[RonHendriks1966]

Well I like it, but I also think it is rather conservative on the design side. When you hire a designer then he should have more room to be creative.

[Toad]

-Rate the Look: overall by looks alone, I like the camera – a nice “rangefinder-like” appearance
-40mm fit: Looks a little odd to me but I like the size. Does it take filters?
-Planning to buy? No. Just bought a K-5 and I don’t see any significant advantage.
-People reacting: I think those who already have Pentax lenses will be the most interested. It will take stunning performance by the K-01 to attract others.

I am having trouble picturing how one would handle this camera with a large lens, especially for manual focusing. In addition, I think action shots will be much more difficult than with a viewfinder-based camera.

[bdery]

-How would you rate the look overall?

Very good, except the yellow colour. The design is classic and modern. I'd give it a 8.

-Does the 40mm fit the camera well?

Extremely.

-Are you planning on buying one based on what you've read about it in the official announcement?

Maybe, if it performs up to expectations.

-In buying a camera, how important is the look compared to the features? Very important, somewhat important, or unimportant?

Almost completely unimportant, but corollaries like seze, weight, ergonomy are very important.

-How do you think people who've never heard of Pentax would react to this camera?

Positively.

[causey]

-How would you rate the look overall?

3/5. In fact, i'd rate it 2.5/5. Rather ugly. An ugly toy.

-Does the 40mm fit the camera well?

Frankly, I can't see the reason for making the thinnest Pentax lens even thinner. I can't see the advantage of this lens over the classic DA 40mm. It may fit the camera well, but so does the old DA 40mm. Moreover, the new DA 40mm seems to want being dropped on the floor.

-Are you planning on buying one based on what you've read about it in the official announcement?

No. The lack of VF is a deal-breaker for me. Sticking to my beautiful K-x. I'd buy a K-5, but at this point I'm concerned with respect to the direction Pentax is taking.

-In buying a camera, how important is the look compared to the features? Very important, somewhat important, or unimportant?

Less than somewhat important, if I may say so... Not unimportant. Features come first. Good looks are a bonus. In the case of the K-01, an essential feature is absent, and there's no bonus.

-How do you think people who've never heard of Pentax would react to this camera?

They won't like the design. They'll read negative reviews that insist on the weight of the K-01 and the lack of VF. (Even if they have never used a VF, they will get influenced by the general negative opinion of the K-01. Just see the reactions on a couple of general photo forums to watch this general opinion already taking shape.) They'll buy either a NEX, for convenience, or an entry level dslr. (Nikon D5100 has the same 16.2mp Sony sensor, and it's as heavy as the K-01.)
I'm afraid the K-01 is going to be a resounding failure. It's the first time I'm pessimistic about the future of Pentax. I hope they come up with a FF MILC (with VF!!!) soon, to make up for this useless toy camera.

---

Last edited by causey; 02-02-2012 at 06:05 PM.

[Kenn100D]

Hello Marc,

This is my impression.

Overall Design:
Its somewhat mixed bag. Looks New, Cool, uninspiring but hopeful, it is out of the traditional design but not ugly. It's more like when you see a person for the first time (opposite sex) it seems just fair to look at it. BUT as you get to know the person all becomes beautiful it just erases everything that you did not like on the first impression.

i believe K-01 design came on how does you see a person (Any person) it is it the Physical Things that attract you or the Physical + attitude that attracts you most.
Also, maybe Marc spend a lot of time with the 645D trying to shrink it or the GXR of Ricoh mixed into it. =)

It's a Fair Camera in my opinion. It's First Born out of Pentax-RICOH. Like they say it here. The eldest is always the trial one.

P.S. I like a viewfinder even just EVF one.

The 40mm XS
a bit too flat i like the original one to be there or the 35mm 2.4.

Will I buy It.
Yes but not immediately. Wait for new accessories that comes with it.

[Michael Shea]

I have only just this week purchased a K-5, which is my first ever Pentax product. I do not expect to buy another camera for at least two years and this is no reflection whatsoever on the K-1. It's worth me adding that I already possess no fewer than four mirrorless cameras, manufactured by Panasonic and Olympus respectively. I'm swimming against the tide slightly, because I've moved away from a relatively modern format to a more traditional DSLR style. I'm primarily interested in the quality of my pictures and that will always be the main criteria.

Style is extremely important though, whether we admit it or not. I have no doubt that this is true, although it becomes far less of a factor after someone actually buys a camera. The K-1 is not the most attractive design I've seen. Amongst my own collection, my Olympus E-P1 appears beautifully built, but it contains such a plethora of closely set dials and buttons that it is quite difficult to avoid pressing one of them by accident. In direct comparison, the K-1 is frankly an ugly duckling and yet I can see quite clearly from the official photographs that it would be far simpler to use. Overall, I feel that the functionality almost makes up for the drabness, but not quite.

The most problematic thing about the K-1 seems to be that it's quite large. Not having a mirror gives the opportunity for a far smaller size and weight, and there are huge advantages to this. Given the actual size, it's difficult to understand why Pentax did not find a place for a viewfinder. I assume the added cost would have made it less competitive. Existing DSLR owners love viewfinders, we know that. But LCDs are quite easy to get used to, especially when you've never had anything else. The biggest difficulty is strong sunlight shining on them from behind. In that respect the LCD on my Panasonic Lumix GF1 is practically unusable at times.

