Originally posted by hcarvalhoalves And that speaks volumes about how failed the design is. The job of a designer is to meet requirements. The most basic requirement for a camera with that quality should be: have a viewfinder. You can argue that this is not for a target audience that cares for a VF. Maybe if Pentax really intended this for video only, it makes all the sense to rule out the VF. But they are not really marketing it as such, so I don't know.
WRONG. you are
assuming that the designer had to meet certain criteria. did you even watch the video interview? Pentax basically gave him full, and complete control with the design. and if you had taken some time to get to know the designer, you would know that he is in fact well known for taking the reins and doing an entire design himself as opposed to working with and succeeding to the engineers or other designers. that case was made clear with his project car for the Ford Motor Co. I can't argue what audience Pentax may have intended this to be for any more than you can, so why don't you stop assuming,arguing against it, and trying to tell everyone what it absolutely should have or not have. just because what you want, and maybe even what a lot of people want, is something it should have, doesn't mean that it has to have it. what anyone wants isn't a requirement. does it make sense to deliver a camera to the consumer market without a viewfinder? well, time will tell, but wether it makes sense is irrelevant because the designer chose not to have one. the truth is (again if you had taken some time to get to know the designer and informed yourself of the project between Pentax and Mr. Newson you would understand this) that
Mr. Newson not Pentax designed this camera essentially for himself and anybody with a similar design aesthetic. he clearly states in the video interview that what he designed is what HE would like to have and what HE thought others might like. not what Pentax wanted, not what the current segment 'demands', not what YOU want, not anything but what he wanted and what appealed to him. because he was the designer, and Pentax gave him the reigns to design the camera. Pentax didn't intend this camera for anything, Pentax basically said 'we want to have a Kmount mirrorless camera, and we want you to design it.' and this is what the designer designed. why is that so hard of everyone to grasp? this isn't the work of Pentax, yet all of you are bashing it for not being what you expect Pentax to have given you. and this goes for everyone else on DPReview and the rest of the web. nobody cares to take the time to realize that Mr. Newson designed a camera, not Pentax. so why say 'Pentax should have put an EVF, why no viewfinder?' because Mr. Newson, the designer clearly designed it without one. the best way to describe this camera is a concept camera that has come to market. thats what it is, a concept camera. a camera that is as much of an artistic piece - a study in design, as it is a camera. why everybody doesn't get that is just beyond me. by the way, I'm not upset at anyone, just shocked that so many people are unfairly judging it without even understanding it. ill reiterate my last statement from my previous post.
there is no reason to bash it for not living up to criteria it was never designed to live up to in the first place.
think about that.