[audiobomber]

Oh, sorry, I hadn't seen this. Yes, this is closer to what I thought it would look like, without the tripod collar. This Sony one ks only $129, why couldn't Pentax have come up with something like that for under $100?

Because we would lose AF with all K-mount lenses, as pointed out above. And a smaller body would probably not have room for the Pentax SR system.

I like the look and size of the K-01 and K-mount is definitely the way to go. The only reason I don't have one on pre-order is the missing EVF. When someone resolves that issue, I'll give it another look.

[ripit]

It seems to me that they are pushing for a cheap alternative to something like the k-5. Designing an entire new line of lenses with a new mount doesn't seem to follow this. I suspect they borrowed a lot of existing technology to keep costs down too. Is there much in the functionality of this that seems like new technology, or is it more of a redesign of existing technology?
Regardless, sticking with k mount seems like a good decision on the surface. We have yet another pentax camera that is backward compatible with 50 years worth of lenses. I think we all hope that backward compatibility goes on forever. Can you imagine how people will feel if they came out with a full frame dslr that used a new lens system and couldn't directly use k mount glass? I wish they would have thought a little further outside of the box. If it would have had a thinner body with an adapter tube for k mount, adapters could have been available to use canon fd or minolta md glass which can be had much cheaper than k mount glass (sometimes). Of course what are the chances that pentax would make a camera that was marketed as being able to use everybodys legacy glass, not just their own? Of course that opens a whole new can of worms had they done that. People are going to want other brands of auto focus lenses to work which leaves pentax reverse engineering others lenses and charged with the task of designing and making several expensive adapters.
Honestly I would have loved the use of an adapter tube and leave it up to the after market companies to come up with adapters for other lenses. Of course then everyone would be asking, why did you use an adapter tube at all (which would raise costs some).

In a perfect world, use of an adapter tube would have been nice and there are a lot of reasons for it. I wouldn't think it would not have to be more complex than a glassless teleconverter that can pass contacts and levers through. There are lots of reasons that it could complicate things with a cheap camera though and they seem to be shooting for cheap (cheap for what it is). It also causes a lot of issues with what else they have to develop for it and how to market it. Had they done that it would be next on my list to get, but I guess in a non perfect world,you can not have everything. How much do you suspect it would have cost with all the extra development to make some of these things happen? I'm still hoping for a good aps-c camera with a short adaptable flange distance from any manufacture one day (I personally would prefer dslr but would take mirrorless if that is what I can get). Native support for an existing lens system, even if by use of a tube (it would have to be) would of course be a huge plus.

Of course I wonder how much empty space is in the k-01? with no mirror, could one rip the face apart and install a custom mount that would be adaptable and maybe even maintain full function with k mount lenses, lol. If I were a bit richer, I might actually try it but i'm on a tear apart and modify cheap ebay lenses only budget.

[monochrome]

There are already plenty of cameras with a shorter register distance. Why make another? This is an amazingly affordable bridge camera with the best APSc sensor available, a new imaging engine and native backward compatibility with 25,000,000 really, really excellent lenses. If you already own a Pentax lens made any time after, oh, 1952, you will owe Ricoh a debt of gratitude.

And just for grins the K-01 apparently breaks some new ground in video, as well.

Although you may not like the design (I liked it on first sight) I can't for the life of me understand why anyone doesn't love this camera's potential..

Be of good cheer, Pentaxians. Ricoh has a plan and you will be happy.

[eurostar]

oes getting rid of the mirror make higher flash synch speeds easier? The sych speed is still 1/180 though.

No, flash synch is limited by the shutter, not by the mirror. Only when they will be able to use just an electronic shutter, flash synch would be much more faster. That, or leaf shutter in the lenses. Or, if feasible, in the empty mirror-box.

[ripit]

There are already plenty of cameras with a shorter register distance. Why make another? This is an amazingly affordable bridge camera with the best APSc sensor available, a new imaging engine and native backward compatibility with 25,000,000 really, really excellent lenses. If you already own a Pentax lens made any time after, oh, 1952, you will owe Ricoh a debt of gratitude.

And just for grins the K-01 apparently breaks some new ground in video, as well.

Although you may not like the design (I liked it on first sight) I can't for the life of me understand why anyone doesn't love this camera's potential..

Be of good cheer, Pentaxians. Ricoh has a plan and you will be happy.

