Pentax K-01 Hands-on Preview

How unfortunate you never tried getting a replacement unit for your K-5.

May 4, 2012permalink

garyknrd

Got the K-5 replaced once and sent in to Pentax 2 times for AF issues. Pentax is just a poor product in these times of excellent cameras being built. Actually I am rather surprised this site doesn't check AF with these cameras correctly before submitting reviews. The Fuji and new Oly look very good for small cameras for me that is. You guys can have Pentax. I am Done!

May 4, 2012*permalink

It seems a lot of other people aren't complaining about theirs, garyknrd. And to conclude that a manufacturer is a "poor product" based on personal account only, to go as far as generalize even with a reputable review site that they're "not doing their job properly" is somewhat moot. I don't believe you're really **that** unlucky with the fixes you want. Maye you're just too conclusive, but well, "you're done" already aren't you?

May 4, 2012permalink

William Koehler

You wouldn't be reading and commenting about products you have no interest in if you were really done.

May 5, 2012permalink

LaFonte

I had K-5 and returned it, got fuji x pro 1 instead. I know there were some problems wit k-5 but it is the most ergonomic dslr with vast amount of photo features from any camera I owned. Pentax is like really made by photographers for photographers.

May 6, 2012permalink

OneGuy

Handled KO-1 in a store. Fairly heavy but I can imagine that if I had some K lenses I'l like the cam.

My marketing guess is that Pentax did not want to invoke the 'mirrorless' technology at all and hoped the KO-1 to be just a different and cheaper and perhaps sturdier K-5.

May 3, 2012permalink

Ok, mystery solved... The real raw files look similar (or even a bit better) to the ones of the K-5.

May 3, 2012permalink

oscarvdvelde

I just downloaded the ISO 6400 K-01 JPEG from RAW (imgp1382.acr.jpg) but it looks very different from what we see in the corresponding preview image! What happened, DPreview?
Ah - when I scroll around, the preview gets more color noise. Apparently I was seeing a cached image section of a lower ISO. Beware!

May 3, 2012permalink

Cy Cheze

Good. An ASP-c sensor camera with AF live view, IBIS, compatible with legacy lenses, a very compact kit lens, good JPEG, nice RAW, multiple video modes, plus something you don't find on anything less than a D5100 from other makers: an intervalometer.

The "baby face" design is ingenious: a quality camera that won't intimidate people or alert security guards into seizure mode. It's as innocuous as a cell phone or a disposable. When people see it, they will be apt smile, which is what you want, and which is not easy with conventional designs that resemble weapons or taurine groins. The controls look friendly too. The full review will be interesting. I'd wager DPR will rate it 75 or better, unless some fluke appears in the menu or functionality.

May 3, 2012permalink

I wouldn't count on such a high rating. More than likely, DPR will nitpick this camera to death, just as so many other gainsayers have already done. The lack of a VF will loom large. It will be interesting to see what category they place the K-01 in and what cameras they will choose for comparison.

Rob

May 3, 2012permalink

Come to think of it, DPR is probably mildly stunned by these results, and they will have to do some real soul searching when they write their review. Will they be able to get over the unique styling and the lack of a VF in order to judge the camera on performance and IQ?

Rob

May 3, 2012permalink

I feel the same as I did earlier, even after seeing the corrected raw files. The K-01 appears to have the best IQ of any of the 16MP cameras (with the possible exception of the Fuji X-P 1, which has not yet been tested by DPR). If they loved the OM-D, how are they going to not love the K-01? No VF? How about all the fabulous pancake lenses that are available? It will be interesting to see how they frame it.

Rob

May 4, 2012permalink

The raw files look veeeery impressive indeed, way better even than the K-5. The full review will clarify what is behind all this.

May 3, 2012permalink

Either Dpreview forgot to turn off default chroma NR in ACR, or Pentax now officially cooks its RAW files at all ISO's and more than ever, rather than the previous smoothing that kicked in above ISO 1600.
If the latter, it seems to have fooled atleast a few people already, into thinking it's producing better RAW files.

May 3, 2012*permalink

Boissez

Yeah, there's some cooking going on... But the results are impressive nonetheless.

