K-01 Viewfinder

Najinsky said:

Well at 60 posts in, it's finally nice to hear someone responding to the OP! Although that lens is quite compact and a little narrow in range, if it works and the optical quality holds up, it could be a option.

Click to expand...

Like I said, I don't think anyone would consider it an issue to shoot the K-01 with a 16/17/18-45/50/70mm range zoom, and that's why I don't think people have been trying to answer your specific question. I think everyone is focused on the question of longer zoom use.

I personally would be shooting with the smaller DA primes in this range if I owned the K-01 as I expect the AF focus will be much faster with these lenses. The Pentax primes are also one of the main attractions of the system, and I would also say for this camera. The DA 15mm f4, DA 21mm f3.2, DA 35mm f2.4, DA XS 40mm f2.8, and DA 70mm f2.4 would be a lot sweeter to shoot with on the camera than the DA * 16-50mm or DA 17-70mm, IMO.

Thank you
Russell

Russell Evans said:

The DA 15mm f4, DA 21mm f3.2, DA 35mm f2.4, DA XS 40mm f2.8, and DA 70mm f2.4 would be a lot sweeter to shoot with on the camera than the DA * 16-50mm or DA 17-70mm, IMO.

Click to expand...

Thinking about this though, if shooting video and wanting AF in the video, the SDM lenses and the HSM Sigma lenses probably will be the "go to" lenses for most people. I keep forgetting the camera does have appeal for its video capabilities as well.

Thank you
Russell

Part of the video appeal for me is that I can plug in a truly serious microphone and not some proprietary piece of nonsense. I am just concerned that the 1/2 pound Rode mic may be a bit big for the body.
--
Variance is Evil!

timo said:

Which is the point at which 'design' trumps 'function', at which point it becomes merely 'styling'.

The lack of even the possibility of attaching an EVF does seem, at the very least, a strange decision to me also. I'm with the OP on this.

Click to expand...

Design and function are intertwined. In this case, I'm guessing that the designer did not consider an external EVF to be an important function for the target audience. Since I've never seen an external EVF in the wild, and I've seen many mirrorless cameras, the designer is probably right.

--
http://www.pixelstatic.com

That parameter wasn't designed by him. It was Pentax that removed the VF. Newson has even clearly stated in interviews that Pentax was very rigid and often overrode what he wanted to do as a designer, taking priority as a designer. He keeps mentioning clashing with Pentax because they designed from the standpoint of usage, while he wanted to force his design at all costs on them and they didn't go for it.

They basically presented him with a camera design that was finished in many ways, but then he had to complete the rest in a way that wouldn't hamper what the camera originally was from the R&D of Pentax.

Gary Martin said:

Gary Martin said:

Which is the point at which 'design' trumps 'function', at which point it becomes merely 'styling'.

The lack of even the possibility of attaching an EVF does seem, at the very least, a strange decision to me also. I'm with the OP on this.

Click to expand...

Design and function are intertwined. In this case, I'm guessing that the designer did not consider an external EVF to be an important function for the target audience. Since I've never seen an external EVF in the wild, and I've seen many mirrorless cameras, the designer is probably right.

--
http://www.pixelstatic.com

Click to expand...

To try to answer your question about handling, this is what I've done to be able to hand hold when using live view on my K-r (and will on my newK-5).

I'm probably helped by needing (eye) glasses - which are varifocal, which brings problems to me for Live View - I can't hold the camera far enough away to use the "distance" part of the lens and if I use the "reading" part of the lens I have to look down, which isn't much use with a camera. With a compact what I've done is nudged my glasses down slightly, held the camera close to my face (6 to 12 inches) and looked over the top of my glasses. Works a treat.

I modifled this for DSLR Live View by changing my left hand grip. When using the view finder I hold the camera as shown in the instruction manuals - right hand on the handgrip, left hand under the body/lens supporting it. I found that holding like this doesn't feel stable with the larger lenses (not necessarily longer focal length ones, but those which are physically large and/or heavy). For Live View I now hold only the lens with my left hand, with my thumb underneath and the four fingers round the top of the barrel. I've found this doesn't affect my zooming, or manual focusing, but does give the required support so I think I'd happily use this technique with the K-01.

I've tried this with 18-55 (pointless changing grip as it's so light), 55 - 300 - which is light enough to not matter too much and the 17-70 which feels quite a chunk - this definately benefits from the revised holding technique.

Give it a go - see if it works for you - I find it no slower or less convenient than the "traditional" holding position and it works for me.

I hate to do this, but i agree with Snake here.

The K-01 is pretty much a K5 without viewfinder. It doesn't have one so that it is smaller. So...
1. putting something like a 70-200 on it defeats the purpose
2. if you think it's gonna be a problem for you, it probably will be

Sure there are ways to stabilize big lens without squishing the camera on your face, but that is either uncomfortable or involves more equipment (so why not an ovf?)

