Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-06-2012, 04:04 PM   #16
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,803
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Marc Newson's K0-1 design clearly makes strong references to the design style of Dieter Rams, an industrial designer well-known through his work for the German company Braun.

Wherever Newson references Rams, the K-01 looks great. Unfortunately, Newson felt the need to put a pretentious designer stamp on the K-01 and here is where his work fails a couple of Rams' ten principles of "good design". According to Rams, good design:
  • Is aesthetic (The aesthetic quality of a product is integral to its usefulness because products are used every day and have an effect on people and their well-being. Only well-executed objects can be beautiful.): Clearly, the snorkel/chimney gimmick and other design aspects are not well received. Many call the camera "ugly" and the daughter of Shawn Barnett (from Imaging Resource) thinks the controls look "too childish (she is 14 years old)"!
  • Is as little design as possible (Less, but better – because it concentrates on the essential aspects, and the products are not burdened with non-essentials.): Again the snorkel/chimney is an offender but also the on/off switch fails the test. Clearly it is more decorative but less ergonomic than the previous Pentax on/off switches.
  • Is honest (It does not make a product more innovative, powerful or valuable than it really is. It does not attempt to manipulate the consumer with promises that cannot be kept.): Clearly, the bulge which mimics a prism housing, promises a viewfinder. It appeals to the looks of professional grade cameras without delivering the goods.
  • Is long-lasting (It avoids being fashionable and therefore never appears antiquated. Unlike fashionable design, it lasts many years – even in today's throwaway society.): The K-01's design is just too gimmicky to have any chance of becoming a classic. Ram's Snow White's Coffin -- the first audio gear to feature a transparent cover -- has become a classic because its design is functional, simple, and aesthetic.
  • Is thorough down to the last detail (Nothing must be arbitrary or left to chance. Care and accuracy in the design process show respect towards the consumer.): Clearly there is a reason why the exposure compensation button is placed differently on previous Pentax cameras. It does not make sense in terms of usability to place it where the K-01 features it. Marc Newson openly states that he isn't interested in user feedback on his designs because that would only hamper the forward-looking aspect of his designs.
In summary, unfortunately Marc Newson -- in an apparent attempt to design another museum exhibition piece rather than restraining himself and focusing on user needs -- violated another of Rams' rules, i.e. to let the design be "unobtrusive (Products fulfilling a purpose are like tools. They are neither decorative objects nor works of art.).

What Pentaxian does not appreciate the buzz the K-01 has been causing, but
  1. you don't want negative buzz (ugly, too large, toy camera, hopeless company, ...), and
  2. ultimately "buzz" does not equate to revenue. The camera needs to sell, not be talked about.
One can only hope that the K-01 won't cost Pentax too dearly and that their future DSLRs will be designed by the same competent people who brought us gems like the K10D/K20D and K-7/K-5.
You used way too many words..... The condensed version is: IT'S FUGLY. That is the technical term Rams would have used. Not sure how you say that in German though.

02-06-2012, 04:04 PM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Southern California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,082
I probably won't be buying one, unless it blows me away, but looks are the least important thing about a camera to me. As far as looks go though, it may not be in Fuji territory, but it certainly holds its own. I think it's nicer looking than the NEX series, the J1 series, the PEN series, The Pannys, and more interesting looking than the NX series. It's certainly nicer looking than a default DSLR, it's a camera, what were we really expecting?
02-06-2012, 04:07 PM   #18
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,915
QuoteQuote:
I disagree.
I concur.
02-06-2012, 04:11 PM   #19
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 173
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Is aesthetic (The aesthetic quality of a product is integral to its usefulness because products are used every day and have an effect on people and their well-being. Only well-executed objects can be beautiful.): Clearly, the snorkel/chimney gimmick and other design aspects are not well received. Many call the camera "ugly" and the daughter of Shawn Barnett (from Imaging Resource) thinks the controls look "too childish (she is 14 years old)"!
It violates this only if you think its ugly. I really like how it looks, ergo it does not violate this principle.

QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Is as little design as possible (Less, but better – because it concentrates on the essential aspects, and the products are not burdened with non-essentials.): Again the snorkel/chimney is an offender but also the on/off switch fails the test. Clearly it is more decorative but less ergonomic than the previous Pentax on/off switches.
Without having tried it, how can you know if its more or less ergonomic? I dont see all that much of a difference from the on/off switch on my k10/k7.

QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Is honest (It does not make a product more innovative, powerful or valuable than it really is. It does not attempt to manipulate the consumer with promises that cannot be kept.): Clearly, the bulge which mimics a prism housing, promises a viewfinder. It appeals to the looks of professional grade cameras without delivering the goods.
And a hot-shoe, which it does deliver.

QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Is long-lasting (It avoids being fashionable and therefore never appears antiquated. Unlike fashionable design, it lasts many years – even in today's throwaway society.): The K-01's design is just too gimmicky to have any chance of becoming a classic. Ram's Snow White's Coffin -- the first audio gear to feature a transparent cover -- has become a classic because its design is functional, simple, and aesthetic.
I'm sorry, but this is downright silly. You think its gimmicky, but plenty of us do not. I would be happy to see more cameras designed like this.

QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Is thorough down to the last detail (Nothing must be arbitrary or left to chance. Care and accuracy in the design process show respect towards the consumer.): Clearly there is a reason why the exposure compensation button is placed differently on previous Pentax cameras. It does not make sense in terms of usability to place it where the K-01 features it. Marc Newson openly states that he isn't interested in user feedback on his designs because that would only hamper the forward-looking aspect of his designs.
It does look like it will be rather awkward to use that button.

QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
In summary, unfortunately Marc Newson -- in an apparent attempt to design another museum exhibition piece rather than restraining himself and focusing on user needs -- violated another of Rams' rules, i.e. to let the design be "unobtrusive (Products fulfilling a purpose are like tools. They are neither decorative objects nor works of art.).
In summary, you don't like the looks of the camera, therefore have decided they violate Rams' rules. Sorry, but thats not a very compelling argument.

QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
What Pentaxian does not appreciate the buzz the K-01 has been causing, but
  1. you don't want negative buzz (ugly, too large, toy camera, hopeless company, ...), and
  2. ultimately "buzz" does not equate to revenue. The camera needs to sell, not be talked about.
Actually, I dont mind the negative buzz at all. In this case, any buzz is better than no buzz. At least they are looking at a Pentax for once - in the past nobody even bothered to look. In addition, negative comments from people who already own Canon/Nikon are completely irrelevant, they are just defending their decision to stick with that brand. What matters is the comments from people not committed to any brand yet (i.e. dont own any lenses) - and I myself have heard some good comments about the K-01.

Considering the camera is not available for purchase yet, all we can do is talk about it. When it goes on sale, then we will see if the buzz equates revenue or not. One thing is certain, you cannot sell a camera nobody has heard about. Now at least this camera has a chance.

QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
One can only hope that the K-01 won't cost Pentax too dearly and that their future DSLRs will be designed by the same competent people who brought us gems like the K10D/K20D and K-7/K-5.
Seriously? It has not even gone on sale yet, and you're hoping it doesn't cost Pentax too dearly? How about lets hope the camera is a success, and encourages Pentax to continue to bring us innovative, enjoyable, well performing cameras.

02-06-2012, 04:17 PM   #20
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 43,281
Did you see Marc Newson's Ford concept car? I showed it to my friend (we're both into cars) and he's like "close that shit" after about 2 seconds

I'd never buy a camera because it looks good, but I wouldn't but one if it looks bad. The K-01 looks OK if you ask me- nowhere near as disastrous as that car!


Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com's high server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover those costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

02-06-2012, 04:21 PM   #21
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 173
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
Did you see Marc Newson's Ford concept car? I showed it to my friend (we're both into cars) and he's like "close that shit" after about 2 seconds

I'd never buy a camera because it looks good, but I wouldn't but one if it looks bad. The K-01 looks OK if you ask me- nowhere near as disastrous as that car!
That car is awful, especially the exterior. But there were some interior touches I'd love to have, specifically the seats rotating towards the door. I think that would make getting in and out lots easier. Also the completely flat floor is nice.

But the exterior looks like an eraser.
02-06-2012, 04:25 PM   #22
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Vylen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,250
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Is aesthetic (The aesthetic quality of a product is integral to its usefulness because products are used every day and have an effect on people and their well-being. Only well-executed objects can be beautiful.): Clearly, the snorkel/chimney gimmick and other design aspects are not well received. Many call the camera "ugly" and the daughter of Shawn Barnett (from Imaging Resource) thinks the controls look "too childish (she is 14 years old)"!
It is really that clear? Look at the Official Styling Poll right in these forums.. As of writing this post up 55% rate the cameras design 4+. 29.5% rate it 2 and below and 26.8% are sitting on the fence with 3. From the looks of it, to make your "clear" point, you have grabbed some posts here and there in an attempt to exemplify your point when there's clear objective data (i.e. a simple poll) that points otherwise.

QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Is as little design as possible (Less, but better – because it concentrates on the essential aspects, and the products are not burdened with non-essentials.): Again the snorkel/chimney is an offender but also the on/off switch fails the test. Clearly it is more decorative but less ergonomic than the previous Pentax on/off switches.
I'm not going to say too much on this point. As previously mentioned, the snorkel provides the camera an ability to be placed flat on any surface, including upside down. There's also no real "proof" the on-off switch is less ergonomic when the people who have criticised the camera have not actually used it.

QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Is honest (It does not make a product more innovative, powerful or valuable than it really is. It does not attempt to manipulate the consumer with promises that cannot be kept.): Clearly, the bulge which mimics a prism housing, promises a viewfinder. It appeals to the looks of professional grade cameras without delivering the goods.
Once again, as previously mentioned, the bulge provides a housing for the pop-up flash. It promises nothing when you see the camera from the back. There is no deceiving when you see the camera from all points of view around the camera.

QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Is long-lasting (It avoids being fashionable and therefore never appears antiquated. Unlike fashionable design, it lasts many years – even in today's throwaway society.): The K-01's design is just too gimmicky to have any chance of becoming a classic. Ram's Snow White's Coffin -- the first audio gear to feature a transparent cover -- has become a classic because its design is functional, simple, and aesthetic.
Given it's retro design, you can argue it's long-lasting. In fact there's a few mentions of the K-01 design being timeless. Of course, only time will tell on this and unless you're an oracle who can see the future. No one can definitely call this point.

QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Is thorough down to the last detail (Nothing must be arbitrary or left to chance. Care and accuracy in the design process show respect towards the consumer.): Clearly there is a reason why the exposure compensation button is placed differently on previous Pentax cameras. It does not make sense in terms of usability to place it where the K-01 features it. Marc Newson openly states that he isn't interested in user feedback on his designs because that would only hamper the forward-looking aspect of his designs.
This point barely makes sense... "Clearly there is a reason" ... and yet "It does not make sense" ... unless the reason is because Marc Newson disregards feedback?

I agree the exposure compensation button is placed in an unusual place but I honestly don't know where it could have gone to be usable. With a lack of a front e-dial you can't place it on the back of the right side of the body and there's seemingly lack of room on the left side. Unless you put it on the front of the body then that's just as unusual of a place to put it just the same!
02-06-2012, 04:33 PM   #23
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,201
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by konraDarnok Quote
To critique your first point, aesthetics: What you've done here is a pretty classic Argumentum ad populum.
The answer to most questions does not depend on a majority vote. This is where the "Argumentum ad populum" applies. There are, however, some questions, where the majority vote is important. For instance, the question "Does the majority find the K-01 design appealing or not?".

It is my understanding that good design will (ultimately) be well received by the majority of people. If only a minority of people say "I like it" then the design has failed.


QuoteOriginally posted by konraDarnok Quote
To the second point, Is as little design as possible I'd say this design exemplifies this principal.
What function does the chimney/snorkel have?
Surely the mode dial could have been placed in such a way that it would not need a pedestal.

What function does the bulge have?
You may argue that it helps to raise the flash but a flash raising mechanism should take care of that not a part that permanently adds height to the camera.

QuoteOriginally posted by konraDarnok Quote
There's nothing pretensions about this camera. The buttons and controls are straight forward -- with no anonymous extraneous switches and dials that modern cameras have in abundance.
There is no need for the snorkel.
The on/off switch looks good but is big and not as functional as previous solutions. It can be switched off with the index finger, but it seems more natural to switch it on with the thumb. Previous Pentax on/off switch designs made it easy to switch the camera on with the index finger so that the index finger can immediately be put on the shutter release button. I don't see that kind of natural operation with the K-01. Maybe handling one would teach me otherwise, but I don't see how. Misere has also complained about the K-01's on/off switch. EDIT: Maybe the on/off switch works after all if one holds the K-01 like an F1 steering wheel?

QuoteOriginally posted by konraDarnok Quote
Your example of the bump is misplaced. They had to put the flash housing somewhere -- as directly below it is the mount.
Look at the Q. The K-01 would have been big without adding further bulk to it by using a bulge and an elevated mode dial.
QuoteOriginally posted by konraDarnok Quote
And the "snorkle" is designed so this camera can be laid. flat on any side -- even the top.
Why would anyone lay the camera on its top?
Also, judging from images, the camera would not lay straight on its top. EDIT: It does! (I'm not convinced, though, that the mode dial actually reaches the ground).

