[johnmflores]

However, the new Olympus OM-D has been tested to have 2 EV dynamic range improvements (!)... It looks like images from this camera are going to be equivalent or better than the K-01.

AFAIK, this reported improvement is coming from a single blogger with JPG images and actually contradicts statements made by Olympus. IMO it's much too early to declare victory for the OM-D, especially considering Olympus' track record with sensors over the years. That said, I do agree that for many the general differences between APS-C and M43 IQ will be negligible.

[RonHendriks1966]

AFAIK, this reported improvement is coming from a single blogger with JPG images and actually contradicts statements made by Olympus. IMO it's much too early to declare victory for the OM-D, especially considering Olympus' track record with sensors over the years. That said, I do agree that for many the general differences between APS-C and M43 IQ will be negligible.

Well I would be surprized if it gets that good. If it is a full stop better it will measure up to 65 points at DxO and that would be great. K-01 should be as good as Nex-5n so still better. We will know soon:

GX1 - Nex-5n - GH2
DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

[isaacc7]

Let's look at the four MILC markets.

Snip

That's an interesting list, but why would Pentax want to make a camera that mimics Sony and Olympus? I think a far more likely reason for the k-01 is that Pentax wanted to make a mirror less camera that would appeal to people that want to use Pentax lenses. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that. It certainly isn't that complicated for me. I had been thinking about a NEX camera or maybe an NX, but with adaptors to use Pentax lenses. Now I can have a mirror less camera that takes them natively and keeps all of the functionality. The k-01 is an excellent camera for Pentax to make in the sense that it is a camera that uses its other accessories. Why in the world would they make a camera that either ignores their greatest strength, the vast number and quality of lenses, or actively encourages people away from it? We've already established that the Q has been a bit of a misstep, why would a slightly larger one be any better for Pentax?

Your post is similar to many others that aren't happy with the k-01. It boils down to, "Why didn't Pentax do what everyone else did?" We're seeing how successful that has been for Samsung. Pentax has been very clear in its strategy, it wants to be different. It shows in their DSLR range and it shows in their lens range. The k-01 is different, it has a very different design (IMO a great one) and it is intended to fit in with the rest of the Pentax lineup, not some other brand's.

[Rondec]

AFAIK, this reported improvement is coming from a single blogger with JPG images and actually contradicts statements made by Olympus. IMO it's much too early to declare victory for the OM-D, especially considering Olympus' track record with sensors over the years. That said, I do agree that for many the general differences between APS-C and M43 IQ will be negligible.

I too, doubt it. It is like when the K5, Fuji Pro initial users make comments like "It compares well with full frame." Well, if things come back to equilibrium, there should be roughly a stop difference between APS-C and full frame and another stop difference between APS-C and mtf. Maybe you can make it look a little closer with a good jpeg engine, but the RAW numbers will still crunch the same.

The question really comes down to "good enough." This is what the full frame pushers attack all the time -- why be satisfied with APS-C when full frame will always be better? But the reality is that all of these formats are "good enough" for most people, in most situations.

[rparmar]

AFAIK, this reported improvement is coming from a single blogger with JPG images and actually contradicts statements made by Olympus. IMO it's much too early to declare victory for the OM-D, especially considering Olympus' track record with sensors over the years. That said, I do agree that for many the general differences between APS-C and M43 IQ will be negligible.

Yes, the reports may not be true. But obviously we can expect some benefit from a new sensor, improved engine, improved AF, completely redesigned IBIS...

Though I am excited by the OM-D (it looks like everything Pentax has not given us), this is largely for ergonomic reasons. Technology never stands still, so those worshipping the bleeding edge will always have something better to buy next week. I don't take that approach, and instead agree with you that sometimes a camera is "good enough".

EDIT: Wait a minute! Rondec said almost exactly the same thing.

[rparmar]

Pentax has been very clear in its strategy, it wants to be different.

Being different is not a strategy; it is an excuse for not being better. Every other company is excelling in one way or another while ALSO being different. What is Pentax doing?