Although I wouldn't be caught dead with that camera I would seriously consider a large sensor compact from Pentax given the IQ. Hopefully they'll anounce an LX5/X10 competitor at Photokina.

May 3, 2012permalink

ogl

We don't care. NR in RAW were applied at high ISO by ALL BRANDS from the era of 5-6 MP DSLR already. Sony is even proud of it in marketing brochures of A cameras.

May 3, 2012permalink

You're talking about a Sony camera from many years ago.
If cameras were to remove all chroma NR by default, you'd miss out on a lot of red channel detail (which this test scene sadly lacks, see Imaging Resource).

Anyway, the RAW files as posted here show that Dpreview forgot to turn off the default NR in ACR, which they did with all other cameras.

May 3, 2012*permalink

Cooked, shmooked! These files are remarkably clean, sharp and detailed. If they were soft and smeared, then one might have justification to complain, but they are not.

Rob

May 3, 2012permalink

This is about testing consistency. In general, the output from all cameras looks better with chroma NR left to default in ACR/Lightroom, rather than off, which is what Dpreview --> normally<-- uses.
Apples and oranges applies here.

May 3, 2012*permalink

It is entirely possible that the K-01's on chip NR is more effective and less destructive that what can be done in PP with NR software. Having done lots of NR with various programs, I must say that I am very impressed by how clean and detailed these samples are. I do not think that I could achieve the same results with ACR, Topaz DeNoise or Dfine.

Rob

May 3, 2012permalink

Read this post from Dpreview:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=41407104

And for the record, while Pentax uses pretty effective NR, I can achieve better results with Lightroom and a little Topaz when using the output from other cameras carrying this sensor.

May 3, 2012permalink

rocklobster

Yes they are cooked and there is some loss of detail - compare the image of the Greek God to the Sony NEX-5N or the E-M5 at ISO6400 and you will see more detail in those. Samsung do a sililar thing and the same happened with the original Nikon 1 studio comparison.

If I ask for RAW, I want real RAW so I can reduce the chroma noise myself.

Still, the camera is not compact for a mirrorless design which , for me, is the whole point of MILC, EVIL, CSC etc.

Cheers

May 3, 2012permalink

Reilly Diefenbach

If one compares the D7000 6400 raw as converted by CNX2, then things look a whole lot different. The Pentax is good too, though.

May 3, 2012permalink

Pixel Judge

Oly OM-D might have a company?!
I like the OM-D's JPeg performance. But K-01's Raw at high ISO is a killer!

I guess I will stick with OM-D, because I am too busy shooting and too lazy to process images on computer.

May 3, 2012permalink

Menneisyys

Yup, it is. Considerably better than the 5N at 12800 - MUCH less chroma noise and only slightly (in no way as bad as with, say, earlier Oly cameras at 6400+, where, practically, they've become b/w) less saturation. With the same detail level.

May 3, 2012permalink

ogl

K-01 is the sharpest between 16-20 MP APS-C

May 3, 2012permalink

drummercam

It seems obvious to me, especially after seeing DPR's studio test shots with the K-01, that the full review of this camera will be widely anticipated. Say what you will about it -- I like my K-01 a lot -- Pentax continues to be highly capable of interesting concepts in cameras.

May 3, 2012permalink

Jun2

I love this camera. I want to buy it in 2 years for maybe $400, then get adaptor for legacy lenses.

May 3, 2012permalink

ET2

Nothing special.

K01 uses even stronger RAW noise reduction (that you can't turn off) than K-5. See SNR graph of K01 vs K-5 on dxomark.

The RAW NR starts at ISO 3200

If K01 RAWs were so much better than everyone else, why the jpegs look worse than 5N at ISO 6400?

May 3, 2012permalink

Perhaps its because JPEGs are the result of a myriad of unknown (to the user) factors that comprise the camera's processing algorithm. I don't shoot in JPEG mode and could not care less about them. OTOH, these raw samples are very impressive--definitely a step above the K-5, assuming that DPR used the same lens and focused accurately for both tests.

Rob

May 3, 2012permalink

so much talk about the camera's looks, lol.

