Come on guys...it's ugly

jct us101 · 02-02-2012, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by Paul MaudDib

Not only is it huge and ugly, it's worse than the NEX-5N in basically every way. Why didn't they make it thinner, and then make an official "pass-through" K-mount adapter that can autofocus? Now you have to carry around a K-mount sized camera no matter what.

The other cool part of a forum is you don't tell people what to do.

**monochrome** · 02-02-2012, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by arnie0674

I think the black and yellow one is beautiful

+1 ++3

séamuis · 02-02-2012, 03:21 PM - **1 Like**

this thread is just a sad attempt at trolling. pretty much like all of the OP's threads. it should be locked.

but since its still open, ill say that while I think its pretty ugly in a traditional camera sense, I think its pretty unique and if you take the time to understand Marc Newsons design philosophy, its actually pretty cool. I think its better looking than anything olympus has come up with in the last 10 years, so thats saying a lot, considering I don't really care for the design of the K-01.

also for the record, pugs are ugly dogs. VW beetles are one of the most beautiful vehicles ever designed (the very definition of 'classic' design) and the harrier jump jet is ugly in a cool way, much like the A-10 "Warthog".

Nass · 02-02-2012, 03:22 PM

I don't think serious photographers judge cameras by whether they're pretty or not. Pretty is nice but for me it's not the primary criteria of a camera's utility.

Yakim · 02-02-2012, 03:23 PM

I agree that it's not on the top of my "Most beautiful cameras" but I also do not care about it. All I care is how it handles when you shoot (ergonomics), which features does it have (value for money) and how the files look like.

ihasa · 02-02-2012, 03:24 PM

I want to like this camera, but I must admit there are maybe one or two too many unnecessarily 'ugly' design flourishes for me, personally. The stove-pipe selector dial - why? The rounded false prism hump. The outsize controls (they would make sense on a sub-aqua camera but...)

The specs provide a solid base though, and I look forward to a pared back version designed by Japanese engineers! It will look ugly, but in a purposeful way.

JinDesu · 02-02-2012, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by séamuis

this thread is just a sad attempt at trolling. pretty much like all of the OP's threads. it should be locked.

but since its still open, ill say that while I think its pretty ugly in a traditional camera sense, I think its pretty unique and if you take the time to understand Marc Newsons design philosophy, its actually pretty cool. I think its better looking than anything olympus has come up with in the last 10 years, so thats saying a lot, considering I don't really care for the design of the K-01.

also for the record, pugs are ugly dogs. VW beetles are one of the most beautiful vehicles ever designed (the very definition of 'classic' design) and the harrier jump jet is ugly in a cool way, much like the A-10 "Warthog".

Aha, I was trying to think of an ugly plane and completely forgot the Warthog! Thanks

Winder · 02-02-2012, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by JinDesu

I see how there is only one opinion in the world and no other opinions can exist.

I guess you're the kind of guy who thinks pugs are ugly, the volkswagon beetle is ugly, and the harrier jump jet is ugly.

Somethings are so ugly they are cute..... Pugs are one of those things..... The K01 is not. Its just ugly.

séamuis · 02-02-2012, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by ihasa

I want to like this camera, but I must admit there are maybe one or two too many unnecessarily 'ugly' design flourishes for me, personally. The stove-pipe selector dial - why? The rounded false prism hump. The outsize controls (they would make sense on a sub-aqua camera but...)

The specs provide a solid base though, and I look forward to a pared back version designed by Japanese engineers! It will look ugly, but in a purposeful way.

the problem with most peoples thinking on this camera is that you are approaching it from a photographers point of view. which is exactly how Pentax has alway approached their designs. but this camera wasn't designed by Pentax, it wasn't designed by photographers or engineers. it was designed by a designer. you have to really take some time to get to know Mr. Newson and his design philosophies before asking 'Why?' because you are aiming your questions and concerns with the design at the wrong people. this is almost completely the brainchild of a designer, not a camera company. that makes a huge difference in 'why', and it should be taken into account when questioning certain areas of the design. its not a Pentax really, at least not in philosophy. its a Marc Newson.

of course this isn't to say people can't have their opinions, I just think its important to get a better understanding of what it is first. if this had been the brainchild of Pentax engineers and designers, then I think we could all collectively be going 'uh, what is this?'

Paul MaudDib · 02-02-2012, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by jct us101

The other cool part of a forum is you don't tell people what to do.