The K-1 kit lens looks well suited to the camera, although I'm not convinced the focal length is ideal as a starter. As I say, I won't be buying one but then again, I'd judge the thing more by what it does than how it looks. No doubt the review sites and magazines will keep us informed about that.

[TomE]

I don't get it, the K-01 is for the most part the same size as the K5, has no view finder, is not a very attractive design and is very close in price to what the K5 is selling for presently! Why would anyone purchase one simply to get rid of mirror shake when taking a photo, since mirror shake is a very minor issue unless you are using a super telephoto lens?

There is a practical reason that no one else makes a camera like this! I have been looking for a P&S that had a APSC sensor, but not one on steroids that is as inconvenient to carry as a DSLR, much like Sony's NEX-7 and it's huge IS lenses.

Marc's design theory from his website is, "Style using smooth flowing lines, translucency, transparency and tending to have an absence of sharp edges", which to be honest I really don't see in this design effort.

Since there isn't a view finder, I would be concerned about shutter lag, or even worse, view window freeze when trying to focus on a moving object like all other cameras like this I have used.

I would never purchase one of these at any price point.

Tom

---

Last edited by TomE; 02-02-2012 at 10:24 AM. Reason: New Thoughts

[Monkey Mash Button]

-How would you rate the look overall?

I like the look. It's definitely different! It's a 4 for me.

-Does the 40mm fit the camera well?

Nosir, I don't like it. It looks cheap. If someone is looking for pocketable, I'll bet they don't get the K-01 with the new 40mm. And if it only works on the K-01, I don't want it.

-Are you planning on buying one based on what you've read about it in the official announcement?

A little background info: I'm currently sporting a (used) K-x as my first DSLR. I've acquired a few K-mount lenses (I've only just begun!) My previous camera was a Sony superzoom; it had a wee-tiny EVF, so I shot from the LCD most of the time. The Sony HX1 took better video than the K-x, BTW, and more easily too, which I appreciated.

So all signs point to me being a perfect prospect for the K-01.
...however $750 isn't in the budget at this time, so I'll stick it out and see if the K-r gets a successor.

-In buying a camera, how important is the look compared to the features? Very important, somewhat important, or unimportant?

I'll say 'somewhat' here. If it has the features I want, then the look is a nice plus.

-How do you think people who've never heard of Pentax would react to this camera?

If they've never heard of Pentax, then they're not camera snobs (who would frown disapprovingly at the K-01). For the uninitiated though, different is good. There are a lot of average-Joe DSLR owners who assume that my K-x is fancier / more expensive than their shiny Cannikon (it must be my lens hood!)

[Alizarine]

-How would you rate the look overall?
The look... 2.75. Nope, I hoped for a thinner kind of brick. It looks somewhat like my K-x with rearranged buttons and no VF. I don't like that space under the hotshoe and above the LCD. Kinda annoys me that it's a waste of space.. there's a bulge and nothing (not even a button) in it. Not that I want the back to look that cramped, but I was really really hoping that a flash bulge like that would contain an EVF or yeah even just a button will do. Another thing is the rubber doors for the cards and ports. How long can such a thing last? Sure, the body is metal, but the doors? I wouldn't want it to hang open 10 years later. Big mistake there, Pentax...

-Does the 40mm fit the camera well?
Yes. Nice design there. HOpefully it did not affect performance.

-Are you planning on buying one based on what you've read about it in the official announcement?
I'll wait for others to review it first. Or when a sample comes up in the trusty Pentax store near my place.

-In buying a camera, how important is the look compared to the features? Very important, somewhat important, or unimportant?
Looks is not that important versus performance, (so that's "somewhat important) but at least it should look somewhat very acceptable especially for the target market. Sure, Newson's a great industrial designer, but cameras are tools... and not many photographers are like "art elitists"....

-How do you think people who've never heard of Pentax would react to this camera?
"That sure looks toyish."
"Oh, a bulky point-and-shoot.. wait, the lens is detachable?"
"What on earth is that?!"
"Sure feels better than it looks..."

First off, I bet people who would see this would find the design strange. Not retro, not too futuristic nor too contemporary and nowhere near conventional. So, "strange" is my word for it. Of course, if the camera performs very well, people would react very positively next. Now, this is all coming from an SLR point of view. For digital P&S people who've never used an SLR before, this might be a gem for them.

[Lhubbell68]

To answer your questions:

-How would you rate the look overall?
For look it is ok, not really impressed. The designer is "one of the most sought after" maybe he should stay away from cameras in the future.

-Does the 40mm fit the camera well?
The lens does fit "this" camera well.

-Are you planning on buying one based on what you've read about it in the official announcement?
Do I plan on buying one that would be a big NO. Since I shoot most of my photos outdoors a viewfinder is a must the screens on the back are too hard to see outdoors. Plus I find I can brace the camera better when it is up to my face.

