[jsherman999]

Because Canon and Nikon have really released strong contenders to the mirrorless market already, and Pentax's efforts end in 2012 with the K-01. Please.

You may not be happy with this offering, but please point me to the APS-C mirrorless cameras that Nikon and Canon currently offer. I am not aware of any. Also, it's called the K-zero-one for a reason. Expect changes and improvements to come in future iterations.

+1.

Nikon and Canon have not exactly burned up the track coming out of the gate. This is actually better than both their initial offerings.


.

[Paul MaudDib]

Unless Pentax switches away from K-mount with a hypothetical K-02, it will not be physically possible to make it that much smaller (which seems to be the main complaint people have with it). You need at least the register distance between the mount flange and the sensor. They could take off the fake viewfinder bump though, or add a real EVF (which may come as an addon, who knows?).

[causey]

Unless Pentax switches away from K-mount with a hypothetical K-02, it will not be physically possible to make it that much smaller (which seems to be the main complaint people have with it).

My complaint goes something like this: K-mount, good, perfect--I can use my lenses on this camera! BUT since you had to make it large and heavy, why did you release it without a viewfinder?

[redrockcoulee]

Is a FF the only thing Canon or Nikon makes? No, but the lack of full frame is a serious hole in any professional camera lineup. They produced a camera with an even bigger sensor and a much smaller target market (the 645D). There's plenty of full frame sensors available on the market, that is no excuse at all. Doesn't Nikon buy most of their sensors from Sony?

e: And lol a 500 C/M back isn't even in the same price range as the 645D, you could probably buy three C/Ms complete with back/lens for the price of one 645D. Personally I'd go with a half dozen Pentax 67s instead. As far as I'm concerned, the existence of the 645D is perfect proof that the market would support a FF pentax DSLR.

Firstly, yes I got 4 backs for $65 however as we were talking about the 645D and not the 645N I was also referring to digital backs such as the CFV16, 39 or 50. Actually the 645D went into an open area of the market, an inexpensive digital MF and therefore there was an opening for the product with little or no competition. Nikon and Canon already had a huge professional base from the film days in which to plug the FF digital. For Pentax FF to compete the company needed to produce a large number of new lenses plus places to rent lenses etc whereas the 645D eases into an area where there is little choice at their price range. It is not a matter of if Pentax can make a camera but if they can make room in the market for them. And it is all beside the point as the K-01 is not made to replace FF nor was the Q. The 645D might have been and Pentax is most likely right in there was more room for them in MF than in FF especially with the slower AF they currently have.
But all that is beside the point, Pentax made this camera as they think there is a market for it. If the AF is much faster and better with the K-01 it makes sense that the larger volume of sales will more quickly make R&D back than the low volume FF. So why dump on this camera because it is totally different animal from what you personally want? It sounds like only FF will do for you and until they make you one they should not make any new models for the rest of us.

[hcarvalhoalves]

hcarvalhoalves:

Nah, thanks for the offer, but I'm not interested right now. Like I said, I wanted the NX10 that was released on another parallel universe, where Samsung-Pentax actually had a clue and released a K-mount mirrorless with SR and EVF

[Paul MaudDib]

Firstly, yes I got 4 backs for $65 however as we were talking about the 645D and not the 645N I was also referring to digital backs such as the CFV16, 39 or 50. Actually the 645D went into an open area of the market, an inexpensive digital MF and therefore there was an opening for the product with little or no competition. Nikon and Canon already had a huge professional base from the film days in which to plug the FF digital. For Pentax FF to compete the company needed to produce a large number of new lenses plus places to rent lenses etc whereas the 645D eases into an area where there is little choice at their price range. It is not a matter of if Pentax can make a camera but if they can make room in the market for them. And it is all beside the point as the K-01 is not made to replace FF nor was the Q. The 645D might have been and Pentax is most likely right in there was more room for them in MF than in FF especially with the slower AF they currently have.
But all that is beside the point, Pentax made this camera as they think there is a market for it. If the AF is much faster and better with the K-01 it makes sense that the larger volume of sales will more quickly make R&D back than the low volume FF. So why dump on this camera because it is totally different animal from what you personally want? It sounds like only FF will do for you and until they make you one they should not make any new models for the rest of us.

Not to rain on you too hard here: I think it is unlikely the AF will be better than the K-5. You cannot do phase-detect AF on a mirrorless camera, so it will have contrast detect AF. It can be really good contrast detect AF, but it is harder to do it that way. Pentax actually does have a huge volume of existing K-mount lenses - they would just have to make a mechanical "feeler" for the aperture pin to un-cripple the KAF2 mount. Nikon has figured out how to do it, Ricoh could too.

