Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-09-2013, 03:54 PM   #16
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I agree with your assessment, sort of. I don't really understand the whole "ergonomics" thing with the K-01. I feel like I have no trouble changing settings, getting to the things I need easily. The hardest problem I have with the K-01 is the whole no-viewfinder thing. Just harder to get things good and steady, particularly if it is kind of cold outside and I am a little shaky. I know that I lose at least a stop in shake because I just can't support it as well as I can a camera with a viewfinder. But that isn't a K-01 thing, it is a MILC without EVF thing.

I mainly got one, because when my wife is out on a photo shoot, she takes both of our K5s and I don't have a camera to use. This seemed to be the perfect camera for me (mainly cause it uses the same mount and it's cheap). I have used it quite a bit. The one thing that I really like is that with lenses with narrow depth of field (77mm limited; DA * 55) it nails focus a lot better than my K5 cameras. I hear the K5 II is better in that respect, but the K-01 does awfully well there.
I got mine also because of my wife, but she is the one who likes a mirrorless body. She has bifocal contacts. I don't. She was disappointed about the lack of wireless flash sync, but we have enjoyed it so far, especially for the price during the sale last year.

01-09-2013, 04:01 PM   #17
Site Supporter
filmamigo's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 686
Thanks for sharing. I think you are being completely fair, even if my opinion was different. This camera was so polarizing when it came out (and I had serious doubts too) it's nice to see balanced commentary now.

I think it's easier to make a good appraisal of the camera when you aren't facing the original (overpriced) sticker price. For $1000, there's no camera that shouldn't have a viewfinder...
01-09-2013, 05:11 PM   #18
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by filmamigo Quote
Thanks for sharing. I think you are being completely fair, even if my opinion was different. This camera was so polarizing when it came out (and I had serious doubts too) it's nice to see balanced commentary now.

I think it's easier to make a good appraisal of the camera when you aren't facing the original (overpriced) sticker price. For $1000, there's no camera that shouldn't have a viewfinder...
Thanks. I agree with you about the VF issue. On balance its useful within its limits and the output is outstanding without any tweaks so far.

As for the argument someone else made that crippling the buffer was done because its a lower-cost camera - Not at MSRP its not. That argument falls flat when you look at the $1k original price tag.
01-09-2013, 05:48 PM   #19
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 341
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I agree with your assessment, sort of. I don't really understand the whole "ergonomics" thing with the K-01. I feel like I have no trouble changing settings, getting to the things I need easily.
I feel the same way. On my first public outing of the K-01 I handed it around the table at a group lunch, and just encouraged people to take candids. I showed people how to use focus peaking, and switching between auto and manual focus. That's about it.

Afterwards, several people commented on how easy it was to use andhow "sexy" it looked. And of course the IQ was excellent.

01-09-2013, 05:50 PM   #20
Loyal Site Supporter
THoog's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: North Carolina
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,486
For me, the intro price is the most baffling thing about the K-01. Everything else follows a certain logic, as a cut-down version of the K-30, where nothing was really new (except for the lack of a mirror) and small size took precedence over features. I can even see getting an outside designer to dress it up, just to be 'different'. Then, instead of pricing it like a intro-level dSLR, they stuck a price tag on it worthy of the UPP for lenses.
01-09-2013, 05:54 PM   #21
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,243
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
Thanks. I agree with you about the VF issue. On balance its useful within its limits and the output is outstanding without any tweaks so far.

As for the argument someone else made that crippling the buffer was done because its a lower-cost camera - Not at MSRP its not. That argument falls flat when you look at the $1k original price tag.
But, I think that the K-01 was never priced at 800 dollars because of its specs. It was priced there because Pentax (Hoya) had hired a designer and they thought that they were going to have a product that was going to have cache, at least with a certain segment of the population. I don't think they ever planned to sell it widely.

The problem was that those folks weren't that interested in a camera like the K-01 and the Pentax faithful wouldn't touch it till it got down to a reasonable price of 400 dollars or below.

