[eddie1960]

There are disadvantages as well, but at the end of the day, Pentax has carved out a unique value proposition. Now it's up to sales and marketing to close the deal.

Sadly this means unless things change it will do poorly in the US but be a hit in Japan and fall somewhere between in europe and canada

they need to hire you John

Actually i did hear somewhere on the forum that they were very proactive at CES with dealers which is a really good sign

[illdefined]

It the K-01 looked like an overgrown GX1 or a Samsung GX200 on 'roids then maybe I'd agree with you. But they've also got the unique design and lens lineup as clear differentiators. So when compared to other mirrorless, the K-01 stands in a unique position

vs. NEX
Easier to hold, better for bigger hands, more lenses to choose from, lenses compatible with dSLRs, unique design

vs. M43
Bigger sensor (with all of the assumed benefits), unique/contemporary design, more lenses, compatible with dSLRs

There are disadvantages as well, but at the end of the day, Pentax has carved out a unique value proposition. Now it's up to sales and marketing to close the deal.

That's why I think the K-01 sends out mixed messages. DSLR lens compatibility and high DxOMark ratings matter mostly to advanced photography customers, while its industrial design does the opposite. I understand that Pentax was trying to demystify interchangeable lens photography with such a unique and un-intimidating design but the price point remains intimidating, especially considering the entry level DSLR and upcoming mirrorless market.

[illdefined]

in my opinion, the key is to focus on recessed element lenses. Keeping some of the optics protruding into the body enables one to keep the same overall dimensions (ie body and lens) whilst having a more easy to handle body providing better balance for bigger lenses. Pentax really have an opportunity here - they need to advertise with present pancakes and new recessed elements zooms that are similar in size. That way they'll be the only company offering a truly compact solution. I am awaiting an improved version with EVF, and more sensible styling (even retro, LX-D please with sensor modules, ricoh are good at that). Is the K01 a good thing? Yes, if you don't like the design, at least it shows ricoh pentax's willingness to expand and diversify an increasingly congested market,

The K-01 makes sense being K-Mount because Pentax already has a full line of compact lens in the DA Limiteds. And the world is as yet unaware of them. The K-01 should've been shown with every DA Limited attached. Be truthful, was the 40 XS really necessary? Was the DA 40 too big for anybody? Instead of using the XS as a showpiece, they should've showcased the entire Limited lens line.

Yes, many of us are expecting a more 'serious' Mirrorless-K with tilt-LCD, EVF and second control dial. With only two color options, silver and black. That may come in the form of the GXRII-K or K-02, but I get that its too soon and Pentax has to protect its sole advanced product right now, the K-5.

[chaza01]

The K-01 makes sense being K-Mount because Pentax already has a full line of compact lens in the DA Limiteds. And the world is as yet unaware of them. The K-01 should've been shown with every DA Limited attached. Be truthful, was the 40 XS really necessary? Was the DA 40 too big for anybody? Instead of using the XS as a showpiece, they should've showcased the entire Limited lens line.

Yes, many of us are expecting a more 'serious' Mirrorless-K with tilt-LCD, EVF and second control dial. With only two color options, silver and black. That may come in the form of the GXRII-K or K-02, but I get that its too soon and Pentax has to protect its sole advanced product right now, the K-5.

I agree with you on as far as limited lenses are concerned, at least for marketing. BUT, they cost quite a bit and so a cheaper alternative was necessary (optimized for CDAF).

[johnmflores]

Sadly this means unless things change it will do poorly in the US but be a hit in Japan and fall somewhere between in europe and canada

they need to hire you John

Thanks for that! I'd love to work at Pentax - I'd tear it up!

[rparmar]

Oh look, it's yet another thread in which Laurentiu Cristofor and John Flores try to be reasonable while Pentax cheerleaders snipe from the sidelines! Pentax Forums is really getting predictable, and just to ensure that is true, here's Robin to say the obvious once again...

1. The primary advantage of mirrorless cameras is the compact size.
2. The K-mount ensures the K-01 and successors can never be as compact as the competition.
FAIL

1. The primary advantage of the K-mount is that one can use K-mount lenses.
2a) The K-01 is designed for designers (bad joke) and those moving up from point'n'shoot cameras (both according to Pentax), none of whom own K-mount lenses.
2b) And neither will they be able to find any in the shops.
FAIL

1. Two of the main Pentax advantages are weather-sealing and ergonomics.
2. The K-01 has given up weather-sealing and, as an entry-level camera, does not have the ergonomics of the K20D, K-5 etc.
FAIL

1. In a doomed effort to keep the kit size small, given the large body, Pentax have introduced the thinnest lens possible.
2. I have yet to meet a casual shooter who wants a telephoto as their first lens.
FAIL

The new Olympus OM-D system in all ways trumps the K-01 for about the same cost. The only exception might be in high ISO and high DR. And even then, the difference is insignificant in real-world shooting. (If it wasn't, then no-one would have been able to take photos before 2010.)