As for using LV... i usually take many shots when using big lens. That + LV + a single small battery.... i donno. Barking up the wrong tree comes to mind.

I'd choose my K5 with grip any day.

For me the K-01 just screams "Put a 21 ltd on me!!!!!"

Najinsky said:

snake_b said:

Then wait for the inevitable model with a VF? It's fascinating how people somehow think this is the only camera Pentax will make. On top of that, the choices are pretty simple right now:

Don't need a viewfinder, but still want to shave a bit, not worry about a clacking mirror when being discreet is needed? K01, which will still give you a nice grip for heavier lenses.

Need a viewfinder? K5.

SIMPLE.

Click to expand...

Well aren't you opinionated. My post was asking for help, you don't have any to offer so you attack the requirement. Is it so hard to refrain from butting in where you have nothing to contribute? Yes, it was rhetorical.

-Najinsky

Click to expand...

--
-----------------------------------------------
Miles Green
Corfu

snake_b said:

That parameter wasn't designed by him. It was Pentax that removed the VF. Newson has even clearly stated in interviews that Pentax was very rigid and often overrode what he wanted to do as a designer, taking priority as a designer. He keeps mentioning clashing with Pentax because they designed from the standpoint of usage, while he wanted to force his design at all costs on them and they didn't go for it.

Click to expand...

Pentax removed the VF? That's news to me: please provide a link to that info because I find it hard to believe, because it sounds like a design decision and not a feature decision. Although it's not impossible, so you've got my curiosity piqued

--
http://www.pixelstatic.com

I own an NEX-3 and the K-01 will have the advantage of SR over the NEX-3 which don't have much interesting lenses that are stabilized.

That might help you with handheld shots, sure it may not be as effective as a tripod... will have to see because it's supposed to be better than the previous versions !

Like other have said using short zoom like a 17-70mm will probably not be too bad since there is SR to help.
--
Leopold
Pentax forever
http://smarcoux.zenfolio.com/
http://www.limagier-photo.com/
http://www.firstlight.com/galleries.php
http://steevemarcoux2.wordpress.com/

I had a go with the Sony Alpha 77 the other day and I really can't see what there is to be so negative about EVFs for - I thought it was very good.

Now if Pentax put a similar EVF into their next K-01 type camera and PDAF on sensor autofocus like the Nikon 1 system, they would have an excellent successor to the DSLR without the pellicle mirror of the Sony SLTs.

This is not a real name said:

I had a go with the Sony Alpha 77 the other day and I really can't see what there is to be so negative about EVFs for - I thought it was very good.

Now if Pentax put a similar EVF into their next K-01 type camera and PDAF on sensor autofocus like the Nikon 1 system, they would have an excellent successor to the DSLR without the pellicle mirror of the Sony SLTs.

Click to expand...

I think you are addressing a subtext that hasn't raised its head until your post.

snake_b (despite his nonsense posts in this thread) posted a useful link to Kawauchi's interview with the peeps from the Pentax forum. For me, AND IT IS ONLY MY OPION (apologies for the seemingly necessary contextual emphasis) is that the a K-01 with EVF would have been almost as good as a K-5 and therefore been a threat to its own market.

We constantly hear that Canon and Nikon are scared of eating into their own market, but it is Pentax that have given substance to that notion. Just who are these businessmen, who don't understand that an EVF can never replace OVF (it comes down to the speed of light, which shows no sign of capitulating, despite growing consumer pressure).

But then, more shockingly, is that Kawauchi demonstrates that he actually understands this by claiming Pentax will forever make DSLRs with optical finders, and quite rightly cites latency as the critical factor. He clearly knows his cameras. But then, in the very same interview, he refuses to explain why the K-01 was not given an EVF, and is thus crippled. His exact words were the equivalent of: 'As you can see, there is no port for an EVF, so it is not possible.'. Well, that explains it perfectly for me. It can't take an EVF because the design didn't include an EVF, and the design didn't include an EVF because it wasn't part of the design. I feel so stupid for not having realised this sooner.

-Najinsky

Najinsky, maybe you are right. Maybe Pentax choose to not have a VF on the K01 in order to not compete with their own DSLR. That is quite possibly actually.

The problem is only that you say it in such a complicated way, and that you get very angry when people dont answer to your liking.

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html

Roland Karlsson said:

Najinsky, maybe you are right. Maybe Pentax choose to not have a VF on the K01 in order to not compete with their own DSLR. That is quite possibly actually.

