[illdefined]

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!

only reason I asked is because you presented images as evidence against MFT's built-in compromises as a platform. you found a workaround to MFT's limitations by using esoteric 3rd party lenses but it was important to note that none were 1st party (or even 2nd party ie. Panasonic) and had to sacrifice AF altogether to get 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.

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.

I'm not going to argue what's best for you, I only suggested NEX and Ricoh for their MF focus peaking which your Olympus lacks. You don't care about AF apparently and like 3rd party lenses so I figured you could use Ricoh's M-mount or an adapter on the NEX while improving sensor quality (and keeping tilt on the NEX.) but again, you know what's best for you.

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!?

You're just looking at the specs, and again only from your unique perspective, not the general public's.

Look at the K-01 and K-5 together and you couldn't find a bigger difference in design philosophy. For many, simplicity and less controls is a GOOD thing. A newcomer to photography or P&S shooter may want the very best image quality outside of full-frame, but be seriously intimidated by the K-5 with all it's buttons and moving parts. Just because you know how to handle a serious camera doesn't mean the public does or wants to. The K-01 is still tough with excellent image quality but in an entirely *different* way. And $300 means quite a lot to some people.

The K-01 clearly wasn't meant for you, but this thread isn't about you.

---

Last edited by illdefined; 02-12-2012 at 09:39 AM.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

only reason I asked is because you presented images as evidence against MFT's built-in compromises as a platform. you found a workaround to MFT's limitations by using esoteric 3rd party lenses but it was important to note that none were 1st party (or even 2nd party ie. Panasonic) and had to sacrifice AF altogether to get it.

The Panasonic Leica 25/1.4 will give you similar results with AF and no auto corrections. What is your point?

You're just looking at the specs, and again only from your unique perspective, not the general public's.

Actually, I am looking at the camera from both perspectives and neither is attractive. Of course, from the personal one, at least this camera can allow me to use my DA lenses. But so can any other camera that Pentax will keep on the market.

Look at the K-01 and K-5 together and you couldn't find a bigger difference in design philosophy. For many, simplicity and less controls is a GOOD thing. A newcomer to photography or P&S shooter may want the very best image quality outside of full-frame, but be seriously intimidated by the K-5 with all it's buttons and moving parts. Just because you know how to handle a serious camera doesn't mean the public does or wants to. The K-01 is still tough with excellent image quality but in an entirely *different* way. And $300 means quite a lot to some people.

If $300 means quite a lot to some people, they can save another $300 by buying an Olympus E-PM1 kit. It will give them a simple interface and they can grow the kit by adding a viewfinder later.

As for newcomers wanting the best IQ, everyone wants that, but a good sensor is not enough to offer that. You also need fast autofocus, good metering, good JPEG processing. For most newcomers, a Nikon 1 camera may be the best choice because of its fast AF. There is no indication that the K-01 will achieve better AF than Pentax has managed to achieve within their DSLR line.

The K-01 clearly wasn't meant for you, but this thread isn't about you.

Please cut the bullshit! I never said or acted as if this thread is about me. I am discussing the decision of building the K-01 the way it was built, which is exactly the subject of this thread. If you care to bring some valuable opinion on the topic, please do so, but don't get personal or you'll end up on my ignore list on your next attack.

[jogiba]

[illdefined]

sigh. I've already stated my point quite clearly. the MFT platform compromises on image quality, both through their smaller sensors and/or non-specialty lenses. the Pentax compromises on thickness (the real subject of this thread), and not image quality.

why would a newcomer or P&S shooter looking to upgrade need a viewfinder? you are instilling your own personal preferences to the value of the K-01, and now adding your personal speculation of it for not having good AF, metering or JPG processing without ever holding one or even seeing a review (??).

not an attack. just noting many of your comments have been very subjective.

---

Last edited by illdefined; 02-12-2012 at 06:49 PM.

[johnmflores]

sigh. I've already stated my point quite clearly. the MFT platform compromises on image quality, both through their smaller sensors and/or non-specialty lenses. the Pentax compromises on thickness (the real subject of this thread), and not image quality.

why would a newcomer or P&S shooter looking to upgrade need a viewfinder? you are instilling your own personal preferences to the value of the K-01, and now adding your personal speculation of it for not having good AF, metering or JPG processing without ever holding one or even seeing a review (??).

not an attack. just noting many of your comments have been very subjective.

Are you opinions of MFT's image quality compromises best on your personal use or on tests on the Internet? I ask because I've been pleasantly surprised with the quality of MFT. When lighting conditions are less than good the K-5 will step forward, but in decent light it's honestly hard to tell the difference, and CDAF is much more accurate than PDAF. Some examples:
















I usually don't post larger sizes on not photo threads, but we're discussing IQ here. I hope folks don't mind.

[illdefined]

Are you opinions of MFT's image quality compromises best on your personal use or on tests on the Internet? I ask because I've been pleasantly surprised with the quality of MFT. When lighting conditions are less than good the K-5 will step forward, but in decent light it's honestly hard to tell the difference, and CDAF is much more accurate than PDAF. Some examples:

by definition, personal opinions are subjective. sensors and light transfer of lenses can be measured and thus, compared, objectively. don't forget in good light, the K-5 sensor also has significant dynamic range advantage...

look, i'm in no way saying you need the best sensor/lens/camera/grip/LCD/EVF to take good pictures, i'm just trying to be objective about the K-01 (a camera I *personally* have no interest in ever purchasing), it's design, system role, and marketing vs. its competitors. Pentax decided to keep the thick K-mount (what this thread was about), and image quality happens to be one of the advantages.

subjectively, your shots look amazing. objectively, you happened to be using the very best m4/3 sensor to date (only used on the GH1) ; )

oh and the K-01 will also be CDAF

[johnmflores]

subjectively, your shots look amazing. objectively, you happened to be using the very best m4/3 sensor to date (only used on the GH1) ; )

Thx. FWIW, not all of the shots are with the GH1. Some are with the GH2. And that's part of my point, I guess. As technology continues to improve, the gap between M43 and APS-C may stay constant, but the differences will be less and less visible in real photos in the real world. We'll eventually get to the point where, for all practical matters, the differences don't exist.

