[Anvh]

I don't know.
This what fujitsu (the processor maker) have brought out for public.
Fujitsu Releases 6th Generation of Milbeaut Imaging Processors : FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR
Milbeaut Imaging Processors : Fujitsu Global

[tarsus]

The contention by Mervis that the K-01 is comparable in size to similar cameras is inaccurate. According to the suggested website the Pentax is 38 percent thicker and 40 percent heavier that the NEX 7, 41 percent thicker and 40 percent heavier than the EM5 and 41 percent thicker and 60 percent heavier than the Fuji X10. It is almost identical in size to the Canon G1 X, but that of course is without a lens. Size wise in comparison to other mirrorless cameras, the K-01 is a total fail. Where it matches up very closely in size is to the Kr that has live view and a viewfinder. Why buy a crippled Kr when you can have the real thing?

[jogiba]

The contention by Mervis that the K-01 is comparable in size to similar cameras is inaccurate. According to the suggested website the Pentax is 38 percent thicker and 40 percent heavier that the NEX 7, 41 percent thicker and 40 percent heavier than the EM5 and 41 percent thicker and 60 percent heavier than the Fuji X10. It is almost identical in size to the Canon G1 X, but that of course is without a lens. Size wise in comparison to other mirrorless cameras, the K-01 is a total fail. Where it matches up very closely in size is to the Kr that has live view and a viewfinder. Why buy a crippled Kr when you can have the real thing?

So get the Kr, who is stopping you ? But I wanted better video mode than my K-7 and the K-01 fits the bill perfectly. Does the Kr or K-5 have 1080p30,25,24 720p60 with full manual control in video mode ? Anyone who says the K-01 is too big should stick with a P&S.



The Canon 7D has a smaller sensor than the K-01.


The Sony Nex-5N looks wonderful with the $400 Sony A mount adapter.


Put any lens on the Nex-5N larger then the slow 16mm F2.8 pancake and see what it looks like.

[monochrome]

The contention by Mervis that the K-01 is comparable in size to similar cameras is inaccurate. According to the suggested website the Pentax is 38 percent thicker and 40 percent heavier that the NEX 7, 41 percent thicker and 40 percent heavier than the EM5 and 41 percent thicker and 60 percent heavier than the Fuji X10. It is almost identical in size to the Canon G1 X, but that of course is without a lens. Size wise in comparison to other mirrorless cameras, the K-01 is a total fail. Where it matches up very closely in size is to the Kr that has live view and a viewfinder. Why buy a crippled Kr when you can have the real thing?

That observation is so February.

The K-01 is a great success. The size of the K-01 is one of its best attributes. It can be held like a real camera and mount full-sized lenses that can be held and manipulated. It's mass allows me to make a stable base for much slower shutter without support.

The K-01 has all the quality of the K-5 output in a mirrorless format that actually works. For manual focus shooters why accept a compromise .85x 95% penntamirror viewfinder when you can have Focus Peaking on a 3" LCD?

And you get near-cutting edge video in the bargain.

[luftfluss]

The contention by Mervis that the K-01 is comparable in size to similar cameras is inaccurate. According to the suggested website the Pentax is 38 percent thicker and 40 percent heavier that the NEX 7, 41 percent thicker and 40 percent heavier than the EM5 and 41 percent thicker and 60 percent heavier than the Fuji X10. It is almost identical in size to the Canon G1 X, but that of course is without a lens. Size wise in comparison to other mirrorless cameras, the K-01 is a total fail. Where it matches up very closely in size is to the Kr that has live view and a viewfinder. Why buy a crippled Kr when you can have the real thing?

Your contention is inaccurate, also. The K-01 is the only MILC to fully support an existing line of SLR lenses. Therefore, the K-01 stands alone in that regard.

Also, how can you call the K-01 a "crippled Kr {sic}" when the K-01 has a better sensor?

[pinholecam]

The contention by Mervis that the K-01 is comparable in size to similar cameras is inaccurate. According to the suggested website the Pentax is 38 percent thicker and 40 percent heavier that the NEX 7, 41 percent thicker and 40 percent heavier than the EM5 and 41 percent thicker and 60 percent heavier than the Fuji X10. It is almost identical in size to the Canon G1 X, but that of course is without a lens. Size wise in comparison to other mirrorless cameras, the K-01 is a total fail. Where it matches up very closely in size is to the Kr that has live view and a viewfinder. Why buy a crippled Kr when you can have the real thing?

G1X is the total failure. Smaller sensor, slow lens, lousy viewfinder that is irrelevant, no lens interchangeability. All for an exorbitant price and the size of a K-01.

The K-01 has better LV and CDAF, video, sensor over the Kr.
Anyway, its not a Kr replacement. Its launch price is already much cheaper than Kr launch price.