Seems so many people want everything so Nazi'd into the "every-camera-must-be-black-and-looks-like-a-Canon/Nikon"

how about discussing image quality output? :)

May 3, 2012permalink

ryansholl

Because I don't want to walk around with a fisher price toy in my hands. 3% of people would think I have a great sense of humor, and the other 97% would assume that I suffer from Down's.

May 3, 2012permalink

But those that know, will just think that you hold a very good camera. Too much worry about what people will think about your equipment, it's rather sad...

May 3, 2012permalink

Cy Cheze

No, most people would think the camera was a ploy to hide your age, and that you also used Botox, a toupe, and hair dye. One must credit Pentax for offering a design that might appeal to clients younger than old-school codgers, but the camera does look a bit like an Austin Powers "mod" prop.

May 3, 2012permalink

Come on, one can have it in black and get unnoticed. The challenging looks are well hidden with the black color. Leave the yellow for those you describe (and for me...).

May 3, 2012permalink

DrugaRunda

they appear to have eliminated all chroma noise in Raw even at ISO 12800, suprising.

May 3, 2012permalink

avgcitizen

Yes, I'm impressed too. No chroma noise yet not more grain or loss of detail. For once, too, a look that is not a clone of everyone else's.Actually, I'm amazed!

May 3, 2012permalink

http://www.popco.net/zboard/view.php?id=dica_review&no=779

Same here, I'm impressed. Unless the widget mis-linked the K-01'sreference image for ISO12800 to be something from ISO1600.

May 3, 2012permalink

Clark Jung

Here's the K-01's review.

Images quality's looks fantastic!
I really likes video, too.

Apr 20, 2012permalink

JoeDaBassPlayer

The K 01 arrived and it is no toy. It is solid and quite advanced. Reviewers pan it for no VF. That is not a problem. The issue would be the other similar cameras that do not have focus peaking or IBIS. Those are the necessary features.

It is an easy transition for those coming from P&S cameras but it is incredibly advanced as well. This can give a FF camera more than a run for its money.

Apr 19, 2012permalink

keekimaru

I really enjoy this camera.

I owned a K-r for a short period of time before I sold it for this and I don't have buyer's remorse for doing it.

Things I like:
-The thing isn't plastic. And it doesn't feel it.
-The picture quality in RAW...
-The controls are simple.
-Because it is designed for a screen, live view can be used all the time and not drain the battery quickly like it did on the K-r. That is of course if you like the live view.
-When you put on the kit lens this camera takes up the same space as a 4/3rds. Most times you carry a camera around and want to take quick shots you don't need a zoom anyways. It is a slightly genius maneuver to make the lens smaller as that is what half the size of the 4/3rds cameras are, the lens.

More Detail :
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00740MR78/tipfla-20

Apr 13, 2012permalink

Guidenet

You are the target audience. You are a point and shooter who found that DSLRs were too complicated but wanted to use the same lenses, I suppose. You say

"Most times you carry a camera around and want to take quick shots you don't need a zoom anyways."

And this is totally off the mark mostly for all but point and shoot mentality. Snap snap on vacations and such. That is not what most serious photographers do. The don't just wear the camera for quick shots. Where's the part about pre-visualizing your image and making careful compositions?

I just think the whole camera is a little expensive for that group of people who might consider a camera with no viewfinder. You see all the time people asking for compacts with a viewfinder and lamenting they about don't exist. You never see someone looking for a better camera, but asking for no viewfinder. I can see zero advantage for not including one other than price, and at $899 that's not the reason. ;)

Apr 14, 2012permalink

Yeah... and for all that money Pentax doesn't even include a "Protentious Photog-Guy" club card!! Now how will I go around telling others they can't make any good photos with their new-fangeled "camera." I recomend everyone go look at Canon or Nikon instead.

Apr 17, 2012permalink

JoeDaBassPlayer

Guidenet needs to try one before making snap judgements. It can be set up for the typical P&S user. It also offers extensive options such as customizing the controls to fit one's preferences. On mine, the red is for focus peaking and the green is for exposure taking on old manual lenses.