Hey, feel free to buy it, I'm just a jerk on the internet who's here to point out that for the same money you could get a similar camera that's equal in pretty much every way and has a much larger potential library of the legacy lenses that Pentax was claiming are the big reason to buy this. By making the register distance super long, Pentax barred you from using those lenses. And it can't AF non-SDM lenses, which cuts the Pentax library even more.

**Ex Finn.** · 02-02-2012, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by JinDesu

Aha, I was trying to think of an ugly plane and completely forgot the Warthog! Thanks

The A-10 is ugly and effective. The AV-8 is just... ugly

. Maybe the K-01 turns out to be like the A-10.

kenafein · 02-02-2012, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by JinDesu

I see how there is only one opinion in the world and no other opinions can exist.

I guess you're the kind of guy who thinks pugs are ugly, the volkswagon beetle is ugly, and the harrier jump jet is ugly.

Man, I was with you until you mentioned pugs. Those things are ugly, and they give me the creeps.

nah · 02-02-2012, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by Paul MaudDib

Hey, feel free to buy it, I'm just a jerk on the internet who's here to point out that for the same money you could get a similar camera that's equal in pretty much every way and has a much larger potential library of the legacy lenses that Pentax was claiming are the big reason to buy this. By making the register distance super long, Pentax barred you from using those lenses. And it can't AF non-SDM lenses, which cuts the Pentax library even more.

mtansley · 02-02-2012, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by normhead

It's a camera ffs.

Well said.

Bramela · 02-02-2012, 03:54 PM - **1 Like**

To me, the only criteria that matters are the specifications. What lenses will it take? how does AF perform" what ISO does it provide for, etc etc.
Looks? think about it, if one says it is ugly, they are entitled to think so, but ugly only means you are worried of what others might think when you are out and about using it.

IMHO, stuff other people, if it performs up to or better than what I expect for the money, and produces expected, or better, results all is fine by me.

02-02-2012, 03:35 PM	#26
Ex Finn. Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Southern Maryland. Espoo. Kouvola. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,975	Originally posted by JinDesu Aha, I was trying to think of an ugly plane and completely forgot the Warthog! Thanks The A-10 is ugly and effective. The AV-8 is just... ugly. Maybe the K-01 turns out to be like the A-10.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Macro Ugly	J-Rod	Post Your Photos!	5	09-12-2011 08:04 PM
Nature Coyote Ugly	daacon	Post Your Photos!	10	07-26-2011 05:37 AM
Macro Ugly mug	yeatzee	Post Your Photos!	31	09-15-2010 12:21 AM
Macro She's got an ugly face ...	volley	Post Your Photos!	6	08-14-2010 12:32 PM
Ugly ducks with the ugly duckling lens	rfortson	Post Your Photos!	3	03-01-2007 03:43 PM

02-02-2012, 03:17 PM	#16
jct us101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Rohnert Park, CA Posts: 3,793 Original Poster	Originally posted by Paul MaudDib Not only is it huge and ugly, it's worse than the NEX-5N in basically every way. Why didn't they make it thinner, and then make an official "pass-through" K-mount adapter that can autofocus? Now you have to carry around a K-mount sized camera no matter what. The other cool part of a forum is you don't tell people what to do.

02-02-2012, 03:20 PM	#17
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by arnie0674 I think the black and yellow one is beautiful +1 ++3

02-02-2012, 03:21 PM - 1 Like	#18
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	this thread is just a sad attempt at trolling. pretty much like all of the OP's threads. it should be locked. but since its still open, ill say that while I think its pretty ugly in a traditional camera sense, I think its pretty unique and if you take the time to understand Marc Newsons design philosophy, its actually pretty cool. I think its better looking than anything olympus has come up with in the last 10 years, so thats saying a lot, considering I don't really care for the design of the K-01. also for the record, pugs are ugly dogs. VW beetles are one of the most beautiful vehicles ever designed (the very definition of 'classic' design) and the harrier jump jet is ugly in a cool way, much like the A-10 "Warthog".

02-02-2012, 03:22 PM	#19
Nass Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: The British Isles Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,402	I don't think serious photographers judge cameras by whether they're pretty or not. Pretty is nice but for me it's not the primary criteria of a camera's utility.

02-02-2012, 03:23 PM	#20
Yakim Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 29	I agree that it's not on the top of my "Most beautiful cameras" but I also do not care about it. All I care is how it handles when you shoot (ergonomics), which features does it have (value for money) and how the files look like.

02-02-2012, 03:24 PM	#21
ihasa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: West Midlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,066	I want to like this camera, but I must admit there are maybe one or two too many unnecessarily 'ugly' design flourishes for me, personally. The stove-pipe selector dial - why? The rounded false prism hump. The outsize controls (they would make sense on a sub-aqua camera but...) The specs provide a solid base though, and I look forward to a pared back version designed by Japanese engineers! It will look ugly, but in a purposeful way.