None of these are opinions, but observations from available facts.

So, back to the OP. IMO, Pentax should have joined the MFT consortium and introduced their own line of bodies to compete with Olympus and Panasonic. Given their investment in small primes and weather-sealing, they would have had a great opportunity to grab a piece of the pie. And of course they could have have released a K-mount adapter with AF coupling for those who need it.

[johnmflores]

Oh look, it's yet another thread in which Laurentiu Cristofor and John Flores try to be reasonable while Pentax cheerleaders snipe from the sidelines! Pentax Forums is really getting predictable, and just to ensure that is true, here's Robin to say the obvious once again...

1. The primary advantage of mirrorless cameras is the compact size.
2. The K-mount ensures the K-01 and successors can never be as compact as the competition.
FAIL

1. The primary advantage of the K-mount is that one can use K-mount lenses.
2a) The K-01 is designed for designers (bad joke) and those moving up from point'n'shoot cameras (both according to Pentax), none of whom own K-mount lenses.
2b) And neither will they be able to find any in the shops.
FAIL

1. Two of the main Pentax advantages are weather-sealing and ergonomics.
2. The K-01 has given up weather-sealing and, as an entry-level camera, does not have the ergonomics of the K20D, K-5 etc.
FAIL

1. In a doomed effort to keep the kit size small, given the large body, Pentax have introduced the thinnest lens possible.
2. I have yet to meet a casual shooter who wants a telephoto as their first lens.
FAIL

The new Olympus OM-D system in all ways trumps the K-01 for about the same cost. The only exception might be in high ISO and high DR. And even then, the difference is insignificant in real-world shooting. (If it wasn't, then no-one would have been able to take photos before 2010.)

None of these are opinions, but observations from available facts.

So, back to the OP. IMO, Pentax should have joined the MFT consortium and introduced their own line of bodies to compete with Olympus and Panasonic. Given their investment in small primes and weather-sealing, they would have had a great opportunity to grab a piece of the pie. And of course they could have have released a K-mount adapter with AF coupling for those who need it.

Sigh. You're obviously right on all points Robin, and stunningly succinct and devastatingly brilliant at the same time. We should all be ashamed of ourselves. We are not worthy. I don't know why you bother to bless us with your presence.

[illdefined]

The new Olympus OM-D system in all ways trumps the K-01 for about the same cost. The only exception might be in high ISO and high DR. And even then, the difference is insignificant in real-world shooting. (If it wasn't, then no-one would have been able to take photos before 2010.)

high ISO and high DR? who wants that? I imagine some of the same people who don't like constantly digitally undistorted pictures either. hate to break it to you, but IQ matters to a lot of people who take pictures. It's kinda the point.

So, back to the OP. IMO, Pentax should have joined the MFT consortium and introduced their own line of bodies to compete with Olympus and Panasonic. Given their investment in small primes and weather-sealing, they would have had a great opportunity to grab a piece of the pie. And of course they could have have released a K-mount adapter with AF coupling for those who need it.

And Pentax would've joined a crowded market late and underresourced. how long and how much would it have taken to make lenses for yet another mount? Pentax already supports four. I suppose you're also saying they should've just let K-mount wither away while they were at it right?

your avatar says you're a Pentaxian.
FAIL

[jake14mw]

The K-01 makes sense being K-Mount because Pentax already has a full line of compact lens in the DA Limiteds. And the world is as yet unaware of them. The K-01 should've been shown with every DA Limited attached. Be truthful, was the 40 XS really necessary? Was the DA 40 too big for anybody? Instead of using the XS as a showpiece, they should've showcased the entire Limited lens line.

Yes, many of us are expecting a more 'serious' Mirrorless-K with tilt-LCD, EVF and second control dial. With only two color options, silver and black. That may come in the form of the GXRII-K or K-02, but I get that its too soon and Pentax has to protect its sole advanced product right now, the K-5.

I don't think that most people that the K-01 is targeted for will be interested in spending a wad of money on the limiteds, especially the bigger ones, too expensive, too big. I think most people interested in this kind of camera would need a zoom covering roughly the 18-55 range. A small one taking advantage of the recessed element advantage. I think that's the big thing missing right now. Show how the overall size including a zoom matches the competition.