[Biro]

I had been thinking about a NEX camera or maybe an NX, but with adaptors to use Pentax lenses. Now I can have a mirror less camera that takes them natively and keeps all of the functionality. The k-01 is an excellent camera for Pentax to make in the sense that it is a camera that uses its other accessories.

I agree with this. But a key point for me will be just how useful the K-01's rear LCD is in bright sunlight. Like you, I had been considering an NEX - specifically a 5N because I'm not going to pay for an NEX-7 body at this point. A big factor in the 5N's favor is the tiltable LCD for shooting from the waist - because I refuse to hold out a camera at arm's length like a tourist taking a snapshot with a cellphone. Reports are that the 5N screen is quite useable on a sunny day - even if it's not perfect.

Now, Pentax says the K-01's rear LCD is viewable from a 170-degree angle. I hope so. And I hope the screen isn't washed out in bright daylight. But if it is, it kind of renders the K-01 immaterial for me. Image or video quality won't matter if I can't frame accurately. Others may still find it useful for tripod work... but I have the K-5 for that because size doesn't matter any longer if one is dragging along a tripod as well.

Mind you, I am not predicting this will be the case. But I'm waiting for the camera to hit the store shelves at the end of March as well as the early reviews. I hope Adam takes this point into particular consideration when he gets a K-01 to review for us.

[eddie1960]

Being different is not a strategy; it is an excuse for not being better. Every other company is excelling in one way or another while ALSO being different. What is Pentax doing?

i wouldn't define an OMD as different myself Robin. It is nice but it's also the development of a long time in the mirrorless market. and it's really not a revolutionary design at all just a rehash of a design they made 20 year + ago updated for the digital age - certainly it is a good enough camera but personally i don't see it being anything groundbreaking at this point - If I was looking at it Panasonic's announcement that they had a high end m4/3 under development would have me in wait and see mode since they do better with the sensors than Oly does (not too mention Oly really is still in a disastrous mess at the moment and the camera division is the biggest money loser - they've been good at abandoning things in the past - see the OM line for instance than the 4/3 line....doesn't inspire confidence in me and I always liked the shooting the OM's when i had the chance and I own a 4/3 from them (the e300 which isn't a lot different in size from the K-01 actually with it's odd VF mounted on the left side and no prism)
The K-01 is the first in what will likely be a line of apsc mirrorless and was not targeted at anyone on the forum. Personally i would not be surprised to see it to reasonably well just not with the crowd here for the most part. I do think that a lot of what comes from its development when applied to a more serious MILC will be more pleasing to the enthusiast crow.
I really think Hoya did squat on development last year this being the last project before the deal with Ricoh was signed. then it got delayed (probably more due to sensor issues than Hoya)

I don't however think you are ever going to see m4/3 sized apsc milcs from Pentax that would require the use of a clunky adapter like the Sony. It'll be the Q line or the K line
and the best stuff will still be in the DSLR line (I would expect at least 3 more DSLR this year but a second MILC won't likely come until next year)
Ricoh does seem to be serious about the business but at this point aside from reviving some shelved products i don't believe we've seen much that really shows their hand. And we won't probably until Photokina (aside from a spring KR replacement - probably a K-01 feature set in a kr level body)

[eddie1960]

Being different is not a strategy; it is an excuse for not being better. Every other company is excelling in one way or another while ALSO being different. What is Pentax doing?

I don't know. Apple has made a career out of being different. Arguably though they really aren't better. they don't sell on spec (if they did they'd be cheaper actually )

The big thing is how will Pentax market this (assuming of course that under Ricoh they will actually start marketing cameras)

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

certainly it is a good enough camera but personally i don't see it being anything groundbreaking at this point

Cameras don't have to be groundbreaking - just well-featured and enjoyable to use (style and ergonomy). Every manufacturer has the technological capability to make such products, but few actually do so, because they cater to a common market denominator. Since you cannot please everybody, this results in products with all kinds of compromises built in. A way of being different is to target a market segment and provide a product that at least satisfies that market segment. Leica does it. Fuji is doing it. Pentax did it with the Q. The K-01 is the opposite of this approach - there is nothing different in a good way about it. When people want to start living a different life, the expressions they use are "starting with a clean slate" or "turning a new page" - different needs to be different, not just a cosmetic change.