The problem is only that you say it in such a complicated way, and that you get very angry when people dont answer to your liking.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry if anything comes across as angry, certainly not my intent, and my friends and family would laugh out loud at the notion. I think it's a more a problem with text based conversations and cultural references. I'm in my mid 40s, semi-retired (work only on interesting projects that take my interest), get to continuously travel the world with great cameras and see fascinating places and meet wonderful people. I have absolutely no anger (but I can be very direct, and my humour can be very subtle), and a lot of blessings I count and give thanks for. So again, I'm sorry if any of this comes over as angry.

-Najinsky

miles green said:

I hate to do this, but i agree with Snake here.

The K-01 is pretty much a K5 without viewfinder. It doesn't have one so that it is smaller. So...
1. putting something like a 70-200 on it defeats the purpose
2. if you think it's gonna be a problem for you, it probably will be

Sure there are ways to stabilize big lens without squishing the camera on your face, but that is either uncomfortable or involves more equipment (so why not an ovf?)

Click to expand...

I've mentioned it in other posts, but it's probably lost in the noise (and for some probably is the noise!).

I spend most of my time travelling, frequently solo. I currently shoot with a 5DMkII a 24-70 F/2.8, 70-200 F/4 (and sometimes a 16-35 F/2.8 for buildings). This is my 'carrying' camera, for when I'm looking to take photos.

I also use a Fuji X100, as my 'wearing' camera. This lives in a large pocket of my boating shorts. It means I always have a good quality camera with me, even when I'm not planning to shoot. This is mostly in the evening when I'm socialising with the locals at whatever place I'm visiting, so fast/bright lens and good high ISO performance are the primary criteria.

My interest in the K-01 is that I initially thought it had the potential to satisfy both purposes. Putting a high quality zoom on when in 'Carrying' mode during the day, and then a thin bright prime in the evening when it would slip into the boating shorts.

But I think pretty much everyone is agreeing. Without an eye level finder, the K-01 will not be suitable for this purpose.

I'm probably going to go for the new Ricoh GXR A16 APS-C 24-85mm Zoom. It isn't quite as bright as I'd like, but if the optical quality is high (which I expect from Ricoh) then it will be just fine with the new high sensitivity sensor. The GXR has an add-on EVF which is a little cruddy by todays standards but a lot better than nothing.

For evening use, the EVF will come off and an A12 28mm F/2.5 unit slipped in for a compact form factor. I will probably keep the X100 for now as well.

I was a little surprised more people would't want such a versatile solution, but I guess only a small percentage engage in the amount of travel I do and understand subtleties, vitalness and restrictions of a compact travel bag. It means the 5DMkII sometimes gets left behind, and thats the specific issue I'm trying to address for the next leg of travel.

-Najinsky

Najinsky said:

I'm sorry if anything comes across as angry, certainly not my intent, and my friends and family would laugh out loud at the notion. I think it's a more a problem with text based conversations and cultural references. I'm in my mid 40s, semi-retired (work only on interesting projects that take my interest), get to continuously travel the world with great cameras and see fascinating places and meet wonderful people. I have absolutely no anger (but I can be very direct, and my humour can be very subtle), and a lot of blessings I count and give thanks for. So again, I'm sorry if any of this comes over as angry.

Click to expand...

Sure, no problems. Its very easy in forums with misunderstandings. As you say. Text based interaction makes you use arguments that might not come out well.

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html

Najinsky said:

But I think pretty much everyone is agreeing. Without an eye level finder, the K-01 will not be suitable for this purpose.

Click to expand...

I think you didn't get the discussing you wanted because you choose to use fast telephoto in the 24-100mm range for stating your criteria. As a group, if the Pentax forum can be called a group, we both internalize that the lenses for Pentax are scaled for APS-C, that telephoto means something besides the 16/17/18-45/50/70mm which are referred to as standard zooms, and that when people from other mounts come into the forum and state a focal length, that because those systems have lenses designed for 135 format and have both APS-C and 135 format bodies, that we take it that they know what they want, and aren't looking for equivalents. In other words, drawing any conclusions from this thread would be misguided.

The Pentax shooters on this forum that are interested in this camera are probably looking to this camera to augment what they have, not replace it, so of coarse most aren't interested in the using the camera with a big zoom as they already have a better solution to do so, that is only a little larger than the K-01.

If you haven't done so please compare the K-r to the K-01
http://camerasize.com/compare/#285,210
, the K-5 to the K-01
http://camerasize.com/compare/#285,187
, the K-200 to the k-01
http://camerasize.com/compare/#285,240

We aren't coming from this
http://camerasize.com/compare/#192,285

That little larger for an OVF is worth way more than a little smaller with an EVF, or without, for use with a zoom. There aren't going to be many that are interesting the K-01 for such a small zoom range anyway, when they can have usable 8-500mm with a little larger Pentax DSLR.

