To those who thought the K-01 was 'ugly'....

LeRolls · 10-29-2012, 05:46 PM

Those CV pancakes look really great on your K-01. I seriously considered getting the yellow but the white one really grabbed me in the pics and in the videos. I may still end up regretting it but I guess I'll reserve judgement till I have the camera in my hands. God, so many options when it comes to lenses for this body! It truly boggles my mind, but I guess that's one of the best selling points of this camera.

blacknosugar · 11-02-2012, 07:26 PM

Canon looks very nice - ergonomic, sleek, modern, compact.
Nikon comes second.
Pentax is vomit inducing - looks like a mock up of a camera that a design student threw together at the last minute after skipping class all term.

Blue · 11-02-2012, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by blacknosugar

Canon looks very nice - ergonomic, sleek, modern, compact.
Nikon comes second.
Pentax is vomit inducing - looks like a mock up of a camera that a design student threw together at the last minute after skipping class all term.

Is the Canon or Nikon aps-c? Can they take EF or F lenses?

rdj92807 · 11-02-2012, 09:41 PM - **3 Likes**

Anyone who thinks the K-01 is vomit inducing probably thinks his rusty Chevette is a sexy car.
Get real. For those of us who actually have seen the K-01 in person, it's great looking and extremely well built.
Pentax deserves a lot of credit, IMO.

blacknosugar · 11-02-2012, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by Blue

Is the Canon or Nikon aps-c? Can they take EF or F lenses?

I don't know. Probably not?
Does having the K mount make the Pentax prettier? I thought we were talking looks and the K-01 was never exactly going to win any design awards, now was it?

I was actually considering it briefly as an possible alternative to the K-30, but it's still ugly. Luckily I'm not choosing either based on looks.

rdj92807 · 11-02-2012, 09:46 PM

The idea of the K-01 having a K-mount is a great idea, particularly given the large number of small Pentax prime lenses.
It's not a perfect execution in some ways, but it's certainly not bad looking in person. Actually, the pics do not do it justice....you have to see it in person. And of course, every one has different tastes. You want an ugly, hard to hold camera...look at the Sony NEX line. What a mess.

Blue · 11-02-2012, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by blacknosugar

I don't know. Probably not?
Does having the K mount make the Pentax prettier? I thought we were talking looks and the K-01 was never exactly going to win any design awards, now was it?

I was actually considering it briefly as an possible alternative to the K-30, but it's still ugly. Luckily I'm not choosing either based on looks.

Looks don't drive function and possible performance. Considering the K-30 or K-01 is considering K-mount bodies which is part of the point I was making. The Canon and Nikon examples should be compared to the Q.

blacknosugar · 11-02-2012, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by Blue

Looks don't drive function and possible performance. Considering the K-30 or K-01 is considering K-mount bodies which is part of the point I was making. The Canon and Nikon examples should be compared to the Q.

Agreed & fair point re the Q.

BTW, vomit inducing is perhaps a bit strong but I still think it looks like a first year design school mock-up model of a real camera.

ElJamoquio · 11-02-2012, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by rdj92807

Anyone who thinks the K-01 is vomit inducing probably thinks his rusty Chevette is a sexy car.
Get real. For those of us who actually have seen the K-01 in person, it's great looking and extremely well built.
Pentax deserves a lot of credit, IMO.

I'm glad you like your camera.

When I got mine I thought it looked bad. Everyone's got an opinion, of course.

I also thought the rubber flaps were not well built.

riff · 11-02-2012, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by blacknosugar

Luckily I'm not choosing either based on looks.

So what you are saying is looks don't matter that much to your purchase decision.

Originally posted by blacknosugar

BTW, vomit inducing is perhaps a bit

childish?

In any case I'll take your critique of the K-01 much more seriously after you show me your designs.

nparsons13 · 11-03-2012, 07:23 AM

C'mon, this discussion of the K-01's looks is so last April. By now everyone has decided they either like it or they don't. Dead horse, man.

LeRolls · 11-03-2012, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by nparsons13

C'mon, this discussion of the K-01's looks is so last April. By now everyone has decided they either like it or they don't. Dead horse, man.