Are their any cameras with shorter registration distances "with the best APSc sensor available, a new imaging engine and native backward compatibility with 25,000,000 really, really excellent lenses"?
With that said, please don't get me wrong. This camera obviously has merit as is. That doesn't mean that we can not pick it apart for how it could have been better (when is the last time any piece of technology came out where people didn't do that). We are also discussing its good points too (as well as short comings or missing features).
All things considered, I doubt they could have done much more, and came out with a body available now, that has what this has and retails for 750$. A camera like I discussed that has native k mount support even via a tube, and is adaptable to other brands of lenses, would be a huge undertaking from an engineering standpoint. Had they decided to take that approach, I doubt we would see it this year, or anywhere near the 750$ price point. Further, the company was recently sold, so there has not been a lot of time for development of new products.
There is nothing wrong with the k-01 other than it is but ugly (and that is a matter of opinion, not fact, and I would buy an ugly camera if it worked like I wanted anyway). But ugly or not, its look is meant to appeal to a a particular group of people and it should. How many cameras are out there that really do everything everyone wants anyway? This camera looks like it will do a fine job appealing to certain people and in theory, it can take k-5 quality images or better for half the price. It looks like a seller to me. Still, nothing wrong with discussing it strong as well as its weak points. Of course it can not have all the strong points for a cheap price either.

[ytterbium]

I think they just went for the "mirror-less" title with as minimum changes as possible.

I consider it more like a compacted or cut down K slr, than a true compact interchangeable lens system.
Crowded interior of the mount indicates that neither there will be any recessed, collapsing or otherwise smaller lenses possible.
This way they can probe the demand for non-slr form factor quality camera.

Still, it's not an option for those wanting smaller cameras. Most of the bulk comes from the lenses. Less mount distance allows reduction of total size by this distance and by simpler optical designs. And K adaptor wouldn't be any different from K macro ring - it could even function as such on K slr.

P.S. What i completely don't understand, is if making camera so similar to SLR's, why change the fundamental button assignments (like timer, iso, etc).

[RioRico]

OK, when designing a new camera, here are the options:

1) keep legacy mount. Or
2) design a new mount, and
2a) allow use of legacy lenses. Or
2b) disallow use of legacy lenses. Or
3) go with fixed lenses only.

We'll skip options 1) and 3) now. What is the history of new mounts? Various brands went from screwmount to bayonet or breech-lock in the 1950s and 1960s. Pentax made the switch from M42 to PK in 1975; later changes are backward-compatible upgrades of the bayonet. Minolta went from MD to Maxxum/Alpha without backward compatibility, as did Canon's change from FD to EOS, 25-35 years ago. Fujica went from screwmount to compatible(?) X-Fuji mount to incompatible Nikon mount to none.

Otherwise, Nikon has retained the same F-mount, with upgrades. Olympus developed Pen and OM mounts, then dropped both. Leica has at least 3 not-really-compatible systems. Short-register digicams like 4/3, m4/3, NX, NEX, etc can use longer-register lenses with adapters (and with some limitations) but have such adapters cannibalized new-lens sales?

So, what is the success rate for new mounts? Minolta and Canon killed their legacy mounts, necessarily to add autofocus. Nikon and Pentax added AF to existing mounts. Sony NEX has limited compatibility with Alpha lenses, via adapters, as does Olympus et al m4/3 with 4/3 systems. And virtually all other legacy mount makers have gone extinct. Samsung NX, Pentax Q, Fuji X, Nikon A, have no legacy systems to cannibalize.

My point is that there seems to be no compelling reason for Pentax to develop a new mount that's only backward-compatible via adapters, not if Pentax wants to continue selling new lenses. So the thin-camera-plus-adapter proposal just doesn't look like a winner.

[sjwaldron]

Why? Probably because Pentax doesn't want to make lenses for yet another system due to development costs and ending up like the other APS-C sized mirrorless that are a bit lacking.

I think the K-01 was a good effort and logical. It has a few quips in my view, but not enough to drop it from consideration in the future. I could benefit from the extra bit of less space than the K-5 and especially the movie and manual focusing benefits it will provide.

I don't see the K-01 as a sole camera, but more of a sidekick to the K-5.

[jogiba]

I purchased the K-7 when it first came out mainly to shoot videos with my K-mount lenses and have SR with every lens including my 800mm F8 Rokinon. The OVF on the K-7 is not used when shooting video so the K-01 is perfect for shooting 1080p 30,25,24 /720p60 with K-mount lenses and SR with every lens. Pentax was 100% correct to come out with the K-01 that works with all 25 million K-mount lenses without a need for an adapter.

The NEX with Samyang 35mm F1.4 has no SR like the K-01 .

[chrisjoy]

If the k-01 is targeted for the would be T3i and D5100 buyers, then I think it is definitely an attractive alternative option. I believe it is...

I'm new to Pentax, but IMHO that's going to be a tough hill to climb. T3i is more widely available than anything Pentax and has the Canon marketing and brand recognition, it will likely focus faster and it has the articulating screen. Most entry DSLR buyers have no clue about DXOmark scores and such, just watch the people fiddling with cameras in Best Buy or Costco. Then when you start comparing the K01 with other cameras that lack a viewfinder such as the Nex c3/5n, Nikon 1 (though one of them has a VF) or some of the M43 cameras, size and the K01's porkiness (compared to a Nex or Pen) will become a factor. Most entry DSLR buyers will never get beyond the kit lens, they want something that takes better photos than a P&S or a cell phone and DSLR's can easily do that and they look cool. Its funny when Fuji fanboys celebrate 100,000 in sales for the X100 (and I have one) when Canon/Nikon DSLR's sell in the millions.