[mervis]

First I'll quote the camerasize website: Pentax K-01 is 3% (4 mm) wider and 14% (9.4 mm) taller than FujiFilm FinePix X10.
Pentax K-01 is 4% (2.2 mm) thicker than FujiFilm FinePix X10. 4% is not 41%. Was tarsus looking at the same website?

Then I'll quote myself: You'll see that it's in the same general range size-wise. So not really a large camera. Heavier in this category, yes, but lighter than the DSLRs of similar IQ.

I never claimed lightness for the K-01, as you can see. And two of the compared cameras have been specifically engineered to be as small as possible. Even then the K-01, in heighth and in width, is only fractionally larger. It looks as if tarsus has chosen to misrepresent my point in the interest of bashing the K-01.

Once again, I am only pushing back against misinformation; in this case the idea being floated about that the K-01 is an exceptionally large camera. It is not. It's on the big side for a mirrorless, but smaller and lighter than any DSLR I looked up. The main difference is the thickness, but Pentax didn't make a fat camera for the hell of it; it was made with the goal of instant support, without adapters, for the entire K-mount lens lineup. For me that's a very worthy tradeoff.

Also, how can you call the K-01 a "crippled Kr {sic}" when the K-01 has a better sensor?

Excellent question, luftfluss.

[rjm]

Also, how can you call the K-01 a "crippled Kr {sic}" when the K-01 has a better sensor?

Let's try to avoid loaded description, and keep things relatively objective.

The K-01 is, physically, pretty much a K-r without a viewfinder. People shouldn't be talking up improved sensors or video modes, that's just a generational thing, and any future Pentax dSLR will get those in short order. In essence, the K-01 is a styled up, slightly compacted, low cost, OVF'less K-/s/.

The K-01 is only "crippled" if you feel the absence of an OVF is a crippling disadvantage. Based on the feedback posted in this thread, it doesn't seem to be the case. It is "slightly restrictive" might be the best way of stating it.

If someone is looking for a small camera with interchangeable lenses, the K-01 is at a fundamental disadvantage when tossed together with the likes of the GF3, which has 1) a smaller sensor, 2) folding zoom lens available, and 3) makes liberal use of in-camera corrections to enable compact and fast aperture dedicated lenses.

3) is the elephant in the room that no one likes to talk about.

Anyhow, the point remains is the K-01 is not going to win any compactness contests, combination of sensor size, flange to sensor distance, and open system lenses (see 3 above) means its gonna be big.

Big, small, small, big. At the end of the day who cares? The K-01 is not especially heavy or cumbersome, and gives you plenty of grip and balance. That's all there is to it. If you want something smaller, get something smaller.

[mervis]

Agree with most of what you say, rjm, except for calling the K-01 "big". I mean a chestnut is bigger than an acorn - doesn't make it big. Especially if you put it beside an apple. The K-01 sits somewhere between a small mirrorless and a normal-sized DSLR. After using one for two days, I think it's boxy shape may be more of an issue than its size. I'm sure my hands will get used to it though. Always an adjustment period with new cameras.

Also, no matter what Panasonic does with their in-camera wizardry, you won't get the creamy-smooth files that the K-01 gives you. Just been working with them. Wow! (I speak as someone who once owned a MFT camera).

Plus also too, I don't think the relentless drive for ever smaller cameras is necessarily a good thing. The GF3 is smaller than its lenses. I'm glad Pentax resisted that trend and added some choice to the market. Fujifilm is also staying out of the size war. Kudos to them both.

[asw66]

Plus also too, I don't think the relentless drive for ever smaller cameras is necessarily a good thing.

I used to read lots of forum posts complaining that the K-5 is too small, now people are complaining that the K-01 is too big. I'd like to think that it's not the same people making these complaints, but I have a strong suspicion that some people have made both complaints at different times.

[RonHendriks1966]

Well the K-01 is big next to Nex 5n but small next to Alpha 580/SLT A57 and all four contain the same sensor. When the sensor differs in size you do get another camera. Pentax made a choice to not create a new mini-K-mount but keep the use of K-mount. I think that is the best choice for a small brand like Pentax. One other option was to join one off the other mounts, wheater that would be m4/3th or Nex wouldn't matter (as long as it was possible to join) since then you would be part of a bigger thing.

Keeping K-mount brings it's fysical limitations. That your new starting point. An EVF wouldn't make the camera smaller, just a little more expensive. Making K-01 "big" made also room to fit the battery from K-5 and that I think is a very big plus, since all those little cam's have very smallish battery's. They mostly won't last a family outing the day in a zoo with just one battery and K-01 can.