[eddie1960]

Thing is the market can't afford Leica or the new Fuji. for the entry level they are too expensive. I agree Pentax needs to address the higher market as well, but the K-01 was not that product

over on the how to market the K-01 Snostorm (Scott) had some good ideas despite the fact that he doesn't want one. I'd just ad some lifestyle ads showing ease of use (ie mom taking pictures of baby who pulls self up to walk and she hits the red button and gets it on video no fiddling about - I assume of course that is the reason for the red button for video) some cheesy but real life moments captured with ease. paired with the type of ad Scott describes it makes it an appealing system to the first timer. Whether we like it or not won't matter if it's sold correctly. I spent a lot of years in retail sales and really was only a mediocre salesman until i realized that what i wanted wasn't what the masses wanted Once I overcame that hump I doubled my income lol (and I might ad better served my clients because i listened to what they were asking for and gave them a recommendation. You may say Pentax isn't listening to their customers but i would say maybe they just aren't listening to us the small % while they fulfill a need for their larger customer base

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-01-forum/176758-how-market-k-01-...ml#post1844909

This would be my marketing strategy for the K-01, and this is coming from a guy who really has no reason to buy one. . .

First, establish the market that you're targeting. The P&S upgrader is probably the largest market.

Think like a P&S upgrader --

1. Wants better IQ -- stress that the K-01 uses the same sensor as the IQ class-leading flagship of the Pentax DSLR line, the K-5

2. Wants to be able to shoot in lower light with better quality -- show an indoor scene shot at ISO 10000 and compare it to one shot at ISO 400/800 from a P&S. Stress ISO 25600 vs 6400, the numbers look like a lot bigger difference than the 2 stops reality.

3. Wants Automatic functions. An initial photo with the K-01 and all the lenses in the current K mount system was a good start (I don't recall if they included all the F and FA series lenses, but they should), but to be effective at all, a contrast has to be drawn with the competition. Show this pic side-by-side with NEX, OLY, Panny, and NX MILC systems with all their system lenses that will allow fully auto shooting with their bodies (AF being stressed). The pic of the K-01 and lenses alone means nothing by itself to a P&S shooter unfamiliar with camera systems.

Then show a pic with the K-01 and every K mount lens you can get your hands on (get outrageous and include all of the MF super teles) and label it as all the lenses that will be stabilized on the K-01 without needing any adapter. I think the visual impact would be impressive. Minimal text is needed, just explain the concept.

4. Wants future upgrade path whether it's really realistic or not. Show a pic with the K-01 with all the current K mount system lenses, flashes, etc., then a pic of a K-5 with the same lenses, then contrast this with separate shots of NEX, OLY, Panny, and NX with all their respective system lenses, and pics with their current DSLR body from each of the mfgs and all the MILC system lenses that will migrate with the shooter to a current DSLR system, which of course would be pics of the lonely DSLR bodies by themselves, if indeed there are any DSLR bodies to be shown. Keep the text minimal, just enough to explain what you're contrasting.

Pentax has a big advantage for the P&S upgrader -- a full line of AF lenses -- all stabilized and not needing adapters that limit functionality. The previous upgrade path was to a DSLR, but now you're offering an intermediate step in camera sophistication -- considerably better IQ (with a 13x bigger sensor that can almost shoot in the dark --ISO 12800-25600!) with the same interface and shooting style as they're used to. People do not want to be limited when they're choosing a product, even if they never really take advantage of the choices that are available. Stress the relative limitations of the competition in fully automatic lens selection. Tout the future upgrade path to a DSLR because that's the perception that the public has anyway. Play on the suggestion that if someone's looking to step up from a P&S now, that they will eventually want to make the ultimate upgrade to a DSLR, and the advantages that a common lens system will yield at that time. Illustrate the competitions inability to offer anything close to this.