But, I don't think it was ever more than a 400 dollar camera, with Marc Newson's name on it.
01-09-2013, 06:00 PM   #22
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 168
It seems like people that have been shooting slr's and dslr's with a viewfinder and a set way of shooting have trouble with it, as a camera has to be a certain way, and there's no changing that. I didn't shoot with a dslr for long, so I found I can say 'screw the viewfinder' and it actually works just as well or better for me. I think most people that research it have a sense of it's strengths and weaknesses now. If you shoot long lenses, fast frame rate, in raw, in the sun, with a viewfinder, and always have, then it's probably not the camera for you. Luckily for me, every time someone tells me one of it's short comings, I can generally say that's not the type of shooting I do, so it just doesn't matter.
01-09-2013, 06:42 PM   #23
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
But, I think that the K-01 was never priced at 800 dollars because of its specs. It was priced there because Pentax (Hoya) had hired a designer and they thought that they were going to have a product that was going to have cache, at least with a certain segment of the population. I don't think they ever planned to sell it widely.

The problem was that those folks weren't that interested in a camera like the K-01 and the Pentax faithful wouldn't touch it till it got down to a reasonable price of 400 dollars or below.

But, I don't think it was ever more than a 400 dollar camera, with Marc Newson's name on it.
The idea that they thought they would not sell many is belied by the huge number now being dumped via Groupon and other discounters. None of the interviews with Pentax folks even hinted that they saw it as a niche, small scale sales, camera. They rolled it out with more fanfare than nearly anything else they have released in quite a while. Yes, they paid a lot for Marc Newsom to "design" the thing - wasted money IMHO. However, their pricing approach is a huge part of what killed it as a viable mainstream product - that and it's fugly and its size defeats the who reason for MILC in the first place.

01-09-2013, 06:44 PM   #24
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by chiane Quote
It seems like people that have been shooting slr's and dslr's with a viewfinder and a set way of shooting have trouble with it, as a camera has to be a certain way, and there's no changing that. I didn't shoot with a dslr for long, so I found I can say 'screw the viewfinder' and it actually works just as well or better for me. I think most people that research it have a sense of it's strengths and weaknesses now. If you shoot long lenses, fast frame rate, in raw, in the sun, with a viewfinder, and always have, then it's probably not the camera for you. Luckily for me, every time someone tells me one of it's short comings, I can generally say that's not the type of shooting I do, so it just doesn't matter.
I agree that it definitely has a purpose and does some things very well. Some of the artificial limits that Pentax imposed on it are head scratchers though. Hopefully those that can be changed via firmware will be in later firmware updates (even if quietly).
01-09-2013, 07:07 PM   #25
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,243
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
The idea that they thought they would not sell many is belied by the huge number now being dumped via Groupon and other discounters. None of the interviews with Pentax folks even hinted that they saw it as a niche, small scale sales, camera. They rolled it out with more fanfare than nearly anything else they have released in quite a while. Yes, they paid a lot for Marc Newsom to "design" the thing - wasted money IMHO. However, their pricing approach is a huge part of what killed it as a viable mainstream product - that and it's fugly and its size defeats the who reason for MILC in the first place.
Maybe your right. If so, I can only think that Hoya planned to heavily discount it after a period of time, like they did everything else. The K7 was released at 1500 dollars and I ended up buying one for 700. Buy early, pay an early adopter's tax.

