[twitch]

It's not a matter of print size and resolution, who gives a toss about that? Its a matter of FOV and DOF. Something m4/3s can't match APSC, or APSC match FF at either.

[pingflood]

Im sure its more than capable of excellent quaility prints, just like many other crop sensor camera's on the market.

I like FF for the DOF possiblities, its as simple as that.

Well, the Voigtländer 25/0.95 (though expensive!) helps a bit with DOF control on smaller formats, so there are some options.

[Frogfish]

Well, since you are now starting with personal attacks, maybe you can tell me what "utter BS" I posted?

Sorry - I probably shouldn't have included you in that generalisation. However these comments you made are not exactly objective (EDITED) are they :

You guys seem to be clutching at straws to defend this Duplo brick of a camera that no one in their right mind can argue is a good idea.

and now a chunky viewfinderless camera "for designers" that somehow marries the disadvantages of both SLR and mirrorless.

[Frogfish]

Having to refute BS (or whatever it maybe for that matter) may very well stem from insecurity. That is all I am saying.

Or it could be that some of us just hate to see ridiculous and unfair deeds and comments and feel compelled to speak up in their/it's defence, no matter what the subject or arena.

[Fontan]

Sorry - I probably shouldn't have included you in that generalisation. However these comments you made are not exactly subjective are they :

At least nobody is calling anybody opinionated idiots any more.

[Frogfish]

It's not a matter of print size and resolution, who gives a toss about that? Its a matter of FOV and DOF. Something m4/3s can't match APSC, or APSC match FF at either.

+1 to that.

[pingflood]

Sorry - I probably shouldn't have included you in that generalisation. However these comments you made are not exactly subjective are they :

I think you meant "not exactly objective" and you'd be right. As a former Pentax user I am pretty pissed off when seeing what is being released today. Pentax has traditionally been a photographers' brand, but now they are floundering around releasing what amounts to downright bizarre products (in my opinion).

That is bad enough, but then people immediately rush to crap all over all of the potentially competitive products in some effort to prove that "their" brand is still the best. Fuji releases an interesting camera, Olympus puts some effort into a pretty neat new m4/3 offering, and the "Pentaxians" can't wait to sh*t all over them just so they can feel better about what they are being handed.

[Frogfish]

At least nobody is calling anybody opinionated idiots any more.

*rolls eyes*

[Fontan]

Or it could be that some of us just hate to see ridiculous and unfair deeds and comments and feel compelled to speak up in their/it's defence, no matter what the subject or arena.

Hm . . . This is not a matter of life and death. No harm done even if not compelled to speak up. This is one of those things where the more you feel compelled, the more defensive you may appear to be. The thing of it is that there just aren't that much differences among ALL brands. No matter what you shoot with, your pictures will in the end look pretty much the same. Typically, the money is better spent on photography workshops or classes rather than blowing it on gears.

[Frogfish]

I think you meant "not exactly objective" and you'd be right. As a former Pentax user I am pretty pissed off when seeing what is being released today. Pentax has traditionally been a photographers' brand, but now they are floundering around releasing what amounts to downright bizarre products (in my opinion).

That is bad enough, but then people immediately rush to crap all over all of the potentially competitive products in some effort to prove that "their" brand is still the best. Fuji releases an interesting camera, Olympus puts some effort into a pretty neat new m4/3 offering, and the "Pentaxians" can't wait to sh*t all over them just so they can feel better about what they are being handed.

Yes I did, thank you for pointing out my typo.

I don't think any large MNC today (and Ricoh are certainly that) can afford to stand by 'principles or products' that are not growing the company or generating profit and to that end Pentax must keep up with the flow. What is definitely a Pentax trait is innovation and trail-blazing, even though under Hoya it has been relatively absent bar the Q (whilst not everyone's cup of tea and certainly not mine - though I may yet buy it for my adult daughter) which has actually sold very well in Asia but not so well in the West (it globally sold 24,000 units last month), and so here we now have the K-01 which could prove to be a resounding success or an abject failure, only time will tell.
What is undisputed is that Pentax have again brought to market a product which could prove to be perfect for the market segment it seems to be targeting, specifically young Asians (and probably other youngsters around the world) and P&S / Bridge upgraders looking for better IQ without the complexity of traditional DSLRs. It may not be a product for people of our generation or those more experienced in DSLR but that shouldn't be seen as a negative, rather than an expansion in Pentax's product range.

