[bossa]

Another point is that for something to be really successful it almost always needs an identity. The K-01 has definitely hit a nerve with many people and, like it or not, it definitely stands out from the crowd.

When I walk past a camera shop I could instantly identify a K-01 in the window without any trouble whatsoever. This design will raise the profile and awareness of Pentax and that can only be good.

[FullertonImages]

I think your analysis of them is ad hoc. You're taking your personal preferences and forcing them onto the 'principals' instead of the other way around.

To critique your first point, aesthetics: What you've done here is a pretty classic Argumentum ad populum. There's nothing more to elaborate about.

To the second point, Is as little design as possible I'd say this design exemplifies this principal. 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.

To the third point, Is honest Again nothing is extraneous on this camera. Your example of the bump is misplaced. They had to put the flash housing somewhere -- as directly below it is the mount. And the "snorkle" is designed so this camera can be laid. flat on any side -- even the top.

To the forth point, Is long-lasting We don't have a time machine. A design doesn't become timeless until after the fact.

To the fifth point, Is thorough down to the last detail This camera is designed to be held at arms length. It looks to me like the buttons are laid on to achieve that.

I agree with this post. While your analysis bring up some point to consider, and while I think that in most cases Ram's Principles are very relevant; all you did was state the principles, then explain as if as fact how (in your opinion) this camera does not meet those criteria. One could easily state the same principles and make arguments for how the K=01 exemplifies Ram's Principles.

I'm not trying to discredit your thoughts entirely, but just saying that they were heavily seasoned with opinion. Where you could look at it and say that it's not timeless; I could look at it and say that it has elements of a retro look, mixed in with some futuristic flare that gives it a look which is neither now nor then.

At the end of the day, everything just boils down to personal opinion. And the success of this camera will come down to how many personal opinions like it and how many don't; not how well it complies with design code. Principles are worthy, but public opinion is not bound by them, so design shouldn't be either.

I personally think it is absolutely weird looking and far from normal, but I kind of dig it in that way. People who want what comes to mind when you think of a camera won't want it. People who wants something that looks different than what's out there might want it. Pentax has a long history of catering (or trying) to those who want something different, and I think when the dust settles, the K-01 will do pretty well for the first implementation of a new line.

[kenafein]

It's just as well we're not discussing 'Art' here or there'd be an endless parade of statements like "my 5yo kid could do better than that".

That's a real issue. I've seen pictures of a triangle on an otherwise empty canvas hanging in LACMA. It's insulting that trash like that hangs a few meters away from a Picasso.

[lammie200]

My own personal observation is that Ricoh has had a history of encouraging new directions in aesthetics for its products. It has also encouraged innovation. Look at the differences between a GXR and its competition. None of the competitors are as stealthy-looking nor have completely interchangeable lens / sensor modules.

My fear is that Ricoh will push what it sees as aesthetic and technological innovations at the expense of losing sight of the target. However, I am reserving judgement against Ricoh until I see the additional models that compose the range of Pentax MILC's between the Q and the K-01.

Below is a link to a camera purchase of mine that I wish had never happened. I am sure that all of the concepts behind the Ricoh Mirai (and its variations) eventually made it into other film cameras of the time. In addition, I am sure that many of the features were directly adapted to digital cameras. But Ricoh's product was crap.

Ricoh Mirai on-line camera manual, instruction

As far as the aesthetics of the K-01 go, I have said before that it is fugly. But I don't mind being associated with fugly. I have two brothers.

[westmill]

I cant beleive the amount of controvesy over a simple compact camera !
You like it or you dont, its suitable or its not.
If you like it and its suitable... buy it !
If you dont like it..... Find some thing else !

[kenafein]

Another point is that for something to be really successful it almost always needs an identity. The K-01 has definitely hit a nerve with many people and, like it or not, it definitely stands out from the crowd.

When I walk past a camera shop I could instantly identify a K-01 in the window without any trouble whatsoever. This design will raise the profile and awareness of Pentax and that can only be good.

I don't really think it stands out so much. I don't think the design is off-putting or revolutionary. It looks like a camera, and I'm fine with the looks. It is missing a few features that I wanted, but the important test will be the ergonomics and the functionality. How will it feel in my hand, how will the new AF work out. Will it be worth ditching the K-r, or will it keep me happy enough to keep from switching brands?

[riff]

Hard to think of a single item that meets this set of rules, perhaps a wooden shoe does.

[lammie200]

True, my first architect had that issue, I fired him.

It is great to see architects thrown into the mix, since I am one.

