[barondla]

As a paper weights go, the k-01 has the advantage.

Funniest thing I have read all week.
thanks
barondla

[Wheatfield]

Yep - I figured you for a Ken Rockwell follower.

I never figured you as someone who would resort to ad hominem attacks.
My mistake.
Now, go back and read my post in context.
And see if you can catch a glimmer of meaning from it.

[Anton Magus]

I never figured you as someone who would resort to ad hominem attacks.
My mistake.
Now, go back and read my post in context.
And see if you can catch a glimmer of meaning from it.

Firstly, apologies for the comment about you being "a Ken Rockwell follower". It was a mean comment and I should not have made it. Sorry.
While Ken Rockwell certainly has some very good photographs and has some good ideas about what makes for a good photograph, I don't really regard him as an authoritative reviewer of cameras or lenses. Certainly not in the same league as dpreview.com or photographyblog.com or imaging-resource.com and a few others.

Secondly I have gone back and read your post and tried to put it into the context of the entire thread.

I'm sure if Pentax had thought the Q should have been an overweight fugly horse, they could have built it that way. The Q is no more in the same market segment as the K-01 as the K-01 is in the same market segment as the 645D.
The Q has the appeal of small size, nice looks and excellent build. The K-01 has the appeal of
ummmmm
hmmmmm
eerrrrrrr
Kinda leaves one scratching one's head.

I certainly am not qualified to comment on Pentax's reasons for the design and build of the Q. There are however a great many people who have commented, on this thread and other threads, that the Q is TOO SMALL for people with large hands and (presumably) large fingers. Then there are others who can adequately handle the Q, but still regard it as a toy camera mainly because of its size. Then there is a third category who simply believe that the (launch) price of the Q was way too expensive for a small-sensor camera. Their belief is that if it delivers the image quality of a point and shoot, and is roughly the size of a point and shoot, then it should be approximately the price of a point and shoot.

Whether you (or I) agree with those comments is immaterial. The people who hold those views will not buy the Pentax Q and nothing will persuade them otherwise.

Nevertheless it is highly significant that one of the first accessories for the Q was a K-mount adapter. And whatever you think of the Q being a small and pocketable camera, once you stick a K-mount lens on the front you have a lens that is bigger than the body. I think that defeats the object of the Q. Whatever K-mount glass you mount on it, you are still stuck with the small sensor and its advantages (DOF, crop factor) and disadvantages (DOF, crop factor & High ISO noise).
There is very valid argument that the Q offers great possibilities for bird and wildlife photography with K-mount lenses and also is great for street photography with the Q-mount lenses.

Despite this, there are a very large number of Q detractors who indicated, very vocally, that they wanted a MILC with a larger sensor and which would use K-mount lenses. Pentax themselves announced at the launch of the K-01 that sales of the Pentax Q had been very disappointing. Now, at least, Pentax have given the Q critics what they asked for. Yes, the design is "chunky" and the camera is solidly built and heavy. Its built for the guys with big hands and big fingers who moaned the Q was too small. The K-01 clearly was not intended to be a drop in your pocket Point and Shoot. The yellow color schemes will probably be hated, but there is black... Maybe the biggest criticism is the lack of a viewfinder. Surely they could have added one in a camera that size? Despite all that, it delivers what was asked for by Pentax customers, so they should not be unhappy. And then the launch price seems right when it will probably drop significantly over the next few months.

The big question is will it draw potential buyers away from the Q? My guess is that it will - at least some of them who are not buying purely for size. It will surely get many potential Q buyers thinking about better image quality in low light shots, and a bigger, easier-to-hold camera. But it may well also get them looking at other alternatives like the Sony NEX series, Olympus M4/3 range and even Panasonics or Fujis. There is a big range of mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras without viewfinders to choose from and they actually all fall into the same marketing segment and they all compete with each other. So whether you think so or not, the Q and the K-01 are competing against each other, and against M4/3 and NEX and Nikon 1 etc etc etc...

If you like the Q and are happy with its results and it suits your needs, that's great. If John Doe likes the K-01 for the same reasons, that's great too. The fact that you, personally, think its an "overweight fugly horse" is however a comment not shared by many who are more concerned with its performance and function than with its appearance.

[civiletti]

Viewfinder-less cameras belong on tripods. If I am going to shoot on a tripod, I want better image quality than a Q produces. No buy, no way.

[Clicker]

The UPS dude delivered my Q at 4:00pm today, battery is being charged...i'm not sure i'm going to use this very much probably going to pack it up and toss it with my others in the garage...after i take a few shots first and post them here of course.
Still looking for a deal on the OVF but could use my Panasonic OVF even though it's for a "24mm" (35mm spec'd) and think 2X for some inaccurate framing.

[unixrevolution]

The UPS dude delivered my Q at 4:00pm today, battery is being charged...i'm not sure i'm going to use this very much probably going to pack it up and toss it with my others in the garage...after i take a few shots first and post them here of course.
Still looking for a deal on the OVF but could use my Panasonic OVF even though it's for a "24mm" (35mm spec'd) and think 2X for some inaccurate framing.

I wish I could buy $600 cameras I didn't think I'd shoot, then throw them in the garage to collect dust.

[ironlionzion]

If you like the Q and are happy with its results and it suits your needs, that's great. If John Doe likes the K-01 for the same reasons, that's great too. The fact that you, personally, think its an "overweight fugly horse" is however a comment not shared by many who are more concerned with its performance and function than with its appearance.

There are a lot of really nice and helpful people on this forum, but there are also a few condescending ****s. You'll learn to recognize these fools and see how a good chunk of their posts are aimed at insulting or talking down to others. Best to take note and ignore.

[Wheatfield]

There are a lot of really nice and helpful people on this forum, but there are also a few condescending ****s. You'll learn to recognize these fools and see how a good chunk of their posts are aimed at insulting or talking down to others. Best to take note and ignore.

Since you haven't added anything constructive to this thread, other than a veiled insult and some talking down, it's nice to know which camp you are in.

[ironlionzion]

Take a minute to look through your own posts. Maybe reflect on what you've said to others unprovoked. I'd surely be ashamed of myself if I said some of the things you've said.