Personally, again, I think the 645D proves there is room in the market for a Pentax FF DSLR. Something at the $1500-$2000 level would sell like hotcakes, since the new Canon/Nikon FF bodies come out at $2500+. Even used 5Ds still command what, $900 or so these days? That's a used, nearly 2-generation old camera.

But I don't know who the Pentax Q was for (hipsters?), and they still brought it to market. I'm really not sure it'll last, but who knows. This seems to be a really awkward straddle of the DSLR and Mirrorless classes, pleasing no one. I think I would have been much happier if Pentax made a really good NEX clone that could autofocus K-mount lenses with an adapter NEX-style. It would have been thinner/smaller and eliminated a lot of my complaints (the other big one being the extremely long register distance for a mirrorless camera). I'm a lot less displeased with it now that I know they're not dumping legacy lenses a second time - dumping screw AF lenses would be too far in my book.

I don't honestly know that Ricoh is much better than Hoya was. Look at their GXR system - they make the most expensive part of the camera interchangeable. You can buy a Leica-M mount module that doesn't mechanically read the focus cam, so it's basically a wannabe mirrorless anyway, for the low low price of $650. Or you can buy a kit lens for only $579, what a bargain! Same problem - it seems like they don't really think things through before they develop a product.

[snogglethorpe]

Why do I get the feeling that even if it had a EVF, there would be just as many complaints? Because "new camera day" always plays out the same way every time... it's sort of like when you know someone for a long time and you hear the same stories over and over. At the end of the day, this is the camera it is. I imagine it will develop over time if the sales are good enough. Some will hate, some will like, and others will take photos (maybe... just maybe... even in full sunlight.)

No.

I don't know about other posters, but blithely dismissing all critical comments as mere "hating" is the worst sort of fanboyism.

Everybody has their little gripes about new products, but this is a real, and significant issue for a camera. What do you expect people to do, just shut up and hum happy tunes?

It's certainly true that there are a lot of crappy EVFs out there, and if they had stuck one of those in, people would be (rightly) complaining about that. But there are also some absolutely brilliant EVFs out there too, e.g. the ones on the Nikon V1 and the Sony A77 (and reportedly the same tech in the latter is what's used for the NEX-7 and the NEX-5n add-on EVF).

Anyway, whether or not a VF is important to the K-01's target audience will eventually be revealed by its sales record...

[redrockcoulee]

Paul

Pentax could sell a lot of anything if it is better than the competition and priced at half of what Nikon Canon etc sell it for. To do so to a significantly smaller base may be difficult to obtain and still make a profit. if they make a 500 4.5 lens for that price I would buy one right now as well. I have read on line that Nikon's D3X should be half its price as well. Why companies have executives when all they need to do is read the forums and find out what products to make and how to price them and become extremely successful? Both the K-01 and 645D basically entered gaps in the market whereas the FF market is relatively due to the two power players having multiple models therefore Pentax needs to really undercut in price to compete. That is what I see as the problem with delivering a FF at a very low price which seems to be what many on these forums expect. The K-01 may be a much bigger volume seller which would provide a better ROI which will be plowed back to better cameras in every sector. I hope it succeeds even though I see no place for it in my camera bags, at least not at the present time.

[eddie1960]

Many (respected) people already stated in this forum that there won't be any EVF or OVF, which, if it ever existed, Pentax would be mentioning on the press release already (like they did with the Q). So I'm afraid this is just going to be a crippled camera.

There is no EVF option on the Flash mount. OVF is another story no reason there can't be, and i haven't seen a post saying that

[konraDarnok]

Unless Pentax switches away from K-mount with a hypothetical K-02, it will not be physically possible to make it that much smaller (which seems to be the main complaint people have with it). You need at least the register distance between the mount flange and the sensor. They could take off the fake viewfinder bump though, or add a real EVF (which may come as an addon, who knows?).

Why does it need to be smaller? Tiny camera bodies with large heavy lenses are not an asset -- and it's not as if the lenses shrink very much. The DA limited line is about as small as a lens gets for any registration distance if you're trying to cover an APS-C sensor.

[Rondec]

Not to rain on you too hard here: I think it is unlikely the AF will be better than the K-5. You cannot do phase-detect AF on a mirrorless camera, so it will have contrast detect AF. It can be really good contrast detect AF, but it is harder to do it that way. Pentax actually does have a huge volume of existing K-mount lenses - they would just have to make a mechanical "feeler" for the aperture pin to un-cripple the KAF2 mount. Nikon has figured out how to do it, Ricoh could too.

