Cheap shot at Pentax

**LaurenOE** · 04-19-2012, 09:22 PM

I read a blog article today at

http://www.minimallyminimal.com/journal/2012/3/5/coffee-time-form-vs-functio...ntention.html/

about - journal - minimally minimal

There is a cheap shot at the K5 calling it a "Plastic Camera".

Not cool.

deadwolfbones · 04-19-2012, 09:27 PM

Who cares?

They said it's ridiculous to paint a plastic camera (the external shell of the K-5 is polycarbonate) to look metallic, and many might agree with that. Personally, I think the limited edition looks nice, but it's just an opinion.

Taken in the context of the rest of the post it's not a dig against Pentax, but rather against the practice of trying to make modern cameras look "retro" for no good reason.

**LaurenOE** · 04-19-2012, 09:30 PM

It's still a cheap shot. Also the external shell on the K5 is NOT polycarbonate. It's textured over the magnesium. BIG difference.

It doesn't help that a Pentax user is ignorant of that fact.

deadwolfbones · 04-19-2012, 09:40 PM

Yeah, my bad. Parts of the exterior (on the rear) are poly, but the front and top are magnesium with powder coating.

Anyway, you're missing the point of the blog post in order to get worked up over a perceived slight. He's not trying to call out Pentax for making a "plastic camera," he's implying that all modern dSLRs are "plastic cameras" and that trying to dress them up like classic film SLRs is dumb. You can agree with him on that point or not, but to get upset over him namedropping the K-5 in the process is pretty much fangirl dementia.

Blue · 04-19-2012, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by LaurenOE

I read a blog article today at

Coffee Time: Form vs Function vs Intention

about - journal - minimally minimal

There is a cheap shot at the K5 calling it a "Plastic Camera".

Not cool.

Contact him by email and tell them it is texture over magnesium and that there is more magnesium shell than the Nikon D7000.

Edit: I just did as well

minimallyminimal@me.com

Blue · 04-19-2012, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by deadwolfbones

Who cares?

They said it's ridiculous to paint a plastic camera (the external shell of the K-5 is polycarbonate) to look metallic, and many might agree with that. Personally, I think the limited edition looks nice, but it's just an opinion.

Taken in the context of the rest of the post it's not a dig against Pentax, but rather against the practice of trying to make modern cameras look "retro" for no good reason.

Still a dumb comment regarding a weather sealed camera whether it is Pentax or Nikon D7000, but not necessarily a cheap shot.

This part was kind of weird also. I would expect it to come with the LTD. But it is a k-mount. Lens and a pancake so I don't see it as insulting since I would rather have it than the DA 18-55 AL II. I don't think the guy realized the K-5 had a real viewfinder.

Quote:

It’s also particularly insulting because the limited edition package comes with a 40mm lens that was designed by Marc Newson for his K-01 (bottom).

deadwolfbones · 04-19-2012, 09:53 PM - **1 Like**

I give up.

calsan · 04-19-2012, 10:24 PM

Nothing he wrote about cameras, computers or cars was either original or interesting. Having been through university, I know that sort of bull-s**t is pushed into young minds by design lecturers. Style 'A' is the only correct way, Style 'B' is philosophically bankrupt.

One day he'll wake up and get his own opinions and not those of his professors.

cali92rs · 04-19-2012, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by deadwolfbones

Who cares?

I sure don't...i have a k-5 and I love it. If he wrote that the k-5 was the ugliest, worst camera on the market, I still wouldn't care.
If he wrote an article making fun of my mom, that would make me pissed...my camera, not so much

timh · 04-19-2012, 10:41 PM - **1 Like**

I think he's simply wrong about everything. What matters is that stuff works well and looks good. There are multiple valid ways to do that. Retro is fine.

The irony: I bet he's an instagram user. :-)

calsan · 04-19-2012, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by timh

the irony: I bet he's an instagram user. :-)

rofl!

mikeSF · 04-19-2012, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by deadwolfbones

... but to get upset over him namedropping the K-5 in the process is pretty much fangirl dementia.

seriously?

aurele · 04-20-2012, 12:41 AM

this article gave me a good laugh !

He's studying design, and sill, he don't get why brand produce some retro production ? Come on ! it's all about attracting old user to new product, to surf on the good image of the rock-solid item that last for years (the complete opposite of today production, btw...), it's less about design and more about brand recognition (1st year of economy @college, btw ...).