The focus peaking gives one incredible control over focus location. IBIS and incredible High ISO abilities make it capable in a wider range of lighting than most cameras. Tone quality, image quality and video quality can all go against the best.

For event, street, and creative shooting, I would be hard pressed to pick a better camera.

Apr 23, 2012permalink

JeffAHayes

Ummmm, Washcoll2004, one thing I'll say for Pentax, they DEFINITELY DON'T build DELIBERATE OBSOLESENCE (sp?) into their camera systems like Canon and Nikon have.

Last year at this time when I was FINALLY ready to "bite the bullet" and go DSLR (after 8 years of buying nothing but the best P&S cameras -- 4 successive megazooms, first two Lumix, then to Canon -- ALL of which had viewfinders, offered RAW mode, AND the last two of which worked with Canon's pro-level flashes -- I seriously considered going Canon, since I already had a 430 EXII flash).

What changed my mind was discovering my 90s-era Pentax 135mm F2.8 lens would work with the K-5. I agree the K-01 looks like an over-priced toy, and I wouldn't buy one. But not only will NONE of the older Canon nor Nikon lenses work with their stabilization systems (since it's built into the lens, instead of the camera), With Canon, if you go from APS-C to full frame(Nikon, too?), you have to buy ALL NEW LENSES again!

No thanks!

May 2, 2012permalink

Max Privette

Why so ugly !!!

Apr 10, 2012permalink

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I like the chunky modern design, and I give Pentax credit for allowing an industrial designer to create a new camera from scratch. Over time, I think that many people will get over their initial horror at seeing a camera that doesn't look like any other.

Rob

May 3, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

This is a designer item. It is like modern art, the actual object is not as important as the long pretentious description that goes with it. You are just so 19th century when everything stood on its own merits.

May 4, 2012permalink

MrPetkus

Can any owner of both the K-01 and a m43 camera (e.g., Oly, Panny) comparatively comment on K-01 autofocus?

Apr 8, 2012permalink

CaseyComo

Kinda like an IL Ricoh in a shiny new bumblebee suit. I'm intrigued.

Apr 4, 2012*permalink

Dragonhand

what is this talk about weight? it is a lot lighter than the K-5.
I worry a little about the lack of VF, not so easy to focus on (with my eyes).
And if the focusing system is sufficiently good in low light.

I think it would fit nicely in my somewhat smal hands and I love my old lenses.

Apr 4, 2012permalink

snake_b

Anyone know if they will ever offer an option, like Nikon, to choose between 12 and 14 bit? Probably not a huge difference in DR, but why not use if if you don't care about larger files?

And what's this about an intervalometer? That sounds incredible.

Apr 2, 2012permalink

Luke1

Every current Pentax model has a built in intervalometer, including the k-r, actually.

Apr 17, 2012*permalink

(unknown member)

got my k-01 delivered and played with it this weekend.

summary: looks great, feels great, makes great pictures!

see on the web flickr/fredscapes for samples

Apr 1, 2012permalink

Mtsuoka

thanks for sharing.
how'd you comment on the AF speed?

Apr 6, 2012permalink

Privateye

This is a highly competitive & with high expectations for camera features, quality, design, etc. The design engineers have done a great job in putting Pentax in a glorious quality spot. In the real world, choices are aplenty and they are bound to be acceptable to many categories of users. Bearing this in mind, it is sad to say that this K-01 design if placed side by side with the others, it will be overlooked as a piece of cheapskate. Miniaturization, high perceived value with quality is the way forward. It is simply not appealing because it does not look serious and it is thick and bulky obviously by comparison difference with the others. I know the quality is highly acceptable as being tested by DxOMark but I am sure not buying it. I am really curious to know at the end of the day, the number of K-01 units can be sold worldwide.