Probably most Pentax shooters are looking at this to use the pancake primes, manual focus primes, or macros, because well, duh.









Photos above are from Photozone.de, http://www.photozone.de/pentax

A number of Pentax shooters here have been shooting Pentax for longer than you have been alive and still lovingly have their manual focus lenses from when they first laid finger to shutter. Others that are younger will probably have acquired even more manual focus lenses, because the lenses are built to last and have lasted. LBA isn't just a three letter acronym. Again duh, what do you think they will want the K-01 for.

The Pentax macro shooters I imagine, will be hunting down long macros from other systems to use with the camera. A macro with the conversion adapters, as the want is for macros, means removing the glass from adapter isn't an issue, and there is that focus peaking to play with. Not to mention all the really fabulous Pentax macros.

The videographers are probably eyeballing those fast old manual focus lenses that are actually built with manual focus use in mind, not just tacked on to meet some marketing check box list. They aren't probably going to be interesting in a zoom on the camera either. The videographer that wants to use an AF lens that is thinking about a zoom probably will be thinking about waiting until the next DSLR as it probably will incorporate a lot if not all of the video features of the K-01.

It probably won't be until the camera has been out for a while that those that are actually interested in the camera as a general all around camera with a zoom will start paying attention to the camera, and only then if the first reports of how AF speed are encouraging. By then we won't be guessing about use with a zoom, we will know.

Anyway, take away what you want from this thread as probably no one really cares, but don't post that you have divined any sort of consensus out of this thread, as it isn't true.

Thank you
Russell

Personnally i will use the K-01 a lot for Macro and landscape, maybe not that much with my 400mm... but we never know

You made some good points Russel, if i was someone that didn't own any Pentax yet and wanted to use long lenses (above 200mm) i would probably go with a K-5.

But until we get to use the K-01 (which will be the "biggest" MLC on the market) maybe it will be more than usable...will see.
--
Leopold
Pentax forever
http://smarcoux.zenfolio.com/
http://www.limagier-photo.com/
http://www.firstlight.com/galleries.php
http://steevemarcoux2.wordpress.com/

Russell Evans said:

The Pentax shooters on this forum that are interested in this camera are probably looking to this camera to augment what they have, not replace it, so of coarse most aren't interested in the using the camera with a big zoom as they already have a better solution to do so, that is only a little larger than the K-01.

Click to expand...

I already have a two camera solution. I was looking for the convenience of a one camera solution, that's all. Nothing sinister.

-Najinsky

I haven't read through the entire thread. I realise an attraction to the K-1 is size.. So, my suggestion may not make much sense... If you are using a lens you feel is too cumbersome to hold steady, try a monopod?

It wouldn't have to be a very beefy monopod.. a small, lightweight one coupled with image stabilization should help you with framing..

I sometimes use a lightweight tripod with only two legs extended. Mostly, I use a tripod as a tripod. Two legs out with a ballhead gives me a pretty stable bipod. My hands aren't very steady. With steady hands, a monopod may be helpful.

Before anyone responds with "gee, that is silly to use a monopod with a camera that has no viewfinder", I want to say "foo". The camera suits the OP for most situations. A monopod might make up the difference in other situations...

Really, I have no opinion.

Geez, secure the perfect spot to shoot only to have some fellow with an iPhone duck in front and stand up... Holding the iDevice in front of his face.. Fondling the iScreen. STROKE, Stroke, stroke, pinch, Poke. Picture confirmed with the iAperture graphic... Then uploading the pants photo to Facepad before sharing the spot with anyone else... Just an off-topic comment. Still no opinion. No reflection intended on K-1 ownership. I am glad they made the camera but do wish it had a tiny built-in viewfinder as my Panasonic FZ-5 had...

Najinsky said:

The K-01 fits ALL the requirements except for the issue of how focus heavier lenses. I am therefore interested in discussing this one requirement in context of a K-01.

Click to expand...

Roland Karlsson said:

Najinsky, maybe you are right. Maybe Pentax choose to not have a VF on the K01 in order to not compete with their own DSLR. That is quite possibly actually.

Click to expand...

Could be, but the trouble with that is that a company that refuses to compete with its own products never stops another from doing it. Surely it's better to cannibalise sales of your own product than let someone else do it.

Also, the other thing that undermines the "cannibalisation" argument for me is that I believe that mirrorless cameras are more profitable than DSLRs in general, and therefore even if a company sells one instead of their own DSLR model they gain more than they lose.

So far the mirrorless systems (not counting the Sony SLT) are not intended to be replacements for DSLR systems, and the SLT itself seems more like a temporary compromise than a long term solution. Yet I believe the SLR is in the autumn of its life and size is not the only thing limiting it. Perhaps Pentax's latest effort is the start of a true replacement?