About the design : what the fu** is wrong to re-use a design that worked perfectly for the past years ? See Leica : from film to digital, it's more or less the same design and the basic bouton are still at the same place, and that's good, because ergo is good too. Why change for something worst ?
Same for the OM-1 : the design is really good.
Idem for the K-5 : it keep going in a peculiar ergo which is reconize for year to be very good ! (on the SuperA and the MZ-5n, they ergo are not very far from the K-x nor the K-5.)

So yeah, retro can be boring, but for fu** sakes the design is good !

Jean Poitiers · 04-20-2012, 03:32 AM

Bonjour,

Blog garbage here concernng the K-5 ... not much else to add. Doesn't even pass the "sniff" test ...

Salut, JFrog

**LaurenOE** · 04-20-2012, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by deadwolfbones

Yeah, my bad. Parts of the exterior (on the rear) are poly, but the front and top are magnesium with powder coating.

Anyway, you're missing the point of the blog post in order to get worked up over a perceived slight. He's not trying to call out Pentax for making a "plastic camera," he's implying that all modern dSLRs are "plastic cameras" and that trying to dress them up like classic film SLRs is dumb. You can agree with him on that point or not, but to get upset over him namedropping the K-5 in the process is pretty much fangirl dementia.

Actually, I'm not missing the point. Form over function. He implied that the K5 has no right "looking" like a metal camera if it was not metal. Just like the OM-D had no right having a Pentaprism hump since it doesn't have one.

He was talking about a "fake" design aesthetic, and while the K-01 has some retro elements, it is nothing like the homage of the OM-D, - not even close.

Overall, a cheap shot at Pentax.

04-19-2012, 09:22 PM	#1
LaurenOE Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Back in Florida, but worldwide gigs! Photos: Albums Posts: 3,690	Cheap shot at Pentax I read a blog article today at http://www.minimallyminimal.com/journal/2012/3/5/coffee-time-form-vs-functio...ntention.html/ about - journal - minimally minimal There is a cheap shot at the K5 calling it a "Plastic Camera". Not cool.

04-19-2012, 09:44 PM	#5
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by LaurenOE I read a blog article today at Coffee Time: Form vs Function vs Intention about - journal - minimally minimal There is a cheap shot at the K5 calling it a "Plastic Camera". Not cool. Contact him by email and tell them it is texture over magnesium and that there is more magnesium shell than the Nikon D7000. Edit: I just did as well minimallyminimal@me.com Last edited by Blue; 04-20-2012 at 12:09 PM.

04-19-2012, 09:49 PM	#6
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by deadwolfbones Who cares? They said it's ridiculous to paint a plastic camera (the external shell of the K-5 is polycarbonate) to look metallic, and many might agree with that. Personally, I think the limited edition looks nice, but it's just an opinion. Taken in the context of the rest of the post it's not a dig against Pentax, but rather against the practice of trying to make modern cameras look "retro" for no good reason. Still a dumb comment regarding a weather sealed camera whether it is Pentax or Nikon D7000, but not necessarily a cheap shot. This part was kind of weird also. I would expect it to come with the LTD. But it is a k-mount. Lens and a pancake so I don't see it as insulting since I would rather have it than the DA 18-55 AL II. I don't think the guy realized the K-5 had a real viewfinder. Quote: It’s also particularly insulting because the limited edition package comes with a 40mm lens that was designed by Marc Newson for his K-01 (bottom). Last edited by Blue; 04-20-2012 at 12:09 PM.

04-20-2012, 03:32 AM	#14
Jean Poitiers Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Lost in translation ... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 18,076	Stupid article ... *Bonjour,* Blog garbage here concernng the K-5 ... not much else to add. Doesn't even pass the "sniff" test ... *Salut, JFrog*

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Any cheap 200mm fast cheap prime suggestions?	tr13	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	32	03-08-2013 02:30 AM
Pentax 35mm f2 cheap!	Lemmy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	07-20-2010 07:49 AM
For Sale - Sold: [US] 2 Cheap ME Supers, 1 Cheap ME - Pentax film bodies	Just1MoreDave	Sold Items	2	02-21-2010 02:11 PM
Cheap manual lens on cheap extension tube with cheap flash! Also cats.	pasipasi	Post Your Photos!	12	08-28-2008 04:43 PM

04-19-2012, 09:27 PM	#2
deadwolfbones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: La Crescenta, CA Posts: 7,450	Who cares? They said it's ridiculous to paint a plastic camera (the external shell of the K-5 is polycarbonate) to look metallic, and many might agree with that. Personally, I think the limited edition looks nice, but it's just an opinion. Taken in the context of the rest of the post it's not a dig against Pentax, but rather against the practice of trying to make modern cameras look "retro" for no good reason.

