K-01 Critics and Camera Price

Philoslothical · 02-05-2012, 04:58 PM

I don't consider $900 to be reasonably priced for a point and shoot upgrade, when people can get an entry level DSLR for considerably less that will do everything the K-01 does as well or better, with the exception of video. The only advantage of the K-01 is the video mode, which I said will attract some, but I doubt it will be enough.

People keep talking about the $749 price point, but people upgrading from a point and shoot won't have glass. They'll be looking at the price with a lens, because what good is it without one? A few of the more savvy ones may go for the body and a separate lens, but those will not be the people who don't know what a viewfinder is, as Adam suggested.

ozlizard · 02-05-2012, 04:59 PM

The "lack" of a viewfinder is a plus for the intended market of this camera.
The general public expect a new camera to have an LCD screen and no viewfinder, they don't know anything different.
Optical viewfinders will become obsolete as technology improves.

jogiba · 02-05-2012, 05:16 PM

The K-01 at $749 kills the $1,199 K-5 in video features. I am glad I purchased the GH2 in Dec 2010 instead of the K-5 since it cost much more than $1,199 back then and my GH2 was only $630. If Pentax keeps production on the K-01 at a smart level it might stay at the $749 street price longer.

Wheatfield · 02-05-2012, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by Biro

While I personally am still in "wait and see" mode with the K-01, I have a question for those who don't like the camera for reasons varying from styling to size and weight to the lack of a viewfinder. MSRP for the K-01 body-only is $749. What if the price was $549 or even $449? Would you be more likely to buy the K-01 then... or is the camera just so "wrong" in your mind that you would never go for it under any circumstances? And if price is a factor, what would be the tipping point for you?

Price is not an objection. The lack of viewfinder in a camera of this size, as well as the goofball styling are deal breakers for me. Especially the goofball styling. Strapping a Rube Goldberg device onto the back of it as a pseudo finder doesn't make this camera more palatable.

jsherman999 · 02-05-2012, 05:21 PM

That would be a heck of a lot of IQ for the money at $500-600...

What's interesting is that the more I shoot with my iphone, the more I'm learning to compose without a VF. It's in no way as good as having a VF, but it's not impossible to shoot without one, either.

1shot · 02-05-2012, 05:42 PM

I've been saying all along that I wanted a "mirrorless" camera. I even posted a couple comments on dpr about all the other benefits possible without a mirror, that seemed to change the tone of the conversation as well as give pause to a couple mirrorless detractors who were participating in that conversation. Now that this camera has come out I realize I've been beating the wrong drum. It's not mirrorless that I want, its a compact system camera. I only used the term mirrorless because that seamed to be an emerging consensus. Now CSC seams to be emerging as the new term for the category because people are realizing that it more accurately describes the point. I wish the other "mirrorless" proponents and I who really wanted a compact system camera from Pentax had used the correct term. So no, a lower price won't make me interested in buying the confusingly pointless (to me) K-01, the camera that (allong with the Q) seams to preclude any chance of the camera I want from the manufacturer who could have done it best. The 40xs, as cool as it is, to me has become a symbol of regret, a stinging reminder of what Pentax could have done. Now I'm left to choose from manufacturers who's offerings don't really excite me.

Biro · 02-05-2012, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by jsherman999

That would be a heck of a lot of IQ for the money at $500-600...

What's interesting is that the more I shoot with my iphone, the more I'm learning to compose without a VF. It's in no way as good as having a VF, but it's not impossible to shoot without one, either.

Oh yes... one can absolutely compose without a viewfinder. I do it all the time with both my Oly E-PM1 and Panny LX3. But, in both cases, those are very compact, light cameras and I'm almost always shooting at fairly short focal lengths.

I'm sure the K-01 will be fine with primes and zooms like the DA 18-55. I just have to wonder if one, in a practical sense, can handhold the camera in broad daylight with an 18-250, 60-250 or 55-300 mounted on it. Now, if such lenses are not practical on the new camera without a tripod, fair enough. But that limitation would be calculated into my personal equation for whether I would buy the K-01 and how much I would pay for it.

Last edited by Biro; 02-05-2012 at 06:00 PM.

**Aristophanes** · 02-06-2012, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by wlachan

I think the initial price is reasonable consider it is new with aluminum body. The lack of VF and the flimsy rubber cover aren't what I expect though. But if Ricoh managed to manufacture them super reliable, maybe there is still hope.

It's K-5 IQ but mirrorless performance, and K-mount compatibility at near half the MSRP starting price, and only a bit more with a DA 40 prime.

I like the price.

The darn thing screams for an articulating rear LCD so much it hurts.

