[ogl]

I disagree.

Me too

[Ratmagiclady]

The beginning of this thread makes something that is very subjective sound oh, so objective, but it still comes down to opinion. As to whether or not this camera is easy to use remains to be seen. The hardest part has nothing to do with the design and has everything to do with the fact that composition will be done on the LCD and no through a viewfinder.

I think that's one thing that means one shouldn't assume something is 'just trying to be weird' if we're still looking at the thing and wanting a viewfinder. (And trust me, that's right where I want to go.)

Or somehow 'Failed to be unreasonably-thin enough just cause that would be smaller,' ...Which, you know, before there were digital cameras, we had film ones, and when they started putting drives and grips on them so they would hold more naturally, we *loved* it. It didn't always take much, but the human hand does have a position where there's better and more natural grip strength. And that's not, say, holding something the shape of a hardcover book (of any thickness) out sideways by one edge.


It's not the thing for me, but claiming, 'This fails at some design primcples cause I don't like it... ' isn't very objective, indeed. The real question isn't how similar it is to something else, it's how it's put together to be used as designed and in ways the designer may not have previsioned.

(That's why an SLR-like platform is pretty safe, too, most of the bugs are worked out.)

Just a personal opinion on these "throw back cameras." I didn't begin photography until the 90s and I have no feeling of nostalgia for the designs that Fuji and Olympus are bringing back. Why so many people are knocked out by them is beyond me, but I guess that is what is so subjective about taste. The question really is how easy it is to take good photos with a given camera and how much does it cost. I think the K-01 will pass from both of those standards.

Some of those old shapes generated good feelings cause they worked and felt *well,* too, before this all turned to gigabytes and microchips. It's fine to make things smaller, but it's not worth having a smaller camera with the shutter in the wrong place to shoot comfortable.

[Fontan]

It sort of reminds me of how iPhone failed in every aspect that had been mentioned by OP.

[RobA_Oz]

It sort of reminds me of how iPhone failed in every aspect that had been mentioned by OP.

Well, it's been a massive failure, hasn't it? I distinctly recall some people openly laughing at my original iPhone and referring to it as "iFlop" - there's no accounting for the negativity that floats around in some people's heads.

The problem with "Rules" is that they are inevitably written in a cultural context, and written succinctly. There being no Universal Culture, even for religions - in spite of what some might assert - it's impossible to do other than speak from within a particular culture. Brevity is necessay to get your points across in a memorable manner, but it necessarily introduces a requirement for interpretation, because it's impossible to state all your givens and assumptions about variables in a succinct fashion, unless you're talking about something utterly trivial.

The other problem with much of what's been written about the K-01 (as with so many other things, of course) is that people tend to blur the distinction between design and styling. We should be clear about this (apologies if I'm preaching to the converted): design is all about making something do what it's supposed to do, including the separate and distinct engineering and industrial design aspects, whereas styling is all about the pixie dust that adds visual appeal.

Some people have been turned off by the K-01's styling (witness all the "fugly" jibes, though some of those are from uncritical admirers of other systems) and a few have used that as the starting point for a general attack on the functionality. Others don't like what they see as missing functionality, particularly the lack of an eyepiece of one sort or the other, and dismiss the camera on that basis alone. I think I'll wait and see. As I've posted elsewhere in these Forums, I dismissed the Q in the beginning, but having only recently handled one, I'm starting warm to it, so I'm not about to do that with the K-01.

[Fontan]

Well, it's been a massive failure, hasn't it? I distinctly recall some people openly laughing at my original iPhone and referring to it as "iFlop" - there's no accounting for the negativity that floats around in some people's heads.

The problem with "Rules" is that they are inevitably written in a cultural context, and written succinctly. There being no Universal Culture, even for religions - in spite of what some might assert - it's impossible to do other than speak from within a particular culture. Brevity is necessay to get your points across in a memorable manner, but it necessarily introduces a requirement for interpretation, because it's impossible to state all your givens and assumptions about variables in a succinct fashion, unless you're talking about something utterly trivial.

The other problem with much of what's been written about the K-01 (as with so many other things, of course) is that people tend to blur the distinction between design and styling. We should be clear about this (apologies if I'm preaching to the converted): design is all about making something do what it's supposed to do, including the separate and distinct engineering and industrial design aspects, whereas styling is all about the pixie dust that adds visual appeal.

Some people have been turned off by the K-01's styling (witness all the "fugly" jibes, though some of those are from uncritical admirers of other systems) and a few have used that as the starting point for a general attack on the functionality. Others don't like what they see as missing functionality, particularly the lack of an eyepiece of one sort or the other, and dismiss the camera on that basis alone. I think I'll wait and see. As I've posted elsewhere in these Forums, I dismissed the Q in the beginning, but having only recently handled one, I'm starting warm to it, so I'm not about to do that with the K-01.

