[bossa]

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.

Art concrete was a race to the minimalist conclusion that modernism ended as. Serious 'Art' has nothing to do with taste but the visual explorations by the artist of the language of the visual and the self. Abstract work is meant to refer to itself and not external objects where the iconography of the work is not meant to be derivative, although I suppose painting a triangle could be called derivative because it's already a recognized shape or object. I never liked Picasso as he was a mannerist who placed style before content. He became a cartoonist later in life, for want of a better description. I would prefer a De Kooning Woman painting to a Picasso any day. But that's my 'taste' based on a lifetime of art and spending 4 years in an Art School studying this stuff.

Art in a museum is archival and meant to be representative of an historical phase. It has nothing to do with promoting taste.

If I painted an oval on a square canvas would you really expect to see a few other features that help you interpret it as a face? Art is at it's best when it is an open exploration the visual, and when it is, it helps if you leave your preconceptions at the door. If you don't trust that the artist is being honest then you'll not learn a thing from the visual experience.

Art can be dirty. It doesn't have to play nice.

[lammie200]

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

I don't know how to say this without sounding like fool with a giant ego, but quite often when I am in a room full of other architects, I am the only one that clients and contractors trust. I think that is mostly because, like you, I listen before I speak. It always amazes me that people that are challenged by communication actually get commissions. But there a many architects that are challenged by it and are much more successful than I.

[Transit]

I quite believe it
I had reached the impression they were taught to be like that at architecture school.
Pete

[anthony mazzeri]

Art in a museum is archival and meant to be representative of an historical phase. It has nothing to do with promoting taste.

This is a good point. Why they are called museums and not galleries.

[bossa]

They're still called Galleries.

[anthony mazzeri]

The 'LACMA' referred to in the post you were replying to isn't.

[Wheatfield]

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.

Photography is supposed to be fun. But that fun can be quickly eroded by equipment that is functionally illiterate. A camera is a tool. It has function. I've seen a lot of designer products that are not functional because the designer forgot the one key rule of design, which is that the product has to function.
A chair can look really nice sitting in the corner, but if it is not comfortable to sit in, it is useless as a chair, and will probably be esthetically displeasing as well, simply because the eye recognizes the fact that the object will not function as it should.
This is my complaint with the K-01. It does not look like it will function well for the purpose that it was built for. The Nikon D800 looks very much like it will function very well as a camera, the fact that it's form is almost identical to the very well functioning D700 adds to the confidence that Nikon has made good styling choices.
Or, more to the point, Nikon has made the form follow the function.
Mr. Newson has no credentials as a camera designer. There is no evidence apparent that he has studied camera design with a nod to ensuring form follow function, but there is a lot of evidence that he has followed a philosophy of function following form. If this is the case, then the K-01 will be a difficult camera to use comfortably, which will render it a failure.

The reason for negative posts such as this is because some Pentax's users fervently hope that this camera is not a harbinger of things to come, and if Pentax does monitor this forum, they will hopefully not continue down the path that the K-01 sets out.

[bossa]

Until I hold a K-01 up and try to shoot with it I'll have no real idea as to it's functionality. The buttons on top of the camera, apart from the shutter button, are probably useless whilst framing a shot and could have been better placed both front and back, but that's just the way I see it.

[johnmflores]

Photography is supposed to be fun. But that fun can be quickly eroded by equipment that is functionally illiterate. A camera is a tool. It has function. I've seen a lot of designer products that are not functional because the designer forgot the one key rule of design, which is that the product has to function.
A chair can look really nice sitting in the corner, but if it is not comfortable to sit in, it is useless as a chair, and will probably be esthetically displeasing as well, simply because the eye recognizes the fact that the object will not function as it should.
This is my complaint with the K-01. It does not look like it will function well for the purpose that it was built for. The Nikon D800 looks very much like it will function very well as a camera, the fact that it's form is almost identical to the very well functioning D700 adds to the confidence that Nikon has made good styling choices.
Or, more to the point, Nikon has made the form follow the function.
Mr. Newson has no credentials as a camera designer. There is no evidence apparent that he has studied camera design with a nod to ensuring form follow function, but there is a lot of evidence that he has followed a philosophy of function following form. If this is the case, then the K-01 will be a difficult camera to use comfortably, which will render it a failure.

The reason for negative posts such as this is because some Pentax's users fervently hope that this camera is not a harbinger of things to come, and if Pentax does monitor this forum, they will hopefully not continue down the path that the K-01 sets out.

I agree 100% about the importance of functionality, but judging the ergonomics and functionality of a camera by photos is kind of like judging a photo by its histogram.