I used to tell people that architects have essentially two underlying motives. One is to educate people about what "principaled" design is. The other is to get their rocks off being artistic and expressing themselves. Problem solving is a reality, not a motive.

The best architects that I know are nearly emotionless about it. If you are working with an emotional architect be prepared for the worst.

[FullertonImages]

It is great to see architects thrown into the mix, since I am one.

I used to tell people that architects have essentially two underlying motives. One is to educate people about what "principaled" design is. The other is to get their rocks off being artistic and expressing themselves. Problem solving is a reality, not a motive.

The best architects that I know are nearly emotionless about it. If you are working with an emotional architect be prepared for the worst.

The samecan be said for photographers, or any kind of artist for that matter. Many a photographer have not made it as a professional for their inability to separate what they want to create versus what the client wants, and their inability to realize that no one gives a shit about technique or principles besides other photographers. The idea is to make something that works, has aesthetic value and that communicates something. What that something is will be determined by the client, not the photographer. No one cares what techniques you used, or how many lights, or how it was processed. It either speaks to people or it doesn't. It either communicates the message, or it doesn't.

Being a really great artist is totally different than being a professional ________, although they are by no means mutually exclusive.

[Opethian]

One thing is for sure, the K-01 is such a popular camera that it is dividing the Pentax camp between the serious photographers, and the... umm.. not so serious.

I'm one of those who supports it, regardless if it fails every test out there about design. For what it is, I personally can see myself using it. Not as my main camera though.

[johnmflores]

One thing is for sure, the K-01 is such a popular camera that it is dividing the Pentax camp between the serious photographers, and the... umm.. not so serious.

I'm one of those who supports it, regardless if it fails every test out there about design. For what it is, I personally can see myself using it. Not as my main camera though.

The fundamental divide is between those who view camera design as something akin to gun design (beauty derived from flawless function, see Nikon D800) and those who are willing to let a little playfulness in.

[Class A]

This design will raise the profile and awareness of Pentax and that can only be good.

If the design causes many people to disregard Pentax as a camera maker that produces big, ugly, and under-speced cameras that this won't "only be good".

I'm not saying that the K-01 will have this effect, but it may well cause some people who hear of Pentax for the first time through it to not look past this camera and see what the traditional strengths of Pentax are.

[Class A]

Did Toshihiro Hamamura pass the 'design principles' test?

I think the K-7 designers deserve to be highly commended for their efforts.

The K-01 was certainly already valuable in that it taught me not to take designs like the K-7's for granted.

[lammie200]

True, my first architect had that issue, I fired him.

The samecan be said for photographers, or any kind of artist for that matter. Many a photographer have not made it as a professional for their inability to separate what they want to create versus what the client wants, and their inability to realize that no one gives a shit about technique or principles besides other photographers. The idea is to make something that works, has aesthetic value and that communicates something. What that something is will be determined by the client, not the photographer. No one cares what techniques you used, or how many lights, or how it was processed. It either speaks to people or it doesn't. It either communicates the message, or it doesn't.

Being a really great artist is totally different than being a professional ________, although they are by no means mutually exclusive.

This is totally unelated but interesting nonetheless.

I was once in the market for a new car. The minute I drove onto a car lot I could see the sales people flipping a coin to see who would confront me. When the salesman that won came up, and after some small talk, he asked me what I did for a living. When I told him that I was an architect, he replied that he always wanted to be one.

Next stop: Sales manager. Of course he always wanted to be an architect as well.

Last stop: Accessory manager. First I get his hard luck story about dropping out of high school and marrying his sweetheart. Of course, he always wanted to be an architect but got stuck selling auto accessories at a dealership. Then I see a picture on the wall of a full blown Ford Mustang that looked like it could do 0-60 in about a second. It was parked in the driveway of what appeared to be a fairly substantial McMansion. He told me that it was published in Sunset Magazine. I asked him if that was his car. He told me that it used to be until it was stolen from his driveway. A theft that could have been prevented had he had a state of the art alarm. I reminded him that I was a lowly architect and that I couldn't afford an alarm. He said that was too bad because his new alarm has now saved him from getting his new Mustang stolen. I wished him well as I drove off without buying anything that he was selling.

[Transit]

It is great to see architects thrown into the mix, since I am one.

I used to tell people that architects have essentially two underlying motives. One is to educate people about what "principaled" design is. The other is to get their rocks off being artistic and expressing themselves. Problem solving is a reality, not a motive.

Mine was of the latter persuasion. He didn't get any idea what I needed as he didn't ask . Trying to get my point across was pointless. I am a furniture maker, with a dozen hand made kitchens under my belt, I take a lot of time finding out what people want and communicating with them. Seems to work
Pete