Originally posted by illdefined sounds like a very specific, very personal use case.
That's because you turned the discussion personal and asked me why I compromised with manual lenses on Olympus. Now you're surprised that my personal motives are personal? They're mine! Duh!
Originally posted by illdefined Oh I understand full well. I just wonder why it's ok for your MFT camera to make such vital compromises in its design but not the K-01.
You had to go outside the system to get comparable image quality and sacrifice AF. that's major, and it's pretty obvious to me you got it *in spite* of MFT, not because of it.
You got it wrong too. MFT gave me a control over composition, focus, and DOF that I never had with an SLR. Instead of trial by error approaches, it allowed me to take images with predictable results, because I could see the result before pressing the shutter. It's another style of shooting and I find it almost as beneficial as the transition from film to digital.
Originally posted by illdefined maybe you should try a system that has focus peaking like NEX or Ricoh (and soon Pentax)
For what? NEX has no lenses I want to use and Ricoh won't have anything either. Even if Ricoh comes up with a K mount module, it probably won't have SR. In the meantime, I can use all my lenses with my E-PL2 and they can even gain
tilt capability. I'll either get an E-M5 with the additional grips, so I can use my longer lenses, or I might consider a Samsung NX, if the rumor about adding SR to their bodies will turn true. Of course, if Pentax would make a fully functional MILC, I'd consider that too, but the K-01 is crippled.
Originally posted by illdefined You were disparaging the K-01 as a whole.
And
I laid down my reasons clearly. Besides, its worst competition doesn't come from MFT or NEX, but from existing Pentax bodies. With the K-5 still on the market, the K-01 makes no sense. For $300 extra you can get a magnesium alloy WR body with extra controls - why bother with the K-01 at all? Because it's mirrorless!?