Personally, again, I think the 645D proves there is room in the market for a Pentax FF DSLR. Something at the $1500-$2000 level would sell like hotcakes, since the new Canon/Nikon FF bodies come out at $2500+. Even used 5Ds still command what, $900 or so these days? That's a used, nearly 2-generation old camera.

But I don't know who the Pentax Q was for (hipsters?), and they still brought it to market. I'm really not sure it'll last, but who knows. This seems to be a really awkward straddle of the DSLR and Mirrorless classes, pleasing no one. I think I would have been much happier if Pentax made a really good NEX clone that could autofocus K-mount lenses with an adapter NEX-style. It would have been thinner/smaller and eliminated a lot of my complaints (the other big one being the extremely long register distance for a mirrorless camera). I'm a lot less displeased with it now that I know they're not dumping legacy lenses a second time - dumping screw AF lenses would be too far in my book.

I don't honestly know that Ricoh is much better than Hoya was. Look at their GXR system - they make the most expensive part of the camera interchangeable. You can buy a Leica-M mount module that doesn't mechanically read the focus cam, so it's basically a wannabe mirrorless anyway, for the low low price of $650. Or you can buy a kit lens for only $579, what a bargain! Same problem - it seems like they don't really think things through before they develop a product.

I am afraid that you have made your ignorance of all things Pentax pretty clear in this thread. I happen to agree with you that the Q was a silly idea, but I also think that it is silly for Pentax just to go out and try to release cameras that mimic Canon/Nikon/Sony but with slightly different styling. If anything is a recipe for disaster, that is.

The Pentax K-01 is Pentax's first real salvo in the mirrorless wars and it is a strong effort in my opinion. I would say that within the next year they will release a slightly larger camera with EVF, but I don't really see the point. If the size and price are similar to the flagship camera's size and price (over a thousand dollars) and you can't mount any different lenses on the mirrorless than you can with the K5 successor, then you basically come down to the argument of EVF versus pentaprism OVF. That is a tough argument: power consumption, lag, brightness, all the rest and for me personally, I would take a good 100 percent pentaprism over an EVF at this point (not saying this won't change, but EVFs just aren't quite there in my opinion).

[ihasa]

In a parallel universe, where Pentax still made sense, they would have released this:

I agree completely... as a photographic tool, that works so much better. With an EVF the bulk of the camera is much more forgiveable, as it's now usable with, and balanced with, longer lenses. It's also now better optimised for video with the EVF. The prism hump now makes functional sense, and isn't a cheesy design afterthought. Straight away, the camera looks much better. Nice job.

[causey]

I would say that within the next year they will release a slightly larger camera with EVF, but I don't really see the point. If the size and price are similar to the flagship camera's size and price (over a thousand dollars) and you can't mount any different lenses on the mirrorless than you can with the K5 successor, then you basically come down to the argument of EVF versus pentaprism OVF. That is a tough argument: power consumption, lag, brightness, all the rest and for me personally, I would take a good 100 percent pentaprism over an EVF at this point (not saying this won't change, but EVFs just aren't quite there in my opinion).

Not if they make it a FF.

[hcarvalhoalves]

I agree completely... (...) Nice job.

Oh, thank you.

It's comforting to know more people can be critical when it comes to products, instead of just dismissing it as "ranting", or trying to justify it's flaws, or just being delusional altogether.

[sunny16]

I don't know about other posters, but blithely dismissing all critical comments as mere "hating" is the worst sort of fanboyism.
-Never used the word "hating"... I'm not that hip.

Everybody has their little gripes about new products, but this is a real, and significant issue for a camera. What do you expect people to do, just shut up and hum happy tunes?
- I actually don't have any gripes as I don't really know what the camera is capable of yet and my language was certainly nothing close to suggesting people should "shut up" and/or "hum."

It's certainly true that there are a lot of crappy EVFs out there, and if they had stuck one of those in, people would be (rightly) complaining about that. But there are also some absolutely brilliant EVFs out there too, e.g. the ones on the Nikon V1 and the Sony A77 (and reportedly the same tech in the latter is what's used for the NEX-7 and the NEX-5n add-on EVF).

Your response to what I wrote seems to be more aimed at what others have wrote. I merely commented that there would be (and has always been) complaints after a new camera comes out no matter what it was (probably because there's no way one camera could live up to the hopes and dreams of every single person out there.) It seemed to me that this thread (and many others) had sort of devolved into just ranting about the same thing over and over... nothing new of value was being added. If I seemed dismissive, it was more based on that fact. I'm happy that you're unhappy. Means there's more than one point of view in the world.

Anyway, whether or not a VF is important to the K-01's target audience will eventually be revealed by its sales record...
- I couldn't agree with you more. Best regards!