Apr 1, 2012permalink

CJ Lan

I am neither Canonian, Nikonian, Pentexian, or micro 4/3 users. I use/like a camera as long as it is good in features and practical. Honestly speaking, I do not quite understand the philosophy behind the Pentax design engineers. Not getting into full frame market before jumping into very expensive medium format 645, interchangeable lens system with tiny p&s sensor (Q), now a bulky mirrorless camera. and who knows the next in the future. Correct me if I am wrong. I thought the main purpose getting rid of mirror is to achieve portability of a interchangeable lens camera system. What does K-01 try to accomplish in this regard? If just for using the existing line of lenses, I would rather stick with K-5 or any other Pentax APSC for their professional looks, not this as bulky and toy-looking "SLR".

Apr 1, 2012*permalink

snake_b

That's not the main reason for removing the mirror.

No one set rules on what anything is supposed to be, by the way.

And if you're looking for "professional looks" as a priority in your equipment, then maybe you need to be a professional instead of acting like one on the internet.

Apr 1, 2012*permalink

CJ Lan

It is interesting that you think the main reason for mirrorless camera is not reduction of size and weight. I wonder what benefits will that be. It already sacrifices the optical viewfinder and faster AF (contrast detect instead of phase detect) featured in the regular DSLR. If not for reduction in size and weights, again, what other advantages does a mirrorless camera offer. Please advise. Maybe I could learn something here.

Apr 2, 2012permalink

You're obviously free to disagree with the path that Pentax has chosen, but if you look at what they say when they talk about their strategy, they clearly state that they have no interest in being a "me too" camera company. They have said many times that they are considering a full frame camera, but that they will only make it if they can do it in a way that is different than what the others are doing. I personally think FF will happen and I expect that it will probably be equally polarizing. The Q, like it or not, is different than anything else (especially at release.) And I think the K-01 has followed in that same pattern. I do admit that this way of designing is not going to appeal to everyone or probably ever make them a top seller. But Pentax is at least doing exactly what they told everyone they would do.

Apr 2, 2012permalink

I also think you (CJ Lan) and others have rightly made up your mind at this point and that no matter what anyone says, you will not be swayed. And I think that's great because you know what you want and this isn't it. I will offer my point of view: People complained that the Q had a small sensor and that you couldn't natively mount K lenses. The K-01 offers the flip side to the Q. It is not as small as some mirrorless cameras, but Pentax, by using the K-mount, was somewhat restricted in size (ie registration distance.) The K-01 is 1/2 an inch wider than the mount to the right and 2 1/4 inches to the left which makes it smaller than the K-5 (already a small DSLR) in height and width. In my opinion as an owner, it does "feel" more portable.

Apr 2, 2012permalink

Pentaxians are also used to being able to put any lens on their K-mount cameras which means everything from the new 40mm XS lens (slightly thicker than a body mount cap) to zoom lenses made in the 80's and 90's that are huge. The bigger the lens, the more the thickness of the K-01 is appreciated. As Pentax releases more XS lenses (which will be smaller and made specifically for the K-01) I would expect to see a quick and smaller version of the kit lenses, which will make use of short focus throw and be optimized for the contrast detect focusing.

Apr 2, 2012permalink

Guidenet

CJ Lan, it might be interesting to note that people seem to disagree with you, but failed to even attempt to answer your question properly. The reason might be there is no answer. I agree with you in that the primary advantage for a mirrorless design is so that you can make the whole thing smaller by shortening the registration distance usually taken up by the mirror box. The camera makes little sense to me.

Another thing is the lack of a viewfinder. I can't imagine serious photographers considering a model with no viewfinder or really a way to add one. Even a lot of point and shooters complain that compacts no longer have even a rudimentary viewfinder. I'm just not sure who Pentax is marketing this to. I would imagine it might be to someone who bought a Pentax DSLR, found it too complicated but wanted to preserve their lens collection. Seems to me to be a narrow audience.

Actually, I love the looks though. So I have strange tastes. ;)

Apr 14, 2012permalink

mbpm

I absolutely agree with washcoll, especially on the part of interchangeable lens. I still have a K200d with M42 lens.

Yes, Pentax has always been bold. That's what they are known for, but it's a hit or miss idea.

Take the K200d for example, and ask yourself this question: who did it appeal to? Enthusiast? Amateurs? Pros? It does not have a FF sensor and no live view; it only has a top continuous burst rate of 2.8fps.
But, you still won't find a cheaper weather sealed small DSLR with an amazing ASPC sensor. And it's been over 4 years!!