I like the design and I really like the video specs and I REALLY dig the yellow color, but without a VF and no articulating screen - both of which you could live with if it wasn't more than twice the weight of the Nex and $200 more for a prime lens ... again something new DSLR buyers aren't buying. This will be a small selling niche camera like the X100. Its not going to bring in many new users to the brand with the Nex, M43's and Canon/Nikon at every Target, WalMart and Best Buy, plus a T4i that's likely right around the corner. M43 has matured pretty well, you can easily adapt pretty much anything to it and right now the GH2 is the camera the K01 should have been targeting if Pentax wants to focus on video performance.

[monochrome]

My 27 year old daughter learned on a K1000. She uses a VF. My two younger children never have used an SLR or dSLR. They learned on compact cameras. They actually don't want to look through the tiny window. They think its unnatural.

This camera isn't for people who know what PentaxForums is.

[Stone G.]

Why? Probably because Pentax doesn't want to make lenses for yet another system due to development costs and ending up like the other APS-C sized mirrorless that are a bit lacking.

I think the K-01 was a good effort and logical. It has a few quips in my view, but not enough to drop it from consideration in the future. I could benefit from the extra bit of less space than the K-5 and especially the movie and manual focusing benefits it will provide.

I don't see the K-01 as a sole camera, but more of a sidekick to the K-5.

I couldn't agree more. Pentax already has the following lens lines to maintain:

Pentax Medium Format lenses
Pentax K lenses (DA)
Pentax Q lenses

And who knows, maybe we shall see some new FA lenses one day as well?!?

As a Pentax K mount user I am very happy that Pentax has chosen NOT to introduce a new lens format. That aside, remember that with the K-01 we are being offered a mirrorless with a large sensor.

Now, that is great but also demanding lenses that will have a larger image circle. I am not an expert in the fine details of lens designs, but making a slimmer body for lenses that will have to be fairly large anyway (because of the sensor size) doesn't really make sense to me.

I think Pentax made a smart decision to diffenrentiate themselves in a very competitive market.

[sjwaldron]

I couldn't agree more. Pentax already has the following lens lines to maintain:

Pentax Medium Format lenses
Pentax K lenses (DA)
Pentax Q lenses

And who knows, maybe we shall see some new FA lenses one day as well?!?

As a Pentax K mount user I am very happy that Pentax has chosen NOT to introduce a new lens format. That aside, remember that with the K-01 we are being offered a mirrorless with a large sensor.

Now, that is great but also demanding lenses that will have a larger image circle. I am not an expert in the fine details of lens designs, but making a slimmer body for lenses that will have to be fairly large anyway (because of the sensor size) doesn't really make sense to me.

I think Pentax made a smart decision to differentiate themselves in a very competitive market.

I'm kind of surprised Pentax hasn't released more D-FA WR lenses like the D-FA 100mm f2.8 Macro WR. It's a good combination of cost reduction, but keeping some quality materials. Maybe eventually.

I agree, using K-mount was smart. It starts the process of rounding out the system to make it more appealing (next up after updates...full-frame digital K-mount...maybe). Using a new mount would have had the opposite effect. The K-5 is pretty small for what it is, and this new K-01 will be a powerhouse while being even smaller. I'm hoping I can eventually pick one up and attach my 31mm, 55mm, and 85mm to it for some video work.

Going with a new mount means they would have to trump everything else out there to prove that their new system was more appealing. I don't think it was worth it to them at the moment. We might eventually see something like a K(M)-mount, but not for a long time. Pentax already tells us that their micro mount is the Q. To get a truly mobile ILC, they had to reduce the sensor size so the lenses could be smaller. There might even be some room for a slightly larger sensor for Q based cameras.

Yeah, we know what to expect with k-mount. With a good lens, corner sharpness in the K-01 would probably trump anything in the NEX lens lineup. We also don't have to care about spending $400, the price of a decent lens, on something to adapt our existing lenses. That's a big plus in my opinion. Someone with Pentax can spend $750 for a K-01, or someone with Sony/Minolta lenses could spend $1200 + 400 for a NEX-7 (the K-01's closest competitor most likely)... is some extra thickness worth almost double the price an potential issues with an adapter? Nah...

[RioRico]

This camera isn't for people who know what PentaxForums is.

Nail on head: direct hit.

[dgaies]

My 27 year old daughter learned on a K10000. She uses a VF. My two younger children never haved used an SLR or dSLR. They learned on compact cameras. They actually don't want to look through the tiny window. They think its unnatural.

Makes sense that it's a function of that you start out with. I tried giving my 4 year old my old Fuji F20 P&S but he was having trouble using the rear LCD. So I upgraded him to a used K200D and now he won't use anything without a VF. Could be because he's never seen me use anything besides a VF, but chances are he would take issue with the K-01 not having an EVF