QuoteOriginally posted by konraDarnok Quote
This camera is designed to be held at arms length. It looks to me like the buttons are laid on to achieve that.
The index finger can not comfortably operate the exposure compensation button whether you hold the camera at arm's length or not.


Last edited by Class A; 02-06-2012 at 05:33 PM.
02-06-2012, 04:35 PM   #24
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 3,316
Meh. For me, the design is far more important than the designer. Too much of the buzz is focusing on one person. I don't begrudge Newson this opportunity for lots of free publicity, though.
02-06-2012, 04:38 PM   #25
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,201
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
The K-01 looks OK if you ask me- nowhere near as disastrous as that car!
You are right, but then what does look near as disastrous as that car?
02-06-2012, 04:40 PM - 1 Like   #26
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Vylen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,250
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Why would anyone lay the camera on its top?
Also, judging from images, the camera would not lay straight on its top.
Courtesy of the Hands-On Photos of the K-01 from Pentax Singapore User Group thread.



People do weird stuff... and there's bound to be countless people who have some particular reason to put it upside down.
02-06-2012, 04:48 PM - 1 Like   #27
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
QuoteOriginally posted by Eagle_Friends Quote
There is another video on yoututbe where Marc Newson does an interview at the event. The interviewer asked Marc whether the consumer input is important and he blantly said that he doesn't like to listen to consumers. For him, his job is to look toward the future and what's next. In that angle, the K-01 makes sense to me, because it is a refreshing look to a old consumer product. We'll just have to see whether this works out in the end.

Also, Marc is a professional, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt on what he thinks makes great design.
Do as you wish, you will anyway, but the deference to "experts" on things like art and design is what has brought us things like public art.
02-06-2012, 04:50 PM   #28
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 971
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
Did you see Marc Newson's Ford concept car? I showed it to my friend (we're both into cars) and he's like "close that shit" after about 2 seconds

I'd never buy a camera because it looks good, but I wouldn't but one if it looks bad. The K-01 looks OK if you ask me- nowhere near as disastrous as that car!
I think the car looks neat. different yet strangely similar. i like it.
02-06-2012, 04:59 PM   #29
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, PRofMA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,053
QuoteOriginally posted by konraDarnok Quote
the "snorkle" is designed so this camera can be laid. flat on any side -- even the top.
I was wondering this as well...you know this because.......you think it's true? Or did you talk to Newson to confirm this?
Sounds like a presumption

It's pretty funny that I predicted the design would be a love or hate it design...
02-06-2012, 04:59 PM - 1 Like   #30
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,455
K-01 Summary

This whole discussion truly astonishes me. Everything we know so far is subjective or conditional. Nothing we know is objective (except for Frank and creampuff's posts, which are subjective impressions - and no way am I going to type Singapore again and have iPhone auto-correct it to Indonesia )

What I know:
  • Strikingly attractive (in black) - best in All-Black
  • Frank says it feels good
  • John Root says it feels solid
  • it should produce excellent stills
  • it should produce excellent video
  • I probably won't miss the omitted modes
  • i probably won't need to shoot longer than 135mm with it
  • I probably won't need a remote I/R port on the rear
  • I think (through experimentation with an MESuper) I know a way to shoot with LCD that isn't arms' length.
  • i like what i perceive as the value.
I have a dSLR when I need a dSLR

I ordered it today (with the real DA40). I'm happy. That's all that matters.

And I'm so average . . .

Through many years of experience and observation, if I think or do something, lots and lots of people are already thinking or doing the same thing. I'm rarely early. I'm just pretty average.

That means Pentax should sell lots and lots of these cams.

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

Last edited by monochrome; 02-06-2012 at 06:39 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, cameras, design, k-01, k01, marc, mirrorless, on/off, pentax, pentax k-01, products, rams
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-01 Officially Announced - *START HERE* + Interview with Marc Newson Adam Pentax News and Rumors 48 05-11-2012 05:29 PM
Pentax Ricoh Imaging Americas introduces pentax k-01 designed by Marc Newson Adam Homepage & Official Pentax News 0 02-02-2012 05:10 AM
FA Limited lens series won the 2010 Good Design Long Life Design Award Patriot Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 26 11-29-2010 06:16 AM
What happens if SDM fails? Hannican Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 08-19-2010 04:13 AM
Hitlers SDM Fails knumbnutz Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 25 04-11-2010 08:17 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:23 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top