This gem was discontinued because only a few consumers bought the idea of a cheap DSLR that was rugged and reliable, and Pentax struggled to make a profit.

Like it or not, this is what Pentax is known for, they think outside the box. With so much competition around the corner, the K-01 is a miss for me, though.

But, that's my opinion. Cheers!

Apr 16, 2012*permalink

mbpm

Self correction. It's APS-C format, not ASPC. My bad.

Apr 16, 2012permalink

jhualde

Hello CJ Lan,

I can see some advantages of eliminating the optical viewfinder besides compactness/portability:

-Cost cuttings, so the camera can be cheaper.
-Quieter operation (no mirror flip).
-Hence, no need for mirror lock up when using a tripod for landscape photography.

Some people uses live-view with their SLR's (not me) and makes a lot of video too, so it makes sense to sell a K-mount camera without mirror and pentaprism.

Anyways, I'd rather have the viewfinder, so it would be the K-5 for me.

Apr 24, 2012permalink

RSTP14

Mirrorless design has many advantages AND disadvantages. Possibility to reduce lens to sensor distance (hence smaller body design) is but one possible advantage. Amongst other, more accurate AF not dependent on the lens used, lens design can include protrusion further into body allowing for better wide angle lens design (which otherwise have to use a reverse tele design), no mirror slap = sharper images, less mechanics = more reliability, no need for expensive optical VF = reduced costs are all good reasons to remove the mirror.

May 3, 2012permalink

00112233

Interesting to read when you say that you are neither Canonian, Nikonian, Pentexian, etc. but anyway it seems to me you’re not satisfied with any camera that doesn’t have the DSLR Canon or Nikon look. If you know something about industrial design, you should know that you have to offer something to get something. Therefore it’s important to note:

1 The K-01 is a mirrorles camera
2 The K-01 weights approximately 200 gr. less than the already small K-5
3 The body thickness with kit lens DA 40mm XS is around 64 mm. 37mm less than NEX cameras with kit zoom lens.
4 Instead of buying a whole new array of new lenses you can stick with your excellent K mount lenses.
Now perhaps you will understand the philosophy of Pentax better.

Jun 14, 2012permalink

Holy crap, an INTERVALOMETER! Finally some common sense.

Of course, there's always something: Why a 999-picture limit?

Apr 1, 2012permalink

Mtsuoka

battery won't last that long anyway

Apr 6, 2012permalink

Couscousdelight

"...battery won't last that long anyway..."
I don't think so.
I've made some T-l with my K5, and, i can make a 999 images sequence with less than half power of a battery.
You just have to disable the LCD screen and the AF.

May 3, 2012permalink

RStyga

To all those persistent comments about the lack of viewfinder I can respond that since this an ILC, an OVF is generally problematic (but still available from a 3-party maker). An EVF, on the other hand, would have made the camera much more expensive and directly competitive to other Pentax DSLRs. I think Pentax might have a good point in intentionally omitting a viewfinder on K-01.

Also, as far as the 'boxy' design, I can comment that if this was a fancy Leica not many people would have had complained...

Mar 30, 2012*permalink

People bitching about the lack of a viewfinder clearly don't understand the purpose of mirrorless cameras.

And if you can't understand the point of mirrorless cameras, this site is way beyond you. So of course they're frustratedly posting stupid comments.

Apr 1, 2012*permalink

Revenant

So what purpose do mirrorless cameras have that makes a viewfinder redundant? Sony NEX-7, Olympus E-M5, Panasonic G3/GH2, Samsung NX10/11, Nikon V1, Fuji X100/X-Pro1, these mirrorless cameras all have viewfinders, and yet they are all less bulky than the K-01. Of course, not all people need or want a viewfinder, but that's why there are also mirrorless cameras without one.
The main purpose of any camera is to take pictures, and if one thinks that a viewfinder makes this easier, then what's wrong with that?