It is almost always in hindsight that we realize trailblazers make guiding principles evolve. Those who object in present are simply not ahead of their time, and they are the ones who perpetuate mediocrity.

[pingflood]

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.

So you think it is a good idea to not listen to consumers when designing a camera? Really?

Boy, the kool-aid is strong with this one.

Imagine if Canon or Nikon said "we are designing a new camera and ignoring all consumer input while doing so". Would you still think that was a good idea?

[Fontan]

So you think it is a good idea to not listen to consumers when designing a camera? Really?

Boy, the kool-aid is strong with this one.

Imagine if Canon or Nikon said "we are designing a new camera and ignoring all consumer input while doing so". Would you still think that was a good idea?

I think that when a well known designer is asked to participate in a project like this, the last thing he wants is to get sucked into a popularity contest. In the end, listening to the voice of consumers - that is the job of Pentax, because they are the one who can ultimately pull the plug, or decide to go with it.

[Class A]

It's not the thing for me, but claiming, 'This fails at some design primcples cause I don't like it... ' isn't very objective, indeed.

I don't understand the causality you are implying.

Whether the K-01's design does or does not meet some of the design principles laid out by Rams does not depend on whether I like the K-01 or not.

Note that I didn't list all ten of Rams' principles because the K-01 doesn't violate them all. Wouldn't it be more constructive for you to argue why you think my reasoning is flawed rather than suggesting that the conclusions cannot be objective because I supposedly started with a "I don't like it attitude"?

Take the "ISO button" placement on many Nikon cameras. It is on the left hand side and in order to use it, you'll have to take the left hand off the lens (not ideal, if a heavy lens is attached). The Pentax way of placing it on the right hand side makes far more sense. If I now argued that Nikon's approach to the ISO button placement isn't optimal given how much more frequently you change ISO on a DSLR compared to a film camera, would you also respond that my criticism isn't objective just because I don't like the LHS placement?

[Class A]

It sort of reminds me of how iPhone failed in every aspect that had been mentioned by OP.

How can you even begin to argue that the iPhone design fails any of the design criteria I listed? Where is it gimmicky? Where is it not ergonomic?

AFAIC, the iPhone design does not violate any of Rams' design principles. It has all the hallmarks of a timeless design, AFAIC.

It is almost always in hindsight that we realize trailblazers make guiding principles evolve. Those who object in present are simply not ahead of their time, and they are the ones who perpetuate mediocrity.

It depends on where the trail that has been blazed is leading. Those who "object in present" are only perpetuating mediocrity, if the new trail actually is leading somewhere useful. Hopefully the K-01 won't blaze a trail for more cameras with ill-placed exposure compensation buttons.

Did you see me post a criticism of the iPhone design somewhere? Or object to another great design?

Any suggestion of criticism (everyone is invited to enlighten me as to why the K-01 satisfies Rams' rules or what product does not satisfy Rams' rules but still is fantastic) must be coming from a backward thinking, mediocrity-preserving mind? I don't think so.

[bennygoerlach]

Class A, What qualifies you as an expert on RAMS law ? Perhaps you are a designer in direct competition with Marc Newson ?? If thats the case, you're doing something wrong, cause he seems to be winning the race.

Stop hating dude.. This is a 5 page thread of you moaning. *yawn*

[pingflood]

Class A, What qualifies you as an expert on RAMS law ? Perhaps you are a designer in direct competition with Marc Newson ?? If thats the case, you're doing something wrong, cause he seems to be winning the race.

Stop hating dude.. This is a 5 page thread of you moaning. *yawn*

Nobody is forcing you to read it

[bennygoerlach]

Nobody is forcing you to read it

Well form the title it sounds like an interesting discussion, but after reading it I found its just this person forcing their opinion on everyone.. So I thought I'd share mine.

[ecnal]

How can you even begin to argue that the iPhone design fails any of the design criteria I listed? Where is it gimmicky? Where is it not ergonomic?

I would argue for a handheld device, changing from the curved shape of the iphone 3 has reduced the ergonomic fit. The sharp edges of the 4 and 4s are just no-where near as comfortable to hold. Better looking? Yes.
Also, a glass front and back of a phone by many is seen to be form (or in this case material) over function.

[Class A]

Class A, What qualifies you as an expert on RAMS law ?

The K-01's design either meets Rams' criteria or it doesn't. Doesn't depend on my expertise. How do you argue that my reasoning is wrong?

This is a 5 page thread of you moaning. *yawn*

As pingflood points out, nobody forced you to read through all pages. I for one, found some posts by others worthwhile reading. YMMV.

[edri]

A very good analysis at the begining of this thread. I totally agree.
Uninspired choice of this designer. If Pentax would be a manufacturer of shoe boxes, then Marc was the right choice.
I do not want a camera with the signature of this man named Marc Newson.
I really wanted a Pentax mirrorless, but I am very disappointed with K01. I will wait for the next Pentax mirroless. I hope with a competent designer.