I value the opinions of photographers that have actually held the K-01 and taken photos with it more than pontificating Pentaxicans. Like our compadres in Singapore:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-01-forum/174006-hands-photos-k-0...ser-group.html

Their real-world feedback is enlightening. While they seem to have found some areas where the camera is weaker - i.e, MF macros, improved but not class-leading AF - the overall impression is positive. Most interestingly, I don't recall any pointed criticisms about the camera's functionality or the placement of buttons and ergonomics. One of the most detailed descriptions starts here:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-01-forum/174006-hands-photos-k-0...ml#post1814057

At the end of the day, each of us has to try it ourselves and decide whether the camera works for us. But I'll trust the real-world, in-hand, opinions of our fellow Pentaxians (Thanks Franks and Pinholecam and the rest!) in Singapore over the photo-derived opinions of others here every day of the week.

Oh, and the "stovepipe" that some people hate so much - I haven't heard one person say that it's actually gotten in the way of taking a photo. Imagine that.

[anthony mazzeri]

While they seem to have found some areas where the camera is weaker - i.e, MF macros

And remember that this was only due to the pre-release firmware without the focus-peaking available.

With focus-peaking, the K-01 will be the best K mount Pentax camera for manual focussing, and hence using old lenses, by far of the entire current Pentax K-mount range... of two cameras... okay, since the dawn of digital then. Seriously, no exaggeration. I don't even have to be a long term Pentax user to know this. I only use my old manual Nikkors on my GXR now. The K-01 would stiill retain the MF crown even if they added the same feature to any new DSLRs because it is a liveview (or EVF) function so the K-01 will always have that advantage over a DSLR. Unless you buy a third-party split screen focusser or something such as a Katzeye...

[rawr]

Mr. Newson has no credentials as a camera designer. There is no evidence apparent that he has studied camera design with a nod to ensuring form follow function...

Please. What are your credentials as a camera designer? Or as a passenger jet or car designer? Oh, you've used all those. So now you are qualified to design them all as working, distinctive products, within a specific budget, and while meeting a set of rigid parameters set by the client.

It would be a mistake to assume Pentax Japan just wrote Newson a cheque, and then after a while he sent them a design for a new camera.

Newson stated he worked with Pentax for over a year on this camera. There would have been lots of back-and-forth with Pentax throughout the evolution of the design, as he mentions himself. This would have involved innumerable discussions with Pentax mechanical engineers, electrical engineers ('I want a small battery - oh, OK I have to use the existing D-LI90 battery. I can work with that'), designers ('OK, so you don't want a viewfinder in this'), materials specialists ('I want to use anodised aluminium for the body top plate - can you do that?'), assembly process specialists, cost accountants etc. He was overseeing the design, but he had to rely on the input of lots of Pentax people to make it happen. The camera has his signature on it, but it was a partnership with Pentax. It couldn't have been any other way.

if Pentax does monitor this forum, they will hopefully not continue down the path that the K-01 sets out.

LOL. Self-importance much. Probably the last people Pentax would want to listen to would be the people on this forum. People here have complained no-end about the the K-x, the Q, and the K-5, as if they were the worst cameras in the world. Why would Pentax listen to PFF about the K-01? Most of the time the forum conducts itself like a lynch mob.

[Byrd-2020]

Hmmm...I wonder how the Fuji X 1 Pro and Oly OM-D fare when evaluated against Dieter Rams design principles?


Is innovative - The possibilities for innovation are not, by any means, exhausted. Technological development is always offering new opportunities for innovative design. But innovative design always develops in tandem with innovative technology, and can never be an end in itself.
FAIL. Modern digital cameras masquerading as cameras from the 1960s and 1980s? That's the opposite of innovative

Makes a product useful - A product is bought to be used. It has to satisfy certain criteria, not only functional, but also psychological and aesthetic. Good design emphasizes the usefulness of a product whilst disregarding anything that could possibly detract from it.
FAIL. The retro design flourishes do nothing to add to the usefulness of the cameras.

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.
PASS. I'll give them that. They are pretty. Like plastic flowers.

Makes a product understandable - It clarifies the product’s structure. Better still, it can make the product clearly express its function by making use of the user's intuition. At best, it is self-explanatory.
FAIL. Slavish adherence to the past does little to make the product more understandable. They may trigger happy neurons in the brains of photographers of a certain age, but nearly everyone born after 1980, it's as if Volkswagen started making the original Beetle again, except with a hybrid engine.

Is unobtrusive - Products fulfilling a purpose are like tools. They are neither decorative objects nor works of art. Their design should therefore be both neutral and restrained, to leave room for the user's self-expression.
FAIL. These cameras wish to be seen as decorative objects, talismans that users hang around their neck to advertise to the world that they are Henri brought back from the grave, sipping coffee in some European cafe while smoking unfiltered cigarettes and contemplating unprotected coitus while listening to the Starland Vocal Band.

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.
FAIL. Slathering vintage aesthetics on top of modern electronics is deceit pure and simple. These cameras do not turn back time. Buying these cameras will not make you the young studly photographer you think you once were.

