, so why not a viewfinder ?
--
Regards,
Peter.
http://gowerphotos.tripod.com
 
Mark Ransom said:
I think it's a mistake to assume "advanced" means "K-mount shooter". More likely in this context it means someone who has outgrown their compact camera or cell phone and is looking for something better. Certainly the K-01 is "advanced" when compared to those. These shooters have never had a DSLR and won't miss the viewfinder one bit.
Click to expand...
Yup, if you don't like the definition of a word, rewrite the definition to fit what you want it to mean.

Special used to mean good until the politically correct people got hold of it. Now it means retarded.
 
math guy said:
Mark Ransom said:
I think it's a mistake to assume "advanced" means "K-mount shooter". More likely in this context it means someone who has outgrown their compact camera or cell phone and is looking for something better.
Click to expand...
Well, that is not the way the Pentax website presents it. The progression is as follows:

Find your camera
Interchangeable lenses vs All-in-One
(After choosing interchangeable lenses) First time vs Advanced

The K-01 then shows up in both categories. So it refers to both.

But like I said before, I'm not saying the K-01 isn't advanced. I'm just saying that I can certainly understand why many folks question its being called an advanced camera. If you can afford to have two cameras at once, I'd say it would make a great second body. But I just wouldn't expect a ton of folks used to using a DSLR to be willing to give up having a VF if they only have one camera body.

Mind you, I'm not saying Pentax is wrong. I'm just saying that I'm surprised by it and that I understand why many others are surprised and frustrated as well. I am by no means claiming that I know more than the market researchers at Pentax. They may very well be right on this. In fact, I hope they are, as it is in all of our best interests to have more money flowing into Pentax.
math guy said:
Certainly the K-01 is "advanced" when compared to those. These shooters have never had a DSLR and won't miss the viewfinder one bit.
Click to expand...
In all fairness, though, those shooters have never shot with a big 300mm zoom lens hanging off the front of their iPhones either.
math guy said:
I was looking for just such a camera back in 2004, and if it had existed I would have bought one in a heartbeat. I don't regret being forced into a DSLR, but it wouldn't have been my first choice. You go with what you know.
Click to expand...
That's true. I'm just curious to see what will happen when those folks get really interested in photography and start trying to mount heavier lenses on their VF-less cameras. Maybe Pentax's strategy is that by then the technology will allow them to put an affordable EVF into the camera. And again, I sincerely hope that works out.

--
-- Joe S.

"We make a living by what we get; we make a life by what we give." ~ Sir Winston Churchill

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/josephschmitt
Click to expand...
Because of its capabilities, I would call it an advanced camera. The VF is only a way of framing the shot and one can still frame shots without it.

--
Variance is Evil!
 
JoeDaBassPlayer said:
Because of its capabilities, I would call it an advanced camera.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree that it is an advanced camera. But I also understand why many advanced shooters would want a VF. I consider myself an intermediate shooter, and I would not want a camera with a VF to be my primary camera. So I can certainly imagine what many advanced shooters think.
JoeDaBassPlayer said:
The VF is only a way of framing the shot and one can still frame shots without it.
Click to expand...
Being possible and being preferable are two completely different things. And maybe I am just not advanced enough, but I can honestly say I would not be able to successfully use my 55-300 without a VF. I prefer the VF in all cases except macro and tripod shooting, but I actually need a VF for longer lenses (to stabilize the camera against my head). But again, that may reflect more on my own skill than anything else.

Essentially, though, my point is that I can see both sides of the coin. I get why a lot of folks don't like the K-01, and why a lot of other folks do like it. What I find irritating is when the extremists come out and declare things like "You can't talk about eh K-01 in the DSLR forum" or "If you openly discuss not liking the lack of a VF you must be an old geezer who can't handle change." Both of those extremes are just plain stupid in my book.

--
-- Joe S.

"We make a living by what we get; we make a life by what we give." ~ Sir Winston Churchill

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/josephschmitt
 
math guy said:
JoeDaBassPlayer said:
Because of its capabilities, I would call it an advanced camera.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree that it is an advanced camera. But I also understand why many advanced shooters would want a VF. I consider myself an intermediate shooter, and I would not want a camera with a VF to be my primary camera. So I can certainly imagine what many advanced shooters think.
math guy said:
The VF is only a way of framing the shot and one can still frame shots without it.
Click to expand...
Being possible and being preferable are two completely different things. And maybe I am just not advanced enough, but I can honestly say I would not be able to successfully use my 55-300 without a VF. I prefer the VF in all cases except macro and tripod shooting, but I actually need a VF for longer lenses (to stabilize the camera against my head). But again, that may reflect more on my own skill than anything else.

Essentially, though, my point is that I can see both sides of the coin. I get why a lot of folks don't like the K-01, and why a lot of other folks do like it. What I find irritating is when the extremists come out and declare things like "You can't talk about eh K-01 in the DSLR forum" or "If you openly discuss not liking the lack of a VF you must be an old geezer who can't handle change." Both of those extremes are just plain stupid in my book.

--
-- Joe S.
Click to expand...
Maybe I need to start a "geezers who hate viewfinders" thread...

