[GeneV]

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.

[filmamigo]

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...

[Docrwm]

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.

[asw66]

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.

[THoog]

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.

[Rondec]

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.

[chiane]

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.

[Docrwm]

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.

[Docrwm]

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).

[Rondec]

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.

[lukulele]

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.

[anthony mazzeri]

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?

[Docrwm]

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.

[Rondec]

De gustibus non est disputandum.

[VaderSS]

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.