[illdefined]

I don't think that most people that the K-01 is targeted for will be interested in spending a wad of money on the limiteds, especially the bigger ones, too expensive, too big. I think most people interested in this kind of camera would need a zoom covering roughly the 18-55 range. A small one taking advantage of the recessed element advantage. I think that's the big thing missing right now. Show how the overall size including a zoom matches the competition.

how much is the premium over m4/3rds primes? Olympus has started to release better built, premium primes that are pretty comparable in cost. you're right tho, the price of the DA Limited has definitely gone up since I bought mine..

I used to think the DA 18-55 was so small. For this mirrorless application though, the recessed optics definitely make sense. Also makes sense if by recessing the Limited's formulas they also actively make them cheaper.

[Wheatfield]

I would like to know on what basis you claim that CDAF is more accurate than PDAF. That flies in the face of every user experience and design principle I've ever heard. There's a reason they put a phase-detect AF system in SLRs. It's perfectly possible for a SLR to use CDAF in live-view mode but PDAF is faster and more accurate.

Phase Detect AF was put into SLR cameras because at the time, it was the only way to do TTL auto focus, and if you want through the lens viewing on a focus screen rather than a TV screen, it is still the only way to do it.
There is more to go wrong with phase detect AF due to mis alignment issues, both fore aft, and side to side/ up and down, with one causing front or back focus, the other causing the AF to miss what it is pointed at, and, as we have seen with the K5 and Kr, the colour of the light can also cause PDAF to have kittens.
All of this can be overcome at a cost, but it is a cost that the end user has to bear, either by a willingness to pay extra for real QC to ensure that the sensors are aligned, or a willingness to play roulette with the camera, and sending bad ones back for replacement over and over until they get a good one, and a willingness to pay more to allow the manufacturer the resources to ensure that technical glitches such as we saw with the recent DSLR camera are overcome before the camera is put on sale.
Unfortunately, we are, for the most part, cheap bastards who won't allow the companies we buy from enough profit to pay for any of the above, and so we will continue to have problems of varying sorts with these devices.
Witness the pissing and moaning about the Q being too expensive if you disagree.

[rparmar]

Sigh. You're obviously right on all points Robin, and stunningly succinct and devastatingly brilliant at the same time. We should all be ashamed of ourselves. We are not worthy. I don't know why you bother to bless us with your presence.

Wow, John, I say something nice about you and you react back with stunning vitriol and a chip on your shoulder the size of the grand canyon. What exactly is your problem?

EDIT: If you want to argue with any of my points, please do. But this passive aggressive crap is boring.

[rparmar]

high ISO and high DR? who wants that? I imagine some of the same people who don't like constantly digitally undistorted pictures either. hate to break it to you, but IQ matters to a lot of people who take pictures. It's kinda the point.

You do realise the difference is tiny, huh? Or is it true that if I take away your latest tech toy, you can't take pictures at all?

Obviously IQ matters. But Pentax aren't the only ones who can do IQ. I give clients MFT images alongside APS-C. No-one ever notices the difference. My last shot chosen for gallery exhibition came from MFT. My next cover comes from APS-C. There's no real-world difference except in edge cases that any skilled photographer can work around anyway.

Arguing between two similar sensor sizes is ludicrous. If you really cared for IQ, you'd be shooting technical cameras and medium format, leaving all these tiny sensors to the kidz.

And Pentax would've joined a crowded market late and underresourced. how long and how much would it have taken to make lenses for yet another mount?

Let me take this slowly so you can understand.

Why would Pentax have been under-resourced in moving to MFT? Do you think that designing the Q (a whole new lens mount) and the K-01 did not tax their resources at all? But supporting a developing standard where resources are shared would somehow be more of an effort?

How is designing the K-01 for the "crowded" mirrorless market any better than designing some other system? Obviously Pentax marketing doesn't think it's "crowded", so I guess you disagree with them. We're not so different then.

How long does it take to make lenses for MFT? Well, I imagine that if you have all the optics well in hand, it takes much less time. There's plenty of evidence for that, but I wouldn't want to bore you with more facts.

I suppose you're also saying they should've just let K-mount wither away while they were at it right?

Actually, no. You might want to brush up on your reading comprehension skills.

your avatar says you're a Pentaxian.