I don't think it's particularly ugly or big either. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I prefer it to the NEX camera's look, but not as much as the Fuji X-Pro. I guess I am used to shooting a K5 with a grip on all of the time, but with a DA limited on it, it feels pretty small. Smaller and it wouldn't be particularly comfortable to use.
01-09-2013, 07:15 PM   #26
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Blue Ridge Escarpment, North Carolina, US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,367
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
I agree that it definitely has a purpose and does some things very well. Some of the artificial limits that Pentax imposed on it are head scratchers though. Hopefully those that can be changed via firmware will be in later firmware updates (even if quietly).
Robert, thanks for a honest "appreciation" for what it is and isn't. Since I just got one for a backup beater I've put a F35-70 on yesterday trying to nail stage locations in mixed lighting. Focusing though slower than the K-5 nails a higher percentage so far and has really done well on a "cast of thousands" and large wall projections. Remains to be seen if I can stop some of the dance moves with elderly anticipation. Do appreciate the lighter weight on a right hand with pins and tendon tears from bicycle racing decades ago though not much to hold on to. Anxious to try 55-300 on the tripod and 50/1.7 under the stage tomorrow for my last yearbook assignment. I'd love to see an exterior redesign on Instructables.
01-09-2013, 07:31 PM - 1 Like   #27
Veteran Member
anthony mazzeri's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 312
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
and it's fugly
I'm not sure what your yardstick is, but if the clean lines of the K-01 is fugly to your eyes then how would describe the amorphous black shapes that are every other DSLR on the market haphazardly scattered with mismatching dials, knobs and switches?
Attached Images
 
01-10-2013, 04:51 AM   #28
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by anthony mazzeri Quote
I'm not sure what your yardstick is, but if the clean lines of the K-01 is fugly to your eyes then how would describe the amorphous black shapes that are every other DSLR on the market haphazardly scattered with mismatching dials, knobs and switches?
Thst's one angle. Also, symetry = form not function.
01-10-2013, 04:58 AM   #29
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,243
De gustibus non est disputandum.
01-10-2013, 11:31 AM   #30
Junior Member




Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 30
For a bit different point of view, I went from an old superzoom to the K-01. The 2006 Panasonic FZ7 superzoom with full manual capabilities was my second digital camera. My first digital camera, a Fuji Finepix 2800 from 2001, ended my film usage, which was with a Pentax Super Program with a 50mm F1.4 lens.

Basically, I don't change cameras very often, maybe every 5 years on average. I get to know my camera's very well, and work within their limitations, until they either die or technology makes an upgrade extremely compelling.

I haven't touched the FZ7 since purchasing the K-01. I got the K-01 kit with the 2 zoom lenses. If I had to do over, I would have gotten the XS40 kit and picked up zooms seperately. At the time, I figured I'd just use my Pentax-A 50mm F1.4 as a prime, but it is a bit long for my uses, so I have just stuck with the kit zooms, as well as a Sigma 8-16 and am very happy with my setup. At some point, I plan on replacing the kit zooms with faster, higher quality lenses of the same ranges, and pick up a 28mm prime, but the image quality is good enough for me now, and a major step up anyway, for me. I can say that attaching the first SLR lens I ever used, a 35 year old Pentax-K 50mm F2 lens, and shooting with it for the first time in over a decade, was a heart-warming experience.

I am not a fan of the K-01 ergos, but am a fan of its ease of use and stunning image quality. For the first time in many years, I am now carrying my camera with me everywhere. I feel that makes it a major sucess for me. The only thing I really miss is an EVF. I shoot JPG, so the speed is plenty good for me, and if I run into something difficult or particularly nice, I have the option to easily store raw files.

I was unhappy with it's focusing at first, even after the firmware upgrade, but since switching to spot focus, I have been much happier with it.

I can say there is no way I would have purchased it at the original price, but at the current prices, it was almost a no-brainer in comparison to the Panasonic FZ-200 I was looking at when I discovered the K-01. The only thing that really made me think twice was the lack of an EVF. Lack of an EVF is still my biggest dissapointment.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
bit, camera, image, imho, k-01, k-5, k-mount, k01, lens, lenses, mirrorless, pentax, pentax k-01
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I'm surprised how little of a deal it was when I pulled out my K-01 (in a good way) Codazzle Pentax K-01 10 01-03-2013 07:18 PM
Well, I own them both now. ChopperCharles Pentax K-01 7 12-17-2012 11:27 PM
Shooting with a K-01 if I hate live view on my K-5? Codazzle Pentax K-01 16 12-12-2012 07:28 PM
Some thoughts as a new owner of K-01 elpolodiablo Pentax K-01 15 06-18-2012 07:51 PM
I now own a k20d jmbower Pentax DSLR Discussion 30 10-05-2009 12:01 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:46 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top