I have dreamt a long time of having a high quality live view camera. I shoot WA most of the time and the perspective from eye level is not always what one wants.

--
Variance is Evil!
 
JoeDaBassPlayer said:
Maybe I need to start a "geezers who hate viewfinders" thread...
Click to expand...
LOL!
JoeDaBassPlayer said:
I have dreamt a long time of having a high quality live view camera.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to focus peaking? I don't know much about that. Maybe I'll spend a little while this weekend reading up on it.
JoeDaBassPlayer said:
I shoot WA most of the time
Click to expand...
And that's a good thing for the other side (which to some degree includes me) to keep in mind -- that not all advanced shooters spend a lot of time shooting long lenses.
JoeDaBassPlayer said:
and the perspective from eye level is not always what one wants.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I just ordered a DA15, so I'll probably understand what you mean better after I've had it for a while.

--
-- Joe S.

"We make a living by what we get; we make a life by what we give." ~ Sir Winston Churchill

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/josephschmitt
 
math guy said:
JoeDaBassPlayer said:
Maybe I need to start a "geezers who hate viewfinders" thread...
Click to expand...
LOL!
math guy said:
I have dreamt a long time of having a high quality live view camera.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to focus peaking? I don't know much about that. Maybe I'll spend a little while this weekend reading up on it.
math guy said:
I shoot WA most of the time
Click to expand...
And that's a good thing for the other side (which to some degree includes me) to keep in mind -- that not all advanced shooters spend a lot of time shooting long lenses.
math guy said:
and the perspective from eye level is not always what one wants.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I just ordered a DA15, so I'll probably understand what you mean better after I've had it for a while.
Click to expand...
The big thing with a WA is that you do not always want it at eye level. In crowds, you may want to look down into them or up. When looking across a table, you may want some of the foreground objects in.

I shoot a Z16 FE which provides the FOV of around a 12mm rectilinear. It is interesting to shoot. I have learned to look all the way around the edge of the frame to be sure my feet or other odd things do not get into the photo.

With the K 01 I may get the DA15 if they do not come out with a special in to the body version for the K 01.
math guy said:
--
-- Joe S.

"We make a living by what we get; we make a life by what we give." ~ Sir Winston Churchill

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/josephschmitt
Click to expand...
--
Variance is Evil!
 
Would the K-01 be a better camera with a decent built-in or add-on eye level VF?

Certainly it would have cost very little to allow for an add on EVF, and with that the choice would be there-- and at virtually no cost to those who seemingly don't want it. But that doesn't include me. It's this lack of such an easy option that is so mind boggling.

I suppose Pentax says it's for advanced users because it has a 16MP APS-C sensor as well as K mount interchangeable lens capability.

The K-01 is a flawed/crippled product IMO-- fighting words to be sure-- so flame on. But before doing so please read and understand the question posed above.

Cheers. Ernie
 
Ernie, what you, and others who want an EVF/OVF are looking for, is basically another K-5, and this is where the problem lies.

Some folks on this forum don't understand (rather unbelievably for such an otherwise clever bunch) that the extra OVF is already offered on another camera. This k-01 is a streamlined, cheaper k-5 with similar advanced output capability.

One of the ideas behind industrial design, and let's be straight that this is a product of that school of thought, is to eliminate redundancy and simplify the interaction between man and machine. Knobs and dials and buttons (and OVFs) are limited for the benefit of the user, not to his/her detriment. This is not a crippled k-5, but a simplified (and cheaper) one. Form becomes function. The option for an EVF is beyond the scope of this camera because it's all about simplicity. The extra wiring and support necessary has very little effect on the end image. There's an LCD already, and millions of people around the globe find the rear LCD just fine.

A fine example is the Canon powershot s95 vs the G12. The result is the same, just the body is different. Check out the new Canon G1x. According to DXOmark the image quality is almost the same as the new s100. The k-01, by the way, is going to kick that G1x all over town, in terms of image quality, and for about the same price!

To illustrate the point further, can you imagine the kind of reaction people would get if they complained about the K-R not having a front-grip dial, a better sensor and more functions? The response would be "buy a k-5, and stop the useless griping!"

...which is essentially the situation we have here. Discussion is nice, for sure, but some people here need to understand exactly what this camera is. If the AF is slow, if the grip is uncomfortable, if there is some problem with the camera in that it fails to function as designed, then that is productive discussion. Saying it's crippled, or "useless to me," isn't. It just demonstrates a failure to understand, which, frankly, I find rather surprising for photographers. You know, the artsy-fartsy stuff and all that. ;)

Again, if it's useless to you, buy the k-5.
 
Blather. All it needs is as plug-in port for an add on EVF and Pentax would sell a lot more K-01s IMO. And I'd even think the Simple Oriented would be able to handle that. No? I have 2 K5s-- great cameras. The K-01 could be a great small camera for the limiteds and smaller zooms, but it needs... well, you know.

Cheers. Ernie
 
As someone who did most of his best shooting on an old rickety Mamiya C220, I'm fairly confident the k-01 can produce some excellent results for the "serious shooter". Sure you might have to throw a towel over your head now and then, but hey--whatever it takes to capture you vision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top