And a port for an optional EVF.

I can live with the styling. Different is unique. It looks like it slammed into a wall fast....but then got right back up!

chrisjoy · 02-09-2012, 11:48 AM

As of today its down to #89 for Amazon U.S. orders for CSC's, 4 OM-D cameras occupy the top 4 spots, followed the the original Pen and the Nex5n. The K01 is getting drowned by a flood of other announcements. The excitement level outside of this board wasn't that high to begin with and Pentax did an absolutely horrible job of creating any excitement. Look at all the questions about functionality and image quality - they should have put them in the hands of testers or produced more media the info would hit with the announcement. I was interested because of the sensor and SR. Since I have no investment in K lenses, a cheaper Nex5n ($699 with a good stabilized zoom lens) at less than half the weight, optional VF and its ability to adapt so many other lenses looks like like a better option. The 5 axis IBIS in the new Olympus looks like a better option as well. Sad, but as others have said - Pentax built a camera nobody wanted. This thing is D.O.A.

GeneV · 02-09-2012, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by vonBaloney

A hoodman type eyepiece/loupe (I saw a picture of someone already with the K-01 and such a device -- where was that?) seems like a viable option -- then you're putting the camera up to your eye (within 3-4 inches) and can hold it more or less normally.

If it folds, it would be an interesting option. The loupe might avoid the need for reading glasses. Most people I know who shoot serious video on the Canon DSLRs use something like that.

GeneV · 02-09-2012, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

It's K-5 IQ but mirrorless performance, and K-mount compatibility at near half the MSRP starting price, and only a bit more with a DA 40 prime.

I like the price.

The darn thing screams for an articulating rear LCD so much it hurts.

And a port for an optional EVF.

I can live with the styling. Different is unique. It looks like it slammed into a wall fast....but then got right back up!

Good points. The price is one of the better points to me.

vonBaloney · 02-09-2012, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

If it folds, it would be an interesting option. The loupe might avoid the need for reading glasses. Most people I know who shoot serious video on the Canon DSLRs use something like that.

The one I was thinking I think might be the LCDVF. I found the photo in the other thread:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-01-forum/174006-hands-photos-k-0...ml#post1811854

**Byrd-2020** · 02-09-2012, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Philoslothical

I don't consider $900 to be reasonably priced for a point and shoot upgrade, when people can get an entry level DSLR for considerably less that will do everything the K-01 does as well or better, with the exception of video. The only advantage of the K-01 is the video mode, which I said will attract some, but I doubt it will be enough.

People keep talking about the $749 price point, but people upgrading from a point and shoot won't have glass. They'll be looking at the price with a lens, because what good is it without one? A few of the more savvy ones may go for the body and a separate lens, but those will not be the people who don't know what a viewfinder is, as Adam suggested.

I think Philoslothical's analysis is spot on.

My guess is that, if the K-01 is market success it will be as a video camera.

**RobA_Oz** · 02-09-2012, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by Byrd-2020

I think Philoslothical's analysis is spot on.

My guess is that, if the K-01 is market success it will be as a video camera.

Time will tell whether or not the K-01 is a success or not, and what market segment(s) it succeeds in. I'm glad you used the word "guess", because a disappointing number of people here are using absolute (and ultimately, silly) phrases like "DOA", when they really mean "I don't like it". There are other, better constructed, submissions, but they all amount to guesswork, and some of them are plainly trolling.

As I've said elsewhere, I felt the same about the Q until I actually tried one (it got a similar initial reaction to the K-01, although there were fewer open supporters of the Q when it first appeared).

Why do people feel the need to express negative views so forcefully, that they step over the bounds of credibility? Point out the shortcomings as you see them, by all means, but you do yourself no credit by prognosticating on behalf of an entire (and very diverse) market. Otherwise, you start to look like a secular Taliban (replace with any other rigid world view, to taste).

Back on topic, I will probably consider the K-01 at some point in the next 12 months, but I'll wait and see what the real product and pricing is like, and what other things have emerged from Pentax in the meantime.

cali92rs · 02-09-2012, 07:42 PM

If it had an articulating rear screen, I might consider it at the current price, even without a vf. It could be a great incognito camera.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Tenba 638-342 Messenger Camera Bag (Olive) - 2nd PRICE Drop	GDRoth	Sold Items	5	10-01-2011 04:15 PM
Pentax K-7, a pro camera at an amateur price?	Student	Pentax DSLR Discussion	4	01-05-2011 04:51 AM
People Аbout girls (The same but for the critics)	Svyatosha	Photo Critique	5	07-18-2010 08:54 AM
Pentax K20D Critics...	benjikan	Pentax DSLR Discussion	48	02-08-2008 12:38 PM
Critics for humane society project?	d.bradley	Photographic Technique	8	02-07-2008 12:39 AM

