Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-04-2012, 04:22 PM   #46
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Mexico
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,125
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
Well, then let me explain. The market this is being targeted at is all about being sleek, slim, and fashionable. Large cameras do not sell.

Compared with the Panasonic GF3 the K-01 is 12% wider, 18% taller, 82% thicker and more than double the weight. I'm thinking that's going to be a hard sell.
And I'm thinking that the chunky styling will set it apart from the competition and, thus, will catch people's attention more than another look-alike camera. From a functional standpoint, the thicker body will make the camera much easier to hold. In any case, it is not a big camera. Someone has posted size comparisons with the K-5, which is pretty compact for an SLR, and the K-01 is significantly smaller.

Rob

02-05-2012, 01:24 AM   #47
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,611
QuoteOriginally posted by v5planet Quote
I've occasionally wondered if Pentax uses their own equipment to take product photos. Wouldn't it be funny if they didn't?
I think they do. Canon and Nikon however... I mean they only have full frame cameras, while Pentax can use the 645D.

I prefer the silver or white/black combinations... they are stunning. Striking, but not too striking. (Also there is a dog that always runs away from my black camera... a less black one would probably help).

The bright colors could grab attention in stores, it is a good looking camera too. Then when people hold it in hands they may think... feels better than the others which are a bit uncomfortable to hold. What Pentax needs is a 18-55 that extends into the "mirror box". Make it the same dimensions as the NEX-5 with a 18-55, just that the Pentax is more balanced and easier to grip.

Perhaps also release photos with old lenses... like really old. Retro stuff. Good looking, old lenses. Just to show people what is possible.
02-05-2012, 02:40 AM   #48
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
Well, then let me explain. The market this is being targeted at is all about being sleek, slim, and fashionable. Large cameras do not sell.

Compared with the Panasonic GF3 the K-01 is 12% wider, 18% taller, 82% thicker and more than double the weight. I'm thinking that's going to be a hard sell.
Compare camera dimensions side by side

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 is 2% (3 mm) wider and 13% (10.6 mm) taller than Pentax K-01.
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 is 28% (16.8 mm) thicker than Pentax K-01.


So it all depends what camera you are comparing to. If people claim that GH2 is small than K01 is smaller by the yardstick you chose.


Further if smaller is what you are after than Q is what you want because:

Compare camera dimensions side by side

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 is 10% (9.7 mm) wider and 17% (9.6 mm) taller than Pentax Q.
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 is 5% (1.5 mm) thicker than Pentax Q.


So the way you were against Q because it has smaller sensor, I am guessing you will not be a hypocrite and embrass K01 because it has larger sensor, it is mirrorless and it is smaller than at least 1 m43 camera.
02-05-2012, 07:22 AM   #49
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
So it all depends what camera you are comparing to.
Well, no doubt. Thanks for the truism! I thought I'd pick a competitive camera based on features and target market, since that's what buyers will be doing. I have never recommended anyone buy the GH2, so why would I compare to that?

QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
So the way you were against Q because it has smaller sensor, I am guessing you will not be a hypocrite and embrass K01 because it has larger sensor, it is mirrorless and it is smaller than at least 1 m43 camera.
You are correct, I won't be a hypocrite, though thanks for the insinuation! (Is that the only way you can try to win an argument?)

It would be especially hard for me to be a hypocrite on this point since I was never "against Q [sic] because it has [sic] smaller sensor". I was against it since it's an over-priced toy. I have nothing against small sensors but can buy two or three small sensor cameras for the price of the Q, all with proven track records and acclaim.


Last edited by rparmar; 02-05-2012 at 05:52 PM.
02-05-2012, 07:42 AM   #50
Pentaxian
zantaphia's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Skövde, Skaraborg
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 489
QuoteOriginally posted by Darlene Quote
I might buy one. They grow on you!
+1 on the might buy part. I liked it from the first photos. Maybe because I've driven Volvos for the last 30 years? ;-)
02-05-2012, 08:28 AM - 1 Like   #51
Pentaxian
konraDarnok's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Photos: Albums
Posts: 961
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
The MFT sensor is substantially the same as APS-C and will take pictures that are every bit as good. Please explain how this is apples to oranges?

On the other hand, the Pentax Q is nowhere near the same and suffers from enormous compromises in IQ, while costing much more than what other capable small-sensor cameras cost. I think that was what people complained about.

Small bodies and big lenses may not make sense to you, but how does an oversize body with those same lenses make any more sense?