[monochrome]

Well the K-01 is big next to Nex 5n but small next to Alpha 580/SLT A57 and all four contain the same sensor. When the sensor differs in size you do get another camera. Pentax made a choice to not create a new mini-K-mount but keep the use of K-mount. I think that is the best choice for a small brand like Pentax. One other option was to join one off the other mounts, wheater that would be m4/3th or Nex wouldn't matter (as long as it was possible to join) since then you would be part of a bigger thing.

Keeping K-mount brings it's fysical limitations. That your new starting point. An EVF wouldn't make the camera smaller, just a little more expensive. Making K-01 "big" made also room to fit the battery from K-5 and that I think is a very big plus, since all those little cam's have very smallish battery's. They mostly won't last a family outing the day in a zoo with just one battery and K-01 can.

As the results of Pentax's decisions and design thinking are recognized by users, as images are posted and as users of alternative cameras begin to recognize and discuss the limitations of their cameras the K-01 will be seen to be better designed and well thought-out than was originally imagined.

[djc737]

It really is all about what you are looking for in a camera. I wanted a slightly smaller and lighter body for nature hikes with my 21, 50 and 100. The K-01 will fit with them quite nice in a belly pack. I will use a monopod with the Hoodman slung from it. If i get in a bright light situation, I will just raise it up and hold it to the LCD. Any other ILC will need an adapter for my primes which makes it almost as big. Not really interested in buying a new set of primes that need SW to make them top notch when I have great glass as it is.

[luftfluss]

Let's try to avoid loaded description, and keep things relatively objective.

The K-01 is, physically, pretty much a K-r without a viewfinder. People shouldn't be talking up improved sensors or video modes, that's just a generational thing, and any future Pentax dSLR will get those in short order. In essence, the K-01 is a styled up, slightly compacted, low cost, OVF'less K-/s/.

The K-01 is only "crippled" if you feel the absence of an OVF is a crippling disadvantage. Based on the feedback posted in this thread, it doesn't seem to be the case. It is "slightly restrictive" might be the best way of stating it.

If someone is looking for a small camera with interchangeable lenses, the K-01 is at a fundamental disadvantage when tossed together with the likes of the GF3, which has 1) a smaller sensor, 2) folding zoom lens available, and 3) makes liberal use of in-camera corrections to enable compact and fast aperture dedicated lenses.

3) is the elephant in the room that no one likes to talk about.

Anyhow, the point remains is the K-01 is not going to win any compactness contests, combination of sensor size, flange to sensor distance, and open system lenses (see 3 above) means its gonna be big.

Big, small, small, big. At the end of the day who cares? The K-01 is not especially heavy or cumbersome, and gives you plenty of grip and balance. That's all there is to it. If you want something smaller, get something smaller.

Hmm, you speak of keeping "things relatively objective", and yet you are the one offering opinions. In my previous post, I presented 2 facts & a query, and left it at that. I did not offer an opinion.

I'll also note that the K-01 is most definitely not a "a K-r without a viewfinder". Ergonomics is a very personal thing, and someone who likes the handling of a K-r may not like handling the very different K-01.

I don't agree with your statement, "If someone is looking for a small camera with interchangeable lenses, the K-01 is at a fundamental disadvantage when tossed together with the likes of the GF3..." Why? Because each camera has it's advantages/disadvantages based on the criteria of the prospective user. How can you makes a decision for him/her?

Also, people should "be talking up improved sensors or video modes"... because if someone is looking to buy now, what happens in the next generation of cameras doesn't have much impact. Like most technology, cameras will be leapfrogging each other in terms of features, sensors, etc.

[monochrome]

Hmm, you speak of keeping "things relatively objective", and yet you are the one offering opinions. In my previous post, I presented 2 facts & a query, and left it at that. I did not offer an opinion.

I'll also note that the K-01 is most definitely not a "a K-r without a viewfinder". Ergonomics is a very personal thing, and someone who likes the handling of a K-r may not like handling the very different K-01.

I don't agree with your statement, "If someone is looking for a small camera with interchangeable lenses, the K-01 is at a fundamental disadvantage when tossed together with the likes of the GF3..." Why? Because each camera has it's advantages/disadvantages based on the criteria of the prospective user. How can you makes a decision for him/her?

Also, people should "be talking up improved sensors or video modes"... because if someone is looking to buy now, what happens in the next generation of cameras doesn't have much impact. Like most technology, cameras will be leapfrogging each other in terms of features, sensors, etc.

Did a search of rjm's posts back to 2009. There appears to be a history of one ambush post then nothing for a few days, then another single negative post on a different thread, etc. etc. I wouldn't necessarily say rjm is clearly a troll because some posts are at least responsive and somewhat helpful, but there is certainly a consistent snarky tone, especially IRT colored K-x and K-01. I choose not to play.