02-05-2012, 04:58 PM	#16
Philoslothical Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 1,889	I don't consider $900 to be reasonably priced for a point and shoot upgrade, when people can get an entry level DSLR for considerably less that will do everything the K-01 does as well or better, with the exception of video. The only advantage of the K-01 is the video mode, which I said will attract some, but I doubt it will be enough. People keep talking about the $749 price point, but people upgrading from a point and shoot won't have glass. They'll be looking at the price with a lens, because what good is it without one? A few of the more savvy ones may go for the body and a separate lens, but those will not be the people who don't know what a viewfinder is, as Adam suggested.

02-05-2012, 04:59 PM	#17
ozlizard Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Bridgetown West Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 903	The "lack" of a viewfinder is a plus for the intended market of this camera. The general public expect a new camera to have an LCD screen and no viewfinder, they don't know anything different. Optical viewfinders will become obsolete as technology improves.

02-05-2012, 05:16 PM	#18
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	The K-01 at $749 kills the $1,199 K-5 in video features. I am glad I purchased the GH2 in Dec 2010 instead of the K-5 since it cost much more than $1,199 back then and my GH2 was only $630. If Pentax keeps production on the K-01 at a smart level it might stay at the $749 street price longer.

02-05-2012, 05:18 PM	#19
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by Biro While I personally am still in "wait and see" mode with the K-01, I have a question for those who don't like the camera for reasons varying from styling to size and weight to the lack of a viewfinder. MSRP for the K-01 body-only is $749. What if the price was $549 or even $449? Would you be more likely to buy the K-01 then... or is the camera just so "wrong" in your mind that you would never go for it under any circumstances? And if price is a factor, what would be the tipping point for you? Price is not an objection. The lack of viewfinder in a camera of this size, as well as the goofball styling are deal breakers for me. Especially the goofball styling. Strapping a Rube Goldberg device onto the back of it as a pseudo finder doesn't make this camera more palatable.

02-05-2012, 05:21 PM	#20
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	That would be a heck of a lot of IQ for the money at $500-600... What's interesting is that the more I shoot with my iphone, the more I'm learning to compose without a VF. It's in no way as good as having a VF, but it's not impossible to shoot without one, either.

02-05-2012, 05:42 PM	#21
1shot Junior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Utah Posts: 30	I've been saying all along that I wanted a "mirrorless" camera. I even posted a couple comments on dpr about all the other benefits possible without a mirror, that seemed to change the tone of the conversation as well as give pause to a couple mirrorless detractors who were participating in that conversation. Now that this camera has come out I realize I've been beating the wrong drum. It's not mirrorless that I want, its a compact system camera. I only used the term mirrorless because that seamed to be an emerging consensus. Now CSC seams to be emerging as the new term for the category because people are realizing that it more accurately describes the point. I wish the other "mirrorless" proponents and I who really wanted a compact system camera from Pentax had used the correct term. So no, a lower price won't make me interested in buying the confusingly pointless (to me) K-01, the camera that (allong with the Q) seams to preclude any chance of the camera I want from the manufacturer who could have done it best. The 40xs, as cool as it is, to me has become a symbol of regret, a stinging reminder of what Pentax could have done. Now I'm left to choose from manufacturers who's offerings don't really excite me.

02-05-2012, 05:55 PM	#22
Biro Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1,200 Original Poster	Originally posted by jsherman999 That would be a heck of a lot of IQ for the money at $500-600... What's interesting is that the more I shoot with my iphone, the more I'm learning to compose without a VF. It's in no way as good as having a VF, but it's not impossible to shoot without one, either. Oh yes... one can absolutely compose without a viewfinder. I do it all the time with both my Oly E-PM1 and Panny LX3. But, in both cases, those are very compact, light cameras and I'm almost always shooting at fairly short focal lengths. I'm sure the K-01 will be fine with primes and zooms like the DA 18-55. I just have to wonder if one, in a practical sense, can handhold the camera in broad daylight with an 18-250, 60-250 or 55-300 mounted on it. Now, if such lenses are not practical on the new camera without a tripod, fair enough. But that limitation would be calculated into my personal equation for whether I would buy the K-01 and how much I would pay for it. Last edited by Biro; 02-05-2012 at 06:00 PM.