[Biro]

As technology continues to improve, the gap between M43 and APS-C may stay constant, but the differences will be less and less visible in real photos in the real world. We'll eventually get to the point where, for all practical matters, the differences don't exist.

+1. And I suspect that point isn't as far away as some might believe.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

you are instilling your own personal preferences to the value of the K-01, and now adding your personal speculation of it for not having good AF, metering or JPG processing without ever holding one or even seeing a review (??).

Well, if you want to get personal, the lack of direct experience certainly didn't prevent you from talking about Olympus, did it?

not an attack. just noting many of your comments have been very subjective.

The problem is that you insist on making the discussion personal, by commenting about me, instead of picking my arguments and proving them incorrect if they really are blatantly so.

Sorry, but I am looking for honest discussions with people that either have some valuable information to share or have interesting commentary to make. People telling me that my opinion is subjective are just wasting my time.

[illdefined]

Well, if you want to get personal, the lack of direct experience certainly didn't prevent you from talking about Olympus, did it?

The problem is that you insist on making the discussion personal, by commenting about me, instead of picking my arguments and proving them incorrect if they really are blatantly so.

Sorry, but I am looking for honest discussions with people that either have some valuable information to share or have interesting commentary to make. People telling me that my opinion is subjective are just wasting my time.

you keep saying I got 'personal' but all the things I stated were facts. you made it 'personal' by bringing in your preferences, biases and workarounds, and while interesting, wasn't at the crux of the discussion. we were discussing the merits and drawbacks of the K-mount in the K-01.

I proved that m4/3 was designed around digital correction, gets automatically corrected in all the major converters (yes including Olympus's own) and how it detrimentally affects image quality. you still won't acknowledge the image quality advantage of the K-mount and APS-C sensor on the K-01, but that doesn't make it untrue.

I also gave you a very likely scenario for why someone would want the K-01, a P&S shooter looking for a simple camera with unrivaled image quality, and you gave me alternative scenarios that satisfied one or the other criteria but not both. I'm sorry but, I'm not sure it was really an honest discussion you wanted.

[Paul MaudDib]

Are you opinions of MFT's image quality compromises best on your personal use or on tests on the Internet? I ask because I've been pleasantly surprised with the quality of MFT. When lighting conditions are less than good the K-5 will step forward, but in decent light it's honestly hard to tell the difference, and CDAF is much more accurate than PDAF. Some examples:

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.

[johnmflores]

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.

This is my opinion from my experience. With the GH2, I can choose any point on the screen to be the focus point, even with my finger since it's a touch screen. I can even change the size of my focus point, from a tiny 50px by 50px (approximate) point to a larger square. I'm not limited to a number of fixed points on the screen, nor am I guessing what's in focus because the actual area of PDAF focus is bigger than the red dot in the viewfinder. As a result, my AF hit rate with my GH2 is greater than with my K-5, with immobile or slowly moving objects. Once objects start moving more quickly though, CDAF starts to lag and PDAF begins to take over.

Additionally, since PDAF relies about a separate sensor that is split from the image-capturing sensor, any mis-calibration between the two sensors will result in poor focus. CDAF is right off the image-capturing sensor, so those errors don't exist.

And then there's face - recognition with CDAF too, so PDAF's last area of superiority (in my opinion) is speed and tracking. They'll topple eventually as CPU speeds increase and AF algorithms improve.

Sorry, but PDAF is destined for the dustbin.

[illdefined]

Thx. FWIW, not all of the shots are with the GH1. Some are with the GH2. And that's part of my point, I guess. As technology continues to improve, the gap between M43 and APS-C may stay constant, but the differences will be less and less visible in real photos in the real world. We'll eventually get to the point where, for all practical matters, the differences don't exist.

I actually think the original GH1's sensor hit that quality and ISO level of being competitive with APS-C, it was a real shame it was never made available to any other m4/3rds cameras. I was disheartened to see the GH2 sensor took a little dip from there, compromising ISO for resolution, so I hope the technological progress goes in the right direction from here on out. It's long overdue for Olympus to upgrade their m4/3 sensor with the OM-D, as their previous sensors were really holding their otherwise cool cameras back (and there were a lot of them).

I *personally* think the OM-D, G1X and GX1 will be *way* more than "good enough" for the vast majority of the camera buying public and they will sell by the truckload. their size and features definitely outweigh their non-trivial compromises in image quality. In my experience, ISO noise is a lot more noticeable than digitally corrected lens corrections, because high-ISO has so many practical use applications like shooting in natural light and high-speed street shooting.

Pentax will certainly market the hell out of the K-01's no-compromise to image quality, and they should, as they had to compromise size to get it. I'm guessing the zero-compromise approach and excellent internet test scores (known quantity) will matter to a small crowd of tech-heads, quirky videographers and image quality obsessives, but it'll certainly be a subset of the camera-buying public not the majority.

[johnmflores]

Pentax will certainly market the hell out of the K-01's no-compromise to image quality, and they should, as they had to compromise size to get it. I'm guessing the zero-compromise approach and excellent internet test scores (known quantity) will matter to a small crowd of tech-heads, quirky videographers and image quality obsessives, but it'll certainly be a subset of the camera-buying public not the majority.

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.

[chaza01]

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,