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.
FAIL. Retro by definition is a fashion and a trend. Bell bottoms can come back. That doesn't make it right.

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.
PASS. Like an odd fetish.

Is environmentally friendly - Design makes an important contribution to the preservation of the environment. It conserves resources and minimizes physical and visual pollution throughout the lifecycle of the product.
FAIL. If owners really wanted to preserve the environment while still looking retro, they'd pull the originals out of their closets and drawers and just shoot film again. Better yet, gut the old cameras and turn them into hood ornaments and belt buckles (recycling!) while shooting with a modern camera.

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. Back to purity, back to simplicity.
FAIL. These cameras may in fact be good photographic tools. But they have not been designed, they have been costumed.


If you honestly look at Rams' principles and the design aesthetic of Braun, the one camera that comes closest to meeting them is the NEX 7.

Give me a break! The Fuji X series cameras are not "modern digital cameras masquerading as cameras from the 1960 and 1980s....."

The X100 and now the XPro1 sell in large numbers because they are first and foremost *functional* photographic tools.

People who actually do more than "spray and pray" with their cameras set on 'full auto everything' understand that a manual shutter speed dial, an aperture ring, and an immediately accesible exposure compensation dial provide direct control over crucial camera functions. The menu-surfing that is required by so many modern digital cameras is a functional design flaw. This is something Fuji X series buyers well understand.

"Retro by definition is a fashion and a trend." By and large, the X series are not 'retro' out of fashion considerations. The optical rangefinder combined with the evf provide functional advantages that neither by itself can offer.

"Slathering vintage aesthetics on modern aesthetic is deceit pure and simple."

The 'vintage aesthetics' are maintained because of their functionality and purpose. The modern electronics are included because they constitute an extension of that functionality.

The passage quoted above takes 'poseurism' to new heights!

[FullertonImages]

Here's a hypothesis, since so many people seems this K-01 is some kind of ergonomic abomination. It's still too early to tell, but the K-01 is showing quite a great deal of promise in the world of video and filmmaking. What if this was meant to be a video wonder-tool from the beginning and secretly that is where Pentax is hoping it will make the biggest waves. I say secretly, because obviously Pentax wouldn't want to market it that way too much and ostracize any potential photo-centric users. But what if Pentax realized ergonomics really don't matter in filmmaking. Think about it. A very good examples are two very popular cameras at the moment; the Sony FS100 and the RED Epic. Both of them have been a huge hit, and both of them are essentially black boxes with a lens mount, a bunch of electronics inside and a bunchof buttons on the outside. The reason this is ok is because in most filmmaking endeavors, the camera is going to spend about 95% of it's time on a tripod, a crane, a shoulder rig, a steadicam or in a cage; all which are times when ergonomics are effectively irrelevant. The same would be true of the K-01 if it were to catch on big with the indie filmmaking crowd.

Now, I may be over-thinking this, and maybe they just thought a cool unique look was better than great ergos. But maybe they really had filmmaking in mind when working on this camera.

[rawr]

so many people seems this K-01 is some kind of ergonomic abomination.

I still can't see how people can claim this. Even on the basic visuals of it, without even hand-holding it, it is immediately apparent that the design is simple, uncluttered and easy to 'grok'.

Transitioning from the K-x to the K-5 was quite tricky for me because of all those extra teeny-weeny buttons and switches (some with quite an awkward to use resistance due to the WR gaskets and their small size) on the back and top interface of the K-5 (especially the green button!, which on the K-x and K200D work really well up top and well spaced away from the other controls).



Even for a newbie to Pentax, the K-01 looks like a snap to figure out and to work with.

[anthony mazzeri]

Give me a break! The Fuji X series cameras are not "modern digital cameras masquerading as cameras from the 1960 and 1980s....."

The X100 and now the XPro1 sell in large numbers because they are first and foremost *functional* photographic tools.

The 'vintage aesthetics' are maintained because of their functionality and purpose. The modern electronics are included because they constitute an extension of that functionality.

The passage quoted above takes 'poseurism' to new heights!

What did the Fuji cameras before the X100 look like then? Not one single Fuji camera in its history of digital photography looked anything like the X100 before that model was released.

The X100 faux-rangefinder styling is consciously aimed squarely at former and now mature (with money) film shooters based on the new optical viewfinder being most appealing to this crowd. The camera's design is a pue marketing decision, and a stroke of genious one at that. Youngsters would just go 'meh' at the viewfinder so no point making the camera look appealing to the younger audience like Fuji does with their other cameras. And hey, it worked, they sold millions. Or one million. And now they continue with the style for two new cameras aimed squarely at the same crowd.

Olympus on the other hand I suspect is just nostalgic of the good old days of one of their former successful models, like Pentax was with the Q/Auto.