02-06-2012, 05:36 PM	#23
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by wlachan I think the initial price is reasonable consider it is new with aluminum body. The lack of VF and the flimsy rubber cover aren't what I expect though. But if Ricoh managed to manufacture them super reliable, maybe there is still hope. It's K-5 IQ but mirrorless performance, and K-mount compatibility at near half the MSRP starting price, and only a bit more with a DA 40 prime. I like the price. The darn thing screams for an articulating rear LCD so much it hurts. And a port for an optional EVF. I can live with the styling. Different is unique. It looks like it slammed into a wall fast....but then got right back up!

02-09-2012, 11:48 AM	#24
chrisjoy New Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Florida Posts: 13	As of today its down to #89 for Amazon U.S. orders for CSC's, 4 OM-D cameras occupy the top 4 spots, followed the the original Pen and the Nex5n. The K01 is getting drowned by a flood of other announcements. The excitement level outside of this board wasn't that high to begin with and Pentax did an absolutely horrible job of creating any excitement. Look at all the questions about functionality and image quality - they should have put them in the hands of testers or produced more media the info would hit with the announcement. I was interested because of the sensor and SR. Since I have no investment in K lenses, a cheaper Nex5n ($699 with a good stabilized zoom lens) at less than half the weight, optional VF and its ability to adapt so many other lenses looks like like a better option. The 5 axis IBIS in the new Olympus looks like a better option as well. Sad, but as others have said - Pentax built a camera nobody wanted. This thing is D.O.A.

02-09-2012, 11:55 AM	#25
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by vonBaloney A hoodman type eyepiece/loupe (I saw a picture of someone already with the K-01 and such a device -- where was that?) seems like a viable option -- then you're putting the camera up to your eye (within 3-4 inches) and can hold it more or less normally. If it folds, it would be an interesting option. The loupe might avoid the need for reading glasses. Most people I know who shoot serious video on the Canon DSLRs use something like that.

02-09-2012, 11:57 AM	#26
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by Aristophanes It's K-5 IQ but mirrorless performance, and K-mount compatibility at near half the MSRP starting price, and only a bit more with a DA 40 prime. I like the price. The darn thing screams for an articulating rear LCD so much it hurts. And a port for an optional EVF. I can live with the styling. Different is unique. It looks like it slammed into a wall fast....but then got right back up! Good points. The price is one of the better points to me.

02-09-2012, 12:24 PM	#27
vonBaloney Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 6,029	Originally posted by GeneV If it folds, it would be an interesting option. The loupe might avoid the need for reading glasses. Most people I know who shoot serious video on the Canon DSLRs use something like that. The one I was thinking I think might be the LCDVF. I found the photo in the other thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-01-forum/174006-hands-photos-k-0...ml#post1811854

02-09-2012, 12:50 PM	#28
Byrd-2020 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: eastern Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 151	Originally posted by Philoslothical I don't consider $900 to be reasonably priced for a point and shoot upgrade, when people can get an entry level DSLR for considerably less that will do everything the K-01 does as well or better, with the exception of video. The only advantage of the K-01 is the video mode, which I said will attract some, but I doubt it will be enough. People keep talking about the $749 price point, but people upgrading from a point and shoot won't have glass. They'll be looking at the price with a lens, because what good is it without one? A few of the more savvy ones may go for the body and a separate lens, but those will not be the people who don't know what a viewfinder is, as Adam suggested. I think Philoslothical's analysis is spot on. My guess is that, if the K-01 is market success it will be as a video camera.

02-09-2012, 07:36 PM	#29
RobA_Oz Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Tasmania, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,197	Originally posted by Byrd-2020 I think Philoslothical's analysis is spot on. My guess is that, if the K-01 is market success it will be as a video camera. Time will tell whether or not the K-01 is a success or not, and what market segment(s) it succeeds in. I'm glad you used the word "guess", because a disappointing number of people here are using absolute (and ultimately, silly) phrases like "DOA", when they really mean "I don't like it". There are other, better constructed, submissions, but they all amount to guesswork, and some of them are plainly trolling. As I've said elsewhere, I felt the same about the Q until I actually tried one (it got a similar initial reaction to the K-01, although there were fewer open supporters of the Q when it first appeared). Why do people feel the need to express negative views so forcefully, that they step over the bounds of credibility? Point out the shortcomings as you see them, by all means, but you do yourself no credit by prognosticating on behalf of an entire (and very diverse) market. Otherwise, you start to look like a secular Taliban (replace with any other rigid world view, to taste). Back on topic, I will probably consider the K-01 at some point in the next 12 months, but I'll wait and see what the real product and pricing is like, and what other things have emerged from Pentax in the meantime.

02-09-2012, 07:42 PM	#30
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354	If it had an articulating rear screen, I might consider it at the current price, even without a vf. It could be a great incognito camera.