04-19-2012, 09:30 PM	#3
LaurenOE Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Back in Florida, but worldwide gigs! Photos: Albums Posts: 3,690 Original Poster	It's still a cheap shot. Also the external shell on the K5 is NOT polycarbonate. It's textured over the magnesium. BIG difference. It doesn't help that a Pentax user is ignorant of that fact.

04-19-2012, 09:40 PM	#4
deadwolfbones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: La Crescenta, CA Posts: 7,450	Yeah, my bad. Parts of the exterior (on the rear) are poly, but the front and top are magnesium with powder coating. Anyway, you're missing the point of the blog post in order to get worked up over a perceived slight. He's not trying to call out Pentax for making a "plastic camera," he's implying that all modern dSLRs are "plastic cameras" and that trying to dress them up like classic film SLRs is dumb. You can agree with him on that point or not, but to get upset over him namedropping the K-5 in the process is pretty much fangirl dementia.

04-19-2012, 09:53 PM - 1 Like	#7
deadwolfbones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: La Crescenta, CA Posts: 7,450	I give up.

04-19-2012, 10:24 PM	#8
calsan Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Perth, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,548	Nothing he wrote about cameras, computers or cars was either original or interesting. Having been through university, I know that sort of bull-s**t is pushed into young minds by design lecturers. Style 'A' is the only correct way, Style 'B' is philosophically bankrupt. One day he'll wake up and get his own opinions and not those of his professors.

04-19-2012, 10:35 PM	#9
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354	Originally posted by deadwolfbones Who cares? I sure don't...i have a k-5 and I love it. If he wrote that the k-5 was the ugliest, worst camera on the market, I still wouldn't care. If he wrote an article making fun of my mom, that would make me pissed...my camera, not so much

04-19-2012, 10:41 PM - 1 Like	#10
timh Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Wales Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 445	I think he's simply wrong about everything. What matters is that stuff works well and looks good. There are multiple valid ways to do that. Retro is fine. The irony: I bet he's an instagram user. :-)

04-19-2012, 10:45 PM	#11
calsan Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Perth, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,548	Originally posted by timh the irony: I bet he's an instagram user. :-) rofl!

04-19-2012, 10:58 PM	#12
mikeSF Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: East Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,620	Originally posted by deadwolfbones ... but to get upset over him namedropping the K-5 in the process is pretty much fangirl dementia. seriously?

04-20-2012, 12:41 AM	#13
aurele Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Paris, France Photos: Albums Posts: 3,217	this article gave me a good laugh ! He's studying design, and sill, he don't get why brand produce some retro production ? Come on ! it's all about attracting old user to new product, to surf on the good image of the rock-solid item that last for years (the complete opposite of today production, btw...), it's less about design and more about brand recognition (1st year of economy @college, btw ...). About the design : what the fu is wrong to re-use a design that worked perfectly for the past years ? See Leica : from film to digital, it's more or less the same design and the basic bouton are still at the same place, and that's good, because ergo is good too. Why change for something worst ? Same for the OM-1 : the design is really good. Idem for the K-5 : it keep going in a peculiar ergo which is reconize for year to be very good ! (on the SuperA and the MZ-5n, they ergo are not very far from the K-x nor the K-5.) So yeah, retro can be boring, but for fu sakes the design is good !

04-20-2012, 04:44 AM	#15
LaurenOE Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Back in Florida, but worldwide gigs! Photos: Albums Posts: 3,690 Original Poster	Originally posted by deadwolfbones Yeah, my bad. Parts of the exterior (on the rear) are poly, but the front and top are magnesium with powder coating. Anyway, you're missing the point of the blog post in order to get worked up over a perceived slight. He's not trying to call out Pentax for making a "plastic camera," he's implying that all modern dSLRs are "plastic cameras" and that trying to dress them up like classic film SLRs is dumb. You can agree with him on that point or not, but to get upset over him namedropping the K-5 in the process is pretty much fangirl dementia. Actually, I'm not missing the point. Form over function. He implied that the K5 has no right "looking" like a metal camera if it was not metal. Just like the OM-D had no right having a Pentaprism hump since it doesn't have one. He was talking about a "fake" design aesthetic, and while the K-01 has some retro elements, it is nothing like the homage of the OM-D, - not even close. Overall, a cheap shot at Pentax.