I suppose if you've been following the camera since it came out but some of us are just now taking a hard look at it especially since the huge price drop. Plus I thought that was kind of the whole point of this particular thread. Not as if the topic of another thread is being hijacked to accommodate this subject...

Docrwm · 11-04-2012, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by rdj92807

Anyone who thinks the K-01 is vomit inducing probably thinks his rusty Chevette is a sexy car.
Get real. For those of us who actually have seen the K-01 in person, it's great looking and extremely well built.
Pentax deserves a lot of credit, IMO.

Personal opinion on aesthetics. I handled K-01s on several occassions - I think they are ugly, ungainly, and the covers for the ports are a joke. Glad you like yours, but please don't tell the rest of us what to like or slam our taste because it differs from yours.

hks_kansei · 11-04-2012, 11:00 PM

I've got to say, I don't have an issue with the K01's looks.
To me it doesn't look bad, it doesn't look great, it just seems to lack character (it's a bit boring to look at)

The EOS-M to me looks quite a bit "my first camera" I think because of the rounded edges.

The only real cameras that stand out aesthetically to me are the Fuji X100, Leicas, and the Pentax Q (I really like the old fashioned look)

Medium FormatPro · 11-05-2012, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by hks_kansei

The only real cameras that stand out aesthetically to me are the Fuji X100, Leicas, and the Pentax Q

Leica has a mirrorless as well; yet for some unknown reason it frequently seems to get a rating of about 4.8 out of 5.0 There's also the ever eluding Leica M Monochrom which really needs the three hundred dollar optional grip.

11-02-2012, 08:55 PM	#63
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by blacknosugar Canon looks very nice - ergonomic, sleek, modern, compact. Nikon comes second. Pentax is vomit inducing - looks like a mock up of a camera that a design student threw together at the last minute after skipping class all term. Is the Canon or Nikon aps-c? Can they take EF or F lenses? Last edited by Blue; 11-02-2012 at 09:02 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Macro Ugly	J-Rod	Post Your Photos!	5	09-12-2011 08:04 PM
Macro Ugly mug	yeatzee	Post Your Photos!	31	09-15-2010 12:21 AM
Macro She's got an ugly face ...	volley	Post Your Photos!	6	08-14-2010 12:32 PM
If you thought the White KM was ugly...	ajuett	Pentax News and Rumors	49	03-05-2009 12:10 PM
Ugly ducks with the ugly duckling lens	rfortson	Post Your Photos!	3	03-01-2007 03:43 PM

10-29-2012, 05:46 PM	#61
LeRolls Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: PSL, FL Posts: 4,504	Those CV pancakes look really great on your K-01. I seriously considered getting the yellow but the white one really grabbed me in the pics and in the videos. I may still end up regretting it but I guess I'll reserve judgement till I have the camera in my hands. God, so many options when it comes to lenses for this body! It truly boggles my mind, but I guess that's one of the best selling points of this camera.

11-02-2012, 07:26 PM	#62
blacknosugar Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 58	Canon looks very nice - ergonomic, sleek, modern, compact. Nikon comes second. Pentax is vomit inducing - looks like a mock up of a camera that a design student threw together at the last minute after skipping class all term.

11-02-2012, 09:41 PM - 3 Likes	#64
rdj92807 Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 97	Anyone who thinks the K-01 is vomit inducing probably thinks his rusty Chevette is a sexy car. Get real. For those of us who actually have seen the K-01 in person, it's great looking and extremely well built. Pentax deserves a lot of credit, IMO.

11-02-2012, 09:41 PM	#65
blacknosugar Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 58	Originally posted by Blue Is the Canon or Nikon aps-c? Can they take EF or F lenses? I don't know. Probably not? Does having the K mount make the Pentax prettier? I thought we were talking looks and the K-01 was never exactly going to win any design awards, now was it? I was actually considering it briefly as an possible alternative to the K-30, but it's still ugly. Luckily I'm not choosing either based on looks.