I don't think I've seen many posters at all dissing the XPro-1 based on specs , just price and AF lens availability, nor in fact MFT other than to compare the product to APS-C (so I'm afraid your comments are a little bit exaggerated).

[Frogfish]

This is one of those things where the more you feel compelled, the more defensive you may appear to be.

I think the 'eye of the beholder' analogy works well here.

The thing of it is that there just aren't that much differences among ALL brands. No matter what you shoot with, your pictures will in the end look pretty much the same. Typically, the money is better spent on photography workshops or classes rather than blowing it on gears.

Whilst I disagree that all pictures will look the same you are surely correct in saying education rather than superior/alternative tools will improve a person's photographic output to a far higher degree.

[Fontan]

I think the 'eye of the beholder' analogy works well here.



Whilst I disagree that all pictures will look the same you are surely correct in saying education rather than superior/alternative tools will improve a person's photographic output to a far higher degree.

Obviously between 645d and P&S, the diffrerences may not be subtle to the average viewers. But, within the similar classes and comparative price ranges, one will be pressed to consistently notice the difference.

What you say about the eyes of the beholders is very true; but I get the feeling by reading many posts here that that "beholder" is the shooter him/herself, not the audience/viewers that one is presenting to. One may sincerely believe that he sees clear difference between this gear or that, but in most cases that is simply a bias that has been worked up by his own values and beliefs. To me, that is secondary.

[Rondec]

Fair enough, I was making more of a general observation, and should have skipped quoting your post.

Either way, I was completely against 4/3 for a long time; then I read some interesting articles from accomplished photographers who claimed the print quality--even at larger sizes--from 4/3 sensors was sufficient for them, and it got me digging into the subject a bit more. Well, turns out that current 4/3 cameras will produce absolutely excellent prints at least at the sizes (13x19) I generally print at. So unless I am sitting staring at 100% crops on the computer I would not find 4/3 lacking in any way.

Of course I still like (and will continue to use) FF since my legacy lenses are "right" on that format, but if one considers just the camera system (without taking into account adapting older glass etc) it looks at least to me as if m4/3 is completely sufficient image quality wise. Now, tracking autofocus and such I doubt is there yet nor will be for some time, so it is not all roses... (but that is a camera disadvantage, not a sensor size disadvantage!)

I think the point that has been made (several times in this thread) is that keeping the k mount for this camera also leaves the door open for Pentax to release a k mount full frame SLR in the future. If this had been a completely different mount, the odds of that happening would diminish logarithmically as they tried to design lenses for the new mount. There are always people who say that one sensor size or another is "good enough." Certainly in good light it is hard to tell the difference -- depth of field is often the best way. Still would like to see Pentax release a full frame camera at some point, just to fill out the line a little better, but whether or not it happens remains to be seen.

[ogl]

I think K-01, OM-D and X-Pro 1 are different cameras with different philosophy and with different niche.

OM-D - it's like small DSLR - top-camera for m4/3 - if we compare with Pentax - we should compare with K-5's replacement. I think it will better in every aspects than OM-D.
OM-D is not K-01 niche.

X-Pro1 is stylized retro digital rangerfinder from Fuji. Top system from Fuji. Original. Nothing to compare.

K-01 is absolutely different mentality...It's like P&S camera with K-mount.

As for me - I can't compare so different machines...

[johnmflores]

Also, John: Comparing the K-01 with a 7d? Really? Try the 600D instead which has the same sensor and is more entry level oriented. You guys seem to be clutching at straws to defend this Duplo brick of a camera that no one in their right mind can argue is a good idea.

Did you even read my post? My Canon friend (a 1D shooting pro) did not even consider the entry level Canons.