Pentax has a unique concept. It can be sold, but needs to be explained in a quick and easily understood way -- pictures of the contrasts that illustrate the concept is the best way, IMO. A few photographs would go a long way. . .

Scott

[monochrome]

Being different is not a strategy; it is an excuse for not being better. Every other company is excelling in one way or another while ALSO being different. What is Pentax doing?

Here I agree with you - and I believe part of the problem is Pentax isn't telling us what it is doing, at least in the USA. Consequently all we can imagine is they are afraid to compete for market share where the market is and fighting a guerilla war in the cracks.

That surely isn't a formula for long term health.

I ahve no objection to the K-01 per se. I think it is a decent first foray into K-mount MILC, which I beleive is a viable market.

I think the problem is the misapplication of capital into the Q, which might better have been applied in the formats you have discussed.

[isaacc7]

. The K-01 is the opposite of this approach - there is nothing different in a good way about it. When people want to start living a different life, the expressions they use are "starting with a clean slate" or "turning a new page" - different needs to be different, not just a cosmetic change.

So how would any other mirror less camera that can use the k mount be different other than the cosmetic change? I think the fact that it uses regular lenses makes it quite a bit different than any of the other mirror less cameras out there. The k mount is Pentax's strength, why do anything else if you are Pentax? Or to put it another way, what could Pentax do at this point that would make people desert the canons and nikons of the world?

And before you say there aren't any advantages of this camera with a k mount I'll point out the more accurate focus, the smaller size (yes, it is smaller than slrs), the simpler construction, quieter operation and yes the design over their slr line right now. There are advantages to this camera as compared to the other Pentax cameras and the biggest advantage it has over other brands is the full comparability of the k mount. This camera is different than any other camera out there. It is certainly different in the way that is important to me, the k mount.

[rparmar]

i wouldn't define an OMD as different myself Robin. It is nice but it's also the development of a long time in the mirrorless market. and it's really not a revolutionary design at all just a rehash of a design they made 20 year + ago updated for the digital age - certainly it is a good enough camera but personally i don't see it being anything groundbreaking at this point

I am not arguing that a camera needs to be different to be good. That was someone else's argument.

The OM-D is the smallest interchangeable lens system with decent IQ, weather-sealing, viewfinder, and IBIS. They have stolen the march on Pentax in all of the areas of strength where Pentax used to lead. Olympus didn't say "how can we be different". They said "how can we be better".

But if you're looking for innovation, there is enough of that too in this system.

not too mention Oly really is still in a disastrous mess at the moment and the camera division is the biggest money loser - they've been good at abandoning things in the past - see the OM line for instance than the 4/3 line....doesn't inspire confidence in me

I can't believe you're using the same argument that Canikon users use against Pentax... they are imminently about to fail! The sky is falling! This says nothing about the actual merits of the system under discussion. It's FUD.

I don't however think you are ever going to see m4/3 sized apsc milcs from Pentax that would require the use of a clunky adapter like the Sony.

Why does the adapter have to be like the Sony one? Plenty of people design smaller adapters, with various degrees of coupling. Is the Q adapter for K-mount also going to be a horrible monstrosity? Maybe, but I doubt it.

[Tonto]

I saw one today in 'get addicted to'- apologies if this has been mentioned before

High Tech Meets Design – get addicted to ... DAILY MIX OF CREATIVE CULTURE

Here is the like from another thread here as it inspired this one.

Unboxing the Pentax/Marc Newson K-01 (NOTCOT)

Feel free to add your own.

Just to add I showed my wife a picture of the K-01 when she came back from her trip- Response "fUgly" lol
I might set it up on my Playstation 3s wallpaper so it grows on her abit- admittedly it was the yellow one.