02-02-2012, 03:25 PM	#22
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Originally posted by séamuis this thread is just a sad attempt at trolling. pretty much like all of the OP's threads. it should be locked. but since its still open, ill say that while I think its pretty ugly in a traditional camera sense, I think its pretty unique and if you take the time to understand Marc Newsons design philosophy, its actually pretty cool. I think its better looking than anything olympus has come up with in the last 10 years, so thats saying a lot, considering I don't really care for the design of the K-01. also for the record, pugs are ugly dogs. VW beetles are one of the most beautiful vehicles ever designed (the very definition of 'classic' design) and the harrier jump jet is ugly in a cool way, much like the A-10 "Warthog". Aha, I was trying to think of an ugly plane and completely forgot the Warthog! Thanks

02-02-2012, 03:29 PM	#23
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Originally posted by JinDesu I see how there is only one opinion in the world and no other opinions can exist. I guess you're the kind of guy who thinks pugs are ugly, the volkswagon beetle is ugly, and the harrier jump jet is ugly. Somethings are so ugly they are cute..... Pugs are one of those things..... The K01 is not. Its just ugly.

02-02-2012, 03:31 PM	#24
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	Originally posted by ihasa I want to like this camera, but I must admit there are maybe one or two too many unnecessarily 'ugly' design flourishes for me, personally. The stove-pipe selector dial - why? The rounded false prism hump. The outsize controls (they would make sense on a sub-aqua camera but...) The specs provide a solid base though, and I look forward to a pared back version designed by Japanese engineers! It will look ugly, but in a purposeful way. the problem with most peoples thinking on this camera is that you are approaching it from a photographers point of view. which is exactly how Pentax has alway approached their designs. but this camera wasn't designed by Pentax, it wasn't designed by photographers or engineers. it was designed by a designer. you have to really take some time to get to know Mr. Newson and his design philosophies before asking 'Why?' because you are aiming your questions and concerns with the design at the wrong people. this is almost completely the brainchild of a designer, not a camera company. that makes a huge difference in 'why', and it should be taken into account when questioning certain areas of the design. its not a Pentax really, at least not in philosophy. its a Marc Newson. of course this isn't to say people can't have their opinions, I just think its important to get a better understanding of what it is first. if this had been the brainchild of Pentax engineers and designers, then I think we could all collectively be going 'uh, what is this?'

02-02-2012, 03:31 PM	#25
Paul MaudDib Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Michigan Posts: 294	Originally posted by jct us101 The other cool part of a forum is you don't tell people what to do. Hey, feel free to buy it, I'm just a jerk on the internet who's here to point out that for the same money you could get a similar camera that's equal in pretty much every way and has a much larger potential library of the legacy lenses that Pentax was claiming are the big reason to buy this. By making the register distance super long, Pentax barred you from using those lenses. And it can't AF non-SDM lenses, which cuts the Pentax library even more.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-02-2012, 03:37 PM	#27
kenafein Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Southern California Photos: Albums Posts: 4,082	Originally posted by JinDesu I see how there is only one opinion in the world and no other opinions can exist. I guess you're the kind of guy who thinks pugs are ugly, the volkswagon beetle is ugly, and the harrier jump jet is ugly. Man, I was with you until you mentioned pugs. Those things are ugly, and they give me the creeps.

02-02-2012, 03:40 PM	#28
nah Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: New Westminster, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 282	Originally posted by Paul MaudDib Hey, feel free to buy it, I'm just a jerk on the internet who's here to point out that for the same money you could get a similar camera that's equal in pretty much every way and has a much larger potential library of the legacy lenses that Pentax was claiming are the big reason to buy this. By making the register distance super long, Pentax barred you from using those lenses. And it can't AF non-SDM lenses, which cuts the Pentax library even more.

02-02-2012, 03:54 PM	#29
mtansley Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Ajax, Ontario, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,139	Originally posted by normhead It's a camera ffs. Well said.

02-02-2012, 03:54 PM - 1 Like	#30
Bramela Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Newcastle Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,284	To me, the only criteria that matters are the specifications. What lenses will it take? how does AF perform" what ISO does it provide for, etc etc. Looks? think about it, if one says it is ugly, they are entitled to think so, but ugly only means you are worried of what others might think when you are out and about using it. IMHO, stuff other people, if it performs up to or better than what I expect for the money, and produces expected, or better, results all is fine by me.