[Jean Poitiers]

Bonjour,

As promised earlier and possibly elsewhere on PF, here's a French photo mag review of the K-01. Only three stars out of five possible, thus kind of a mediocre result where IMHO points were lost because the large size/ergonomics, no OVF + a sub-par screen and high price point.

Below are the four pages of the review of the May 2012 issue of Chassuer d'Image, and to quote the "speed" summary:

"What pleases
° IQ: 16 Mpix sensor and well exploited by Pentax
° Confort: Easy utilisation of Pentax

What displeases
° Large size: an ensemble heavy and rather massive
° Viewfinder: no OVF, and non-movable screen which is dull in daylight
° Price: sold at the price of a K-5 which is much more practical and efficient. "

They liked the DA 40/2.8 XS, but criticized the K-01 body volume size ... comparing it with a Samsung NX200 which is half as thick, as the pictured on page 1 of this review.

Voilà, for what it's worth ...

Salut, John (alias Tin-Tin Tintin) le Frog

---

Last edited by Jean Poitiers; 05-18-2012 at 12:25 AM.

[monochrome]

They totally missed the point of Pentax's take on mirrorless - large body/small native lenses vs. small body/large lenses with an adapter.

[jpzk]

They totally missed the point of Pentax's take on mirrorless - large body/small native lenses vs. small body/large lenses with an adapter.

I often buy the magazine for its articles and "reportages" but when it comes to reviews, Chasseur D'Images is definitely Canikon-ish-oriented.

So, in my opinion, they will likely "push" other brands vs. Pentax products.

JP

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Thanks for sharing - I liked the subtitle question: "A simple exercise in style?"

They totally missed the point of Pentax's take on mirrorless - large body/small native lenses vs. small body/large lenses with an adapter.

You are misrepresenting Pentax's take and are making a strawman argument in that process.

The point that Pentax missed is that a small body with small native lenses beats a large body with one (1) small native lens. Especially a lens that this review rightfully criticizes as being of a weird focal length.

The Pentax rationale for the K-01 was that a large body that takes large legacy lenses might be more appealing to existing Pentax users than a small body that takes those same large legacy lenses via an adapter. Nobody should be surprised that such a value proposition made to existing Pentax users is received rather coldly by non-Pentax users. Which is what we got here today with this review.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

A couple more reviews from seriouscompacts:

Pentax K-01 Quick Review

The Pentax K-01: A Review from the Field

[WWWench]

Laurentiu Cristofor.. the point is?

I have been using the K-01 for almost 2 months and find it a superlative camera.
I wasn't happy to sell my K-5, but never could get it to focus manually or robo.
So will accept any slam-review you so love to find for IQ, reliability and speed.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Laurentiu Cristofor.. the point is?

To share reviews of the K-01. What was yours?

[jpzk]

Bonjour,

As promised earlier and possibly elsewhere on PF, here's a French photo mag review of the K-01. Only three stars out of five possible, thus kind of a mediocre result where IMHO points were lost because the large size/ergonomics, no OVF + a sub-par screen and high price point.

Below are the four pages of the review of the May 2012 issue of Chassuer d'Image, and to quote the "speed" summary:

"What pleases
° IQ: 16 Mpix sensor and well exploited by Pentax
° Confort: Easy utilisation of Pentax

What displeases
° Large size: an ensemble heavy and rather massive
° Viewfinder: no OVF, and non-movable screen which is dull in daylight
° Price: sold at the price of a K-5 which is much more practical and efficient. "

They liked the DA 40/2.8 XS, but criticized the K-01 body volume size ... comparing it with a Samsung NX200 which is half as thick, as the pictured on page 1 of this review.

Voilà, for what it's worth ...

Salut, John (alias Tin-Tin) le Frog

TinTin ... you better try and change the title ... spelling is wrong.

JP

[Jean Poitiers]

TinTin ... you better try and change the title ... spelling is wrong.

JP

Bonjour JP,

Ah oui, Tin-Tin is the tattoo artist of Paris ( Tin-tin Tatouages ) ... I get the two confused sometimes ....

Désolé ... typing too fast while thinking too slow!

A+, Tintin

[bossa]

Seems to me that you can't have it both ways when you want a sensor size like this. You either have a larger body for K-mount lenses or you have a smaller one with adapters or you have a smaller one with newer (large) lenses.

Consider the following simple scenario:
A big brick weighs: 500g
A little brick weighs 100g

Scenario 1:
ONE BIG BRICK and 3 little bricks
Total weight = 800g

OR

Scenario 2:
ONE LITTLE BRICK and 3 big bricks.
Total weight = 1600g

I saw a K-01 in a shop and it looked great... It certainly looks better than that ugly rumor floating around at the moment.

[jpzk]

Bonjour JP,

Ah oui, Tin-Tin is the tattoo artist of Paris ( Tin-tin Tatouages ) ... I get the two confused sometimes ....

Désolé ... typing too fast while thinking too slow!

A+, Tintin

Salut Jean !

You are "outresolving the sensor" when you type this fast!

Cheers!

JP

[monochrome]

Thanks for sharing - I liked the subtitle question: "A simple exercise in style?"
You are misrepresenting Pentax's take and are making a strawman argument in that process.

The point that Pentax missed is that a small body with small native lenses beats a large body with one (1) small native lens. Especially a lens that this review rightfully criticizes as being of a weird focal length.

The Pentax rationale for the K-01 was that a large body that takes large legacy lenses might be more appealing to existing Pentax users than a small body that takes those same large legacy lenses via an adapter. Nobody should be surprised that such a value proposition made to existing Pentax users is received rather coldly by non-Pentax users. Which is what we got here today with this review.

Outright incorrect - the mirrorless camera to which you refer is the Q.

But then you've been a dogmatic K-01 critic from February without ever having used it. There are plenty of other tiny, ergonomic nightmare cameras that can use Pentax lenses with an adapter - without auto-focus.

The K-01 is a fine second mirrorless effort for Pentax. I like mine and prefer to take it everywhere

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Outright incorrect - the mirrorless camera to which you refer is the Q.

Nope. I know better than you what I am referring to - don't presume to correct me on that aspect. Just try to understand if you can.