Your assertions of "substantially the same" and "enormous compromises" are completely subjective. I have no idea how to reply to this, because I have no idea what you're using for these judgements. It seems to me, however, that even compared to 4/3 offerings, the K-01 is on par in terms of size.

And I simply disagree the body is 'oversized.' It's pretty small, but at least if I attach anything but a pancake on it, I can hold it comfortably.
02-05-2012, 06:21 PM   #52
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by konraDarnok Quote
Your assertions of "substantially the same" and "enormous compromises" are completely subjective. I have no idea how to reply to this, because I have no idea what you're using for these judgements.
Well, then, let me explain. I am using measurements of the sensor sizes. This is not subjective. And I follow up by looking at actual images. Which is rather more subjective, but not really.

Relative to 35mm, APS-C has an equivalence factor of 1.53 and MFT is 1.96. There's a difference, but I would defy you to see it in actual photos. (I've tried and I can, sometimes.) I label this "substantially the same", since I don't want to falsely say they are "the same". There are differences in noise, etc. and images from some sensors are more malleable than others. But still, to all intents and purposes, in real images, they are both equally useful.

Yes, even the bokeh effects, while different, do not favour one or the other. If they do... they favour MFT. I don't really know why, but I have tests on my blog and that is the only conclusion one can draw after looking at real images. It's something to do with magnification, apparently.

Meanwhile the Pentax Q has an equivalence factor of 5.55. That is not even on the same planet. Once again, I can clearly see this in images. These have nowhere near the same level of detail, are relatively full of noise, etc. Since I have confidence in your powers of observation, I'm quite sure you would be able to see it too.

(Full disclosure: since I wasn't silly enough to buy a Q, I've relied on other people's images for this comparison.)

I could also mention that all Q lenses are diffraction-limited at all apertures, some severely. That's just sad. And that the best equivalent aperture you can muster is something like f/10 (I forget -- look it up on my blog). Which is why they resort to a fake bokeh setting. Oh, the pain!

My conclusion is that shooting with the Q is indeed an "enormous compromise". I have no idea how that could be a contentious statement. Does anyone really expect a point and shoot sensor to compete with a much larger sensor?

Now, some may wish to make that compromise. That is a different matter. But pretending it isn't a compromise is demonstrably wrong and not a matter of opinion.
02-05-2012, 07:30 PM - 1 Like   #53
Veteran Member
anthony mazzeri's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 312
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
Well, then let me explain. The market this is being targeted at is all about being sleek, slim, and fashionable. Large cameras do not sell.

Compared with the Panasonic GF3 the K-01 is 12% wider, 18% taller, 82% thicker and more than double the weight. I'm thinking that's going to be a hard sell.
Easy sell for me. I'm buying it, but I'm not in the market you and others keep insisting this camera is for. I'll be replacing my D7000 with a K-01. I still have the bigger DSLR as well as the GXR as my 'compact', so I've been wanting to swap the smaller DSLR for something lighter and more portable to lighten my overall load. The K-5 was just like-for-like while the K-r and D3100 were lacking, so my final option was the D5100.

So the K-01 didn't just catch the eye of a fashionista, or win over a P&S upgrader or even edge out an entry-level DSLR buyer. You can quote me on this - the K-01 has just beaten Nikon's current best-selling mid-level DSLR for a sale.

The UK Pentax guy who spouted that nonsense about 'fashion' is of the same demographic as the rest of the people who just don't seem to grasp the K-01 so have to slot it into shallow stereotypes to try to fathom who will buy it, eg fashionistas, P&S'ers etc.. He should be 'promoted sideways' and let someone who actually gets it take over.

Being sick and tired of carrying big heavy cameras doesn't necessarily equate to wanting the smallest possible. Smaller is definitely good, but not too small. I really think some of the larger lenses on the tiny NEX body look very unbalanced so there's such a thing as too much miniaturization.

And likewise, being sick and tired of boring amorphous black cameras doesn't necessarily equate to wanting fashion. Just more inspiring industrial design. Fresh and different for a change after ten years of every DSLR trying to look like the D1. Like for 20 years every computer was beige to copy the Apple II, until Apple themselves freshened it up with the colourful iMacs. And guess what, they dumped the foppy drive, omg! It wasn't the fashionistas who bought those iMacs, just people who were heartily sick of beige. If the Pentax UK guy doesn't understand 'sick of the same old boring thing', then he doesn't understand Pentax' future market now, which is everybody - except elderly Olympus and Fuji retro camera buyers. .

I'd like to go full frame one day but the appearance of the D4 and 1DX just fills me with horror, while the appearance of the K-01 fills me with happy thoughts. I'm looking forward to the FF version.