11-02-2012, 09:46 PM	#66
rdj92807 Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 97	The idea of the K-01 having a K-mount is a great idea, particularly given the large number of small Pentax prime lenses. It's not a perfect execution in some ways, but it's certainly not bad looking in person. Actually, the pics do not do it justice....you have to see it in person. And of course, every one has different tastes. You want an ugly, hard to hold camera...look at the Sony NEX line. What a mess.

11-02-2012, 09:52 PM	#67
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by blacknosugar I don't know. Probably not? Does having the K mount make the Pentax prettier? I thought we were talking looks and the K-01 was never exactly going to win any design awards, now was it? I was actually considering it briefly as an possible alternative to the K-30, but it's still ugly. Luckily I'm not choosing either based on looks. Looks don't drive function and possible performance. Considering the K-30 or K-01 is considering K-mount bodies which is part of the point I was making. The Canon and Nikon examples should be compared to the Q.

11-02-2012, 10:01 PM	#68
blacknosugar Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 58	Originally posted by Blue Looks don't drive function and possible performance. Considering the K-30 or K-01 is considering K-mount bodies which is part of the point I was making. The Canon and Nikon examples should be compared to the Q. Agreed & fair point re the Q. BTW, vomit inducing is perhaps a bit strong but I still think it looks like a first year design school mock-up model of a real camera.

11-02-2012, 10:08 PM	#69
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by rdj92807 Anyone who thinks the K-01 is vomit inducing probably thinks his rusty Chevette is a sexy car. Get real. For those of us who actually have seen the K-01 in person, it's great looking and extremely well built. Pentax deserves a lot of credit, IMO. I'm glad you like your camera. When I got mine I thought it looked bad. Everyone's got an opinion, of course. I also thought the rubber flaps were not well built.

11-02-2012, 10:16 PM	#70
riff Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,408	Originally posted by blacknosugar Luckily I'm not choosing either based on looks. So what you are saying is looks don't matter that much to your purchase decision. Originally posted by blacknosugar BTW, vomit inducing is perhaps a bit childish? In any case I'll take your critique of the K-01 much more seriously after you show me your designs.

11-03-2012, 07:23 AM	#71
nparsons13 Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Central Florida Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 258	C'mon, this discussion of the K-01's looks is so last April. By now everyone has decided they either like it or they don't. Dead horse, man.

11-03-2012, 08:37 AM	#72
LeRolls Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: PSL, FL Posts: 4,504	Originally posted by nparsons13 C'mon, this discussion of the K-01's looks is so last April. By now everyone has decided they either like it or they don't. Dead horse, man. I suppose if you've been following the camera since it came out but some of us are just now taking a hard look at it especially since the huge price drop. Plus I thought that was kind of the whole point of this particular thread. Not as if the topic of another thread is being hijacked to accommodate this subject...

11-04-2012, 07:11 PM	#73
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by rdj92807 Anyone who thinks the K-01 is vomit inducing probably thinks his rusty Chevette is a sexy car. Get real. For those of us who actually have seen the K-01 in person, it's great looking and extremely well built. Pentax deserves a lot of credit, IMO. Personal opinion on aesthetics. I handled K-01s on several occassions - I think they are ugly, ungainly, and the covers for the ports are a joke. Glad you like yours, but please don't tell the rest of us what to like or slam our taste because it differs from yours.

11-04-2012, 11:00 PM	#74
hks_kansei Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 834	I've got to say, I don't have an issue with the K01's looks. To me it doesn't look bad, it doesn't look great, it just seems to lack character (it's a bit boring to look at) The EOS-M to me looks quite a bit "my first camera" I think because of the rounded edges. The only real cameras that stand out aesthetically to me are the Fuji X100, Leicas, and the Pentax Q (I really like the old fashioned look)

11-05-2012, 08:13 PM	#75
Medium FormatPro Banned Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Charleston & Pittsburgh Photos: Albums Posts: 1,668	Originally posted by hks_kansei The only real cameras that stand out aesthetically to me are the Fuji X100, Leicas, and the Pentax Q Leica has a mirrorless as well; yet for some unknown reason it frequently seems to get a rating of about 4.8 out of 5.0 There's also the ever eluding Leica M Monochrom which really needs the three hundred dollar optional grip.