Apr 1, 2012*permalink

First of all, there are plenty of mirrorless cameras with built-in EVF's. Secondly, of the mirrorless cameras that don't have built-in EVF's, they at least offer the option of an add-on/removeable EVF. For example, I use an Olympus Pen m4/3 camera, and I also have the Olympus VF-3 add-on viewfinder, which I can choose to use or choose not to use, based on the conditions. (I *greatly* prefer to use the VF3 for any outdoor shooting).

The Pentax offers neither of these options- neither a built-in EVF nor the option of an add-on EVF. This is going to turn off a lot of potential buyers.

What's also bizarre is that a viewfinder greatly improves the handling of a camera when you are using larger lenses. Since the K-01 can use all Pentax K system lenses, including some that are rather large, being able to support the camera against your face is a huge advantage. Besides, even with smaller lenses, being able to put the camera to your face is still quite comfortable for a lot of folks.

Apr 5, 2012permalink

An EVF would likely have added $250 to the price, which would put it out of reach for much of the target market. Rest assured, Pentax will produce MILCs with EVFs in the future.

Rob

May 3, 2012permalink

Couscousdelight

"....So what purpose do mirrorless cameras have that makes a viewfinder redundant? Sony NEX-7, Olympus E-M5, Panasonic G3/GH2, Samsung NX10/11, Nikon V1, Fuji X100/X-Pro1, these mirrorless cameras all have viewfinders..."

Yep, but all these cameras have as prime ancestor cameras than was evf-less.
This is the first generation of Pentax aps-c mirrorless, let's give some time to Pentax to bring a EVF on a mirrorless.

May 6, 2012permalink

After two weeks of using it, I am really enjoying this camera. It is easy to see how its design can be polarizing, but in real world use I have found it to fill a need (something more portable than my K-5.) It doesn't have all the bells and whistles of the K-5 but it does have some of it's own pluses. The think the boxy look makes it appear more cumbersome than it is in real life. The images and ISO performance are great and I can use all of my lenses (and with focus peaking, some of them even easier than on the K-5... I'm looking at you 50mm f1.2.) At the end of the day, I care more about the images I get than the look of the camera.

Would this replace my K-5? No. But I don't believe that is the intention. Though I haven't really had much issues with it not having a VF, I know that's a problem for some. Of course, I've been using point and shoot cameras in the sun for many years without issue and it really hasn't been any more difficult on this camera.

Mar 27, 2012*permalink

Sumicron69

Pentax I simply do not get your design philosophy. First the Q mad no sense. Than this project would have had some potential but you forgot the viewfinder?!?!?!? Maybe talk to some photographers next time.

Mar 26, 2012permalink

Pakio

I think if it was a bigger Pentax Q with same specifications of the K-01, K mount, sensor, etc... would sell definetly much better. The Pentax Q is much prettier and intelligent design.

Mar 26, 2012permalink

harrisoncac

Yes. I want the Q's look and K-01's sensor. But now nothing is available.

Mar 27, 2012permalink

if it WERE a bigger Pentax Q

Apr 1, 2012permalink

Pakio

Sorry if i make some mistake, english is my third language.

Apr 1, 2012permalink

BasilFawlty

Alright, I think it's time we officially declare Pentax irrelevant.

Mar 26, 2012permalink

MrPetkus

Not necessarily. I don't like the K01 but videographers may take to it. Also, the K5 replacement will probably use the new 24MP Sony Exmor found in the Nex 7 (likely the Nikon D400, too). Given how capable Pentax was extracting all the goodness out of the 16MP Sony, I have high expectations.
There is also that nice 560M lens in their roadmap.

Mar 29, 2012permalink

R Thornton

I am indifferent as to the looks, but would like to see the sorry a.. who is going to hold the setup in the photograph above at arm's length and try to snap a picture!

Mar 26, 2012permalink

bankebrett

At an arms length!? Why? I never do that with my compact camera. (Except when I'm stretching to take pictures from weird angles)

Mar 27, 2012permalink

PG Thomas

If it had a leica badge,it would sell. It's design is as rediculous as the M9. Without.....? The should have followed the Fuji/Olympus retro theme. (Although I think the K5 design is itself a future classic). Plenty examples in the Pentax catalogue.