Yeah, and I have no control over that. It's a label the forum assigns to me, due to my long-standing support and insane number of posts. So I guess that's actually your failure in not understanding how the system here works.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

vs. NEX
Easier to hold, better for bigger hands, more lenses to choose from, lenses compatible with dSLRs, unique design

I think that if we are to compare the K-01 to a Sony product, their SLT cameras are closer to the K-01 than the NEX, because they share the main characteristic of relying on an existing DSLR lens line. And if we compare with Sony SLTs, then only the "unique design" part of your argument remains valid.

vs. M43
Bigger sensor (with all of the assumed benefits), unique/contemporary design, more lenses, compatible with dSLRs

Other than the larger sensor, all other points can be applied just as well to MFT cameras. The design of the E-PM1 and E-PL3 bodies looks pretty modern to me - it's not retro, for sure. And they are compatible with the FT DSLRs and all their lenses, not to mention all the other lenses they can use, including Canon and Pentax. So the only thing that the K-01 has on its side is the APS-C sensor.

in my opinion, the key is to focus on recessed element lenses.

It would not be necessary to do that, if the camera body didn't have unused space to begin with. Now they are trying to hide lenses inside that body to give it some purpose. This is like one step forward after taking two steps back.

I'd rather preferred that they used that space to add a translucent mirror like Sony - such an approach could justify keeping the K mount.

[johnmflores]

Oh look, it's yet another thread in which Laurentiu Cristofor and John Flores try to be reasonable while Pentax cheerleaders snipe from the sidelines! Pentax Forums is really getting predictable, and just to ensure that is true, here's Robin to say the obvious once again...

1. The primary advantage of mirrorless cameras is the compact size.
2. The K-mount ensures the K-01 and successors can never be as compact as the competition.
FAIL

Then explain the GH2, which is nearly the same size as the K-x and K-r? Or the new Olympus OM-D, which pretends to bulk itself up with all manner of grips? Fact is, the smaller M43 cameras like the GF2, GF3, E-PM1, NEX3, and so on struggle with larger zooms. The GF2, for example, is not very comfortable with the 14-140. Others have even claimed that the larger G3 is difficult to handle with a zoom.

And while your at it, look at the Fuji X Pro 1. That body isn't the smallest out there, is it?

Consider also that we live in a zoom world, with primes being a very small segment of the market. With that in mind, it makes sense for Pentax to make a mirrorless that will be more comfortable to hold with a 5-10x zoom. An EVF would have been even better, but most people don't use them anymore anyway, so SR's gotta do the heavy lifting.

So this fact of yours isn't such a fact after all.

1. The primary advantage of the K-mount is that one can use K-mount lenses.
2a) The K-01 is designed for designers (bad joke) and those moving up from point'n'shoot cameras (both according to Pentax), none of whom own K-mount lenses.
2b) And neither will they be able to find any in the shops.
FAIL

Ever heard of a shop called Amazon? Or BHPhotovideo.com? Or Adorama.com? Or Etsy.com? Or Zazzle.com? Or Zappos.com Or Ebay.com? It's 2012, Robin. People buy things online all the time. So people who step up the the K-01, either with the 40 or kit zoom, will have plenty of opportunity to buy other lenses.

Looks like this fact has a lot of holes in it too.

1. Two of the main Pentax advantages are weather-sealing and ergonomics.
2. The K-01 has given up weather-sealing and, as an entry-level camera, does not have the ergonomics of the K20D, K-5 etc.
FAIL

If Pentax's advantage is weather-sealing, why do they only have 2 cameras with it? Sounds like a product-level feature and not a brand attribute to me.

Regarding ergonomics - have you actually tried to use the K-01 or are you just making up fact from looking at photos? If you are that good, then you better go find employment at Apple or Canon or Pentax or something; you can save them the costly and time consuming step of building mockups and models and just pontificate your FACTS from the comfort of your home.

I actually get paid to design user interfaces and I won't dare judge the usability of the K-01 until I've actually used it.

1. In a doomed effort to keep the kit size small, given the large body, Pentax have introduced the thinnest lens possible.
2. I have yet to meet a casual shooter who wants a telephoto as their first lens.
FAIL

Those two statements together make no sense. Literacy FAIL.

The new Olympus OM-D system in all ways trumps the K-01 for about the same cost. The only exception might be in high ISO and high DR. And even then, the difference is insignificant in real-world shooting. (If it wasn't, then no-one would have been able to take photos before 2010.)

25% more expensive isn't "about the same cost" in any language. And the fact is, while some people buy camera based on detailed analysis of spec sheets, others buy them for other reasons. Like style. Like not wanting to have an old man's camera. Like the color yellow. Is that rational behavior? No. But we're not rational creatures.

None of these are opinions, but observations from available facts.

Get over yourself, Robin. These are opinions pure and simple. To judge the usability of a physical product without touching it, let alone using it is just laughable. And to wrap it up in this air of pseudo-intellectualism is over the top.

You can be terribly condescending.

Let me take this slowly so you can understand.

We don't need your lectures.