02-05-2012, 07:53 PM   #54
Pentaxian
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
The MFT sensor is substantially the same as APS-C and will take pictures that are every bit as good. Please explain how this is apples to oranges?
I think you are seriously under estimating the sensor size difference (53%) and the impact that size difference has on IQ.
02-06-2012, 06:25 AM   #55
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by anthony mazzeri Quote
Easy sell for me. I'm buying it, but I'm not in the market you and others keep insisting this camera is for.
It's not me insisting on what market the camera is for. It's Pentax.
02-06-2012, 06:33 AM   #56
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by twitch Quote
I think you are seriously under estimating the sensor size difference (53%) and the impact that size difference has on IQ.
Have you actually done any tests or compared images yourself? Have you read any of my articles on the subject that illustrate in great detail what I am claiming here? Or are you just making assumptions based on your own bias?

I know exactly what compromises I am making using an MFT sensor versus APS-C. Just like I know (less exactly) the compromises of APS-C versus my medium format camera. And they are very minor, as I have already explained at length.

I am rather tired of people who think they can argue evidence with lazy opinions. Enjoy living in your Pentax bubble! The rest of us will choose the best tool for the job, regardless of brand.
02-06-2012, 07:19 AM   #57
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,767
Quality differences aside (which I am not in a position to evaluate) Robin's point is close to my impression as well.

If my old eyes are giving up the viewfinder, I want the camera to be a lot smaller, rather than just a little smaller than my Kx.
02-06-2012, 07:53 AM   #58
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
let me get this straight, what possibly Robin is trying to say is that the best image quality from an MFT camera at a certain ISO level is not that far from the best image quality on an APS-C sensor. we know exactly what are the compromises here such as FOV, MP resolution limitations, DOF, DR and High ISO quality. but I think those are not the parameters that Robin is not aware of and trying to point out but best IQ detail a camera could produce.

to be more clearer, let's say an image shot from a 12MP MFT at base ISO or 200 will have an almost or near level of IQ as that of an equal size 12 MP image from an APS-C camera. this is not improbable cause the MFTs do produce great images as well only it has to deal with certain compromises.

as stated by Robin, the Q displayed much or a lot more compromises and IQ is not that as good as produced from either MFTs nor APS-Cs. I myself disliked the Q very much. and it's no wonder why the much smaller sensors on P&S cameras are ridiculously poor. I think the gap between P&S and Q are much close with respect to IQ, compared to Q and MFT.
02-06-2012, 11:38 AM   #59
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 310
I wasn't really even the least bit interested in the yellow version of this camera but I am now having second thoughts. Maybe it is the comments about being different and standing out in a crowd. Maybe it is growing tired of all black all the time. Maybe because I am in Steelers country and I know I could be a great brand ambassador for Pentax just because of the colors and the attention it would get around here!!! It would be really cool though if the colors were interchangeable. So depending on my mood, time of the year, or coordination with wardrobe or an event I could change out the color panels to red or blue or orange or black or yellow.
02-06-2012, 02:17 PM   #60
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
Well, no doubt. Thanks for the truism! I thought I'd pick a competitive camera based on features and target market, since that's what buyers will be doing. I have never recommended anyone buy the GH2, so why would I compare to that?
May be to be objective for once. People do buy GH2 and claim that they have bought it because it is smaller.


QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
You are correct, I won't be a hypocrite, though thanks for the insinuation! (Is that the only way you can try to win an argument?)

It would be especially hard for me to be a hypocrite on this point since I was never "against Q [sic] because it has [sic] smaller sensor". I was against it since it's an over-priced toy. I have nothing against small sensors but can buy two or three small sensor cameras for the price of the Q, all with proven track records and acclaim.
First, the over priced toy is your opinion and NOT a fact. Two things (1) Q is not a toy for a fact, it takes pictures and thus it is a camera (2) overprice is all relative, for what Q is offering it is very cheap.
I will give you 1000$ more on price of Q if you can shrink any mirrorless (ILC) to the size of Q without shrinking the sensor. So for those who want a really pocketable solution Q is very cheap.

This is the way I see it, if smaller than m43 (ie Q) you have a problem and if it is larger than some of m43s (ie K01) you have a problem with it, seems to me an m43 is what you want so you should buy it.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
ad, k-01, k01, mirrorless, pentax k-01, pf
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Casey Anthony Appealing Conviction For Lying To Police jogiba General Talk 28 08-03-2011 07:24 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:08 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top