Mar 25, 2012permalink

nanoer

Rumor is that Hoya and Holga just merged and is now 100% owned by Diana. Just kidding!

Mar 24, 2012permalink

MatsudaMan

Was this camera designed by a bunch of people in an insane asylum? It looks ridiculous and the large size serves no purpose - look at all the wasted space. I'm sorry, you can't just make things and wacky colors and expect it to be a smashing success. Do they really think people are that stupid? Pentax is really in danger of completely going under....wow.

Mar 24, 2012permalink

rusticus

The K-01 was not made for the broad mass of imbecile
It is a designer camera
Very few recognize good design - for ever

Mar 26, 2012permalink

RSTP14

Wow... your really don't get it !

May 3, 2012permalink

toomanycanons

First thing I noticed was no viewfinder. End of my checking out this camera.

Mar 24, 2012permalink

Good. Get the K-5 then.

For extra credit, do some reading and try to understand the purpose of mirrorless cameras.

Apr 1, 2012*permalink

rsf3127

I see some positive points for this "designer's" camera:
1. If you buy it in yellow, thieves may believe it is one of those disposable Kodak-like cameras.
2. If you buy it in pink, thieves may believe it is a Barbie's camera.
3. If you buy it in green, you can match to the color of your hair and add to a nice punk-like look. You can buy green trousers and shoes as well.
Imagine yourself beside some folks by the race track with their huge SLRs and you with your yellow K1 and a 300mm f4 Pentax teleprime...well, you will miss all the shots because the AF is horrid, but you will be in the center of all discussions.
That is what this camera is about: it is not for you gearheads who come here to discuss if the custom button is in the right place or not. It is for people who paint their hair green.

Mar 24, 2012permalink

Ironically, I think I do agree on that point.

Apr 2, 2012permalink

alfredo_tomato

What if I plant chia on my bald head? I don't care about color. I'd buy a yellow camera if it fit my needs, and returns good results.

May 3, 2012permalink

N13L5

Some good ideas here, great specs, but I can't help commenting on some poor case design choices:

1) for all the room on this big camera case, most of it is wasted blank space. Much better to have more dials if it has to be so big.

2) no articulating screen... seriously?

3) no little rubberized nook for your right thumb to help hold this hefty device, while your left hand is twiddling with the lens?

4) Overall design looks like the designer was more enamored with his idea for some arbitrary architectural form, rather than the natural beauty of optimized functionality in case design.

5) Modular approach to the K-mount would have been better. Just have the K-mount stick out of a slimmer body and be replaceable with a special pancake lens for traveling light.

Mar 24, 2012permalink

ManuelVilardeMacedo

If the body were slimmer flange would have to be shorter, which would imply a smaller bayonet, an adapter to mount K- lenses and manufacturing new lenses for this camera. It would negate the only clever feature of this camera - the possibility of using any K-mount lens.

Mar 24, 2012*permalink

Mal_In_Oz

5) This was a no-brainer that the designer some how missed.

May 3, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

... well finally a small camera that would fit my hands.

My respects Pentax !!! : you seem to stay somewhat true to your brand philosophy.

When is the digital Pentax 67 and K1000 coming - I am waiting !

Mar 24, 2012permalink

Pakio

It would look fine with a lensbaby attached...

Mar 24, 2012permalink

Carlos AF Costa

Well, in my opinion, it looks like a toy. But they show a great respect for the customers with that compability lens thing. Also the IQ seems to be great.

Mar 24, 2012permalink

MeScooper

If you look at the "K-01" logo sideways it reminds me of the retro Space Invaders arcade game :)

Mar 24, 2012permalink

rusticus

GREAT!!!
awesome Design
awesome APS-C Sensor (K-5!!!)
awesome System (Pentax Lens . . .)
awesome all . . .

Mar 23, 2012permalink

awesome Capitals

Apr 1, 2012permalink

Streetsmart

Honestley, for the size / weight gain, they should have put a better grip on that thing and EVF. At least battery life is better than most if not all mirrorless cameras. Hope they get the next gen right

Mar 23, 2012*permalink

OneGuy

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.

Mar 23, 2012permalink