-In buying a camera, how important is the look compared to the features? Very important, somewhat important, or unimportant?
To me the features, capabilities and ease of use of a specific camera far out weigh the "look". If it is pretty but not useful then it is a waste of money.

-How do you think people who've never heard of Pentax would react to this camera?
I don't see this as being a camera to draw people in. Especially not for someone looking for a Pro level camera. I really hope this is not the new direction Pentax is taking, if so I will start saving to replace my entire system.

[piledon]

It looks like a P&S with exchangeable lenses. Nothing sleek or sexy about it at all...it's kinda ... chunky. Yuk.

In addition, for live concert photography (and probably other situations) this is a non-starter. I need a viewfinder; especially in stealth and grossly back-lit situations using a screen like this to frame the shot simply doesn't work. In addition, for those of us over 40 whose eyes are not able to close-focus without optical aid, this is a total pain in the ass. On the other hand, I like the price and features.

[tohax]

From my point of view as a graphic designer (not industrial designer), I have some several thingkings about the body design:

1. remove the chimney-like column under the mode dial, it doesn't look good there, and can interfere the fingers holding the grip. move the dial more to the center of the depth.
2. add a rear thumb molding for more comfortable holding hand. maybe like that of Q's.
3. I'm concerned about the flash position, it will definitely blocking anything attached to the hotshoe.
4. the shutter button position at the top make it a little uncomfortable to reach, why not make it like that of dslr's.
5. I prefer it to be thinner, even if it must lengthen the body a little.

anyway, I salute pentax for this sensational and revolutionary approach. the new lens design is just excellent for me.
hope to see other great products coming.

Toha

[REM]

-How would you rate the look overall?
Overall, first impression is that it is ugly. I did warm up to it after a couple of views and its not as bad as I originally thought. However I do not like that there is no OVF/EVF, and that the rear controls (rear buttons/d-pad) layout is not arranged like the K-7/K-5 (drive/flash-mode/wb buttons in different spots, AE-L button could be better in the upper corner,etc). On a really sunny day how are we supposed to look at apertures/shutter speed/lightmeter if the rear LCD is washed out because of the brightness?

-Does the 40mm fit the camera well?
First impression was that it looked "snubnose revolver"-like. But I think it looks ok. They made a small lens even smaller.

-Are you planning on buying one based on what you've read about it in the official announcement?
No. I am quite happy with my K-7 at the moment and it is still working great for me. If I was without my K-7 due to theft,damage, etc, I do not think I would buy a K-01, mainly due to lack of viewfinder and some specs that a K-5 has that K-01 doesn't.

-In buying a camera, how important is the look compared to the features? Very important, somewhat important, or unimportant?
Electronic specs/features are very important. Look is somewhat important if the specs/features are real good. Like I mentioned, at first sight it was ugly. After a couple of views it wasn't as bad as I thought. Similar K-5 specs helped. If it had a viewfinder and more K-5 specs (weathersealing,etc), I wouldnt care how it looked.

-How do you think people who've never heard of Pentax would react to this camera?
They will go with their first guy reaction: This is ugly. Move along. Those that haven't moved along and still somewhat interested, will look or wait for other brand cameras with viewfinders (Fuji, Olympus, etc). Result is a smaller percentage of those who are interested.

[Winder]

-How would you rate the look overall?
3 out 5. It looks 10x better than I expected from the rumors, but it is still a pretty uninspiring piece of plastic.
-Does the 40mm fit the camera well?
I guess. Do we need a 3rd 40mm Pentax lens? It is of little interest to me.
-Are you planning on buying one based on what you've read about it in the official announcement?
Not unless the AF is lighting fast/accurate and the high ISO is a stop better than the K-5. If that is the case then I don't give a damn how ugly it is. I'll buy it.
-In buying a camera, how important is the look compared to the features? Very important, somewhat important, or unimportant?
Unimportant. As I said above, if the camera has lightning fast/accurate AF and excellent high ISO/DR then it can be as ugly as the Q and I will buy it.
-How do you think people who've never heard of Pentax would react to this camera?
They will think it looks like another Pentax toy. It would be a good low-profile camera for people who don't want to be taken seriously or ignored in public. This can be good for certain types of photography. Street or traveling in an area where theft is a concern this would be a good camera to take.

[fstdslrkx]

1) Looks overall:
To me it looks pretty good, kind of "built for purpose" appearance. I"d say 4.
2) 40mm fitting:
No problems there too, however frankly i would much rather see slightly smaller 21mm. It would be both a bit bigger (since 40mm XS is ridiculously small) and more practical.
3) Buying it:
Nope. Got a K-5 and happy with it. However since this release and lens road map clearly show that there would be support for K-mount,there would be 35 ltd with a new home pretty soon.
4) Looks vs features:
Clearly a personal opinion, but both are important. Would buy an ugly camera with super functionality, but not a beautiful camera that works much worse then a competition though.
5) Non-Pentax crowd vs K-01:
Ok. Lens variety is huge plus. Size and especially lack of EVF huge minus. Price can decide the outcome between two, and so far it is ok. Not going to be a K-X hit, but expect to be sold better then K-R.