[monochrome]

RE: Q Colors - Japanese young women buy this stuff like candy. USA generally hasn't seen multiple colors (on previous bodies) until volume slows in Asia - we then become stock liquidators. A black and a white are diverse enough for me.

[GeneV]

They sent the K-01 to a nice farm in the country, where it can run and play all it wants...

And breed with other mirrorless bodies.

[JJJPhoto]

And breed with other mirrorless bodies.

Suddenly, the criticism that "the K-01 is thicker than any other mirrorless camera" warrants the response, "That's what she said."

[rparmar]

The K-01 couldn't possibly compete with superior offerings from Panasonic, Olympus, and Fuji. And it's ugly as sin to boot. To think they tried to make this a virtue!

Pentax needed to release the mirrorless version of the K-7 two years ago. Decent-sized sensor. Great ergonomics. Reduced size. Compatibility with other lens mounts (but adapter for K-mount). This would leverage the strengths of the brand and open up new market possibilities.

Instead, they release cameras that are marketed as toys and/or limited to the K-mount. This is simply not the way to build on the advantages of mirrorless. Where's the size advantage if the flange distance has to be so long?

[rparmar]

From what I've seen, the Q was marketed on its strengths - smallest ILC, great IQ for the size, cute-factor. While some spec-heads still harp on the Q's sensor size, it's clear that it punches above its weight.

There are plenty of other good small sensor digital cameras. Practically every brand has one. But at least the Q has cuteness on its side, which is more than can be said for the K-01.

Instead of a designer name, the K-01 needed to stress its strengths: IQ, (relative) small size, and uniqueness as the only legacy-mount mirrorless.

If these points were true you may have a point.

The K-01 has marginally superior IQ (in certain regards) to certain other mirrorless cameras but is not up to something like the O-MD. All models from all manufacturers are good enough to get the job done, so wouldn't you say that nit-picking is best left to those same "spec-heads" you disparaged above?

The K-01 is larger than the competition, the only exceptions being cameras from Fuji that are deliberately courting the rangefinder market. You can't possibly compare the brick-like K-01 to some of the svelte Olympus PENs or the futuristic Sony models. It is huge in comparison.

MFT has long been a legacy compatible mount and so are the NEX and Samsung systems. The K-01 has the distinction of being one of the least compatible of all mirrorless cameras.

It's all well and good that some people find the K-01 meets their needs, especially at its blow-out price. But apologists are not going to help Pentax learn from their mistakes and move forward.

[monochrome]

1. What size advantage exists on any CSC once a lens is attached?
2. What Pentax owner wants to be forced to use an adapter for native lenses?
   1. What Pentax owner wants to pay for an adapter to use native lenses?
3. What non-Pentax owner would select a Pentax CSC with a new mount and no lenses?
   1. What non-Pentax owner wouuld select a Pentax over other offerings in exisiting mounts?
4. What technology in m4/3 or any other mount can Pentax do better?

Pentax's Mirrorless CSC offering is the Q - like it or not, that was their business decision. Certainly they shouldn't have spent the money on Newson - they got nothing (actually they lost value) on that. They could have spent that money on a shoe-mount EVF and priced the body 35% lower. They could have designed a body that looks like a camera - even an MESuper - and been much better off. They could have marketed away from CSC's altogether and presented IQ, build and compatibility.

Almost everyone would have been happy with that K-mount MILC that isn't really a CSC.

[THoog]

If these points were true you may have a point.

The K-01 has marginally superior IQ (in certain regards) to certain other mirrorless cameras but is not up to something like the O-MD. All models from all manufacturers are good enough to get the job done, so wouldn't you say that nit-picking is best left to those same "spec-heads" you disparaged above?

Which OM-D model? I've read recent comments from an OM-D / K-01 owner who said the K-01's IQ was vastly superior. I guess opinions vary.

To put my remark about "spec-heads" in more palatable terms, some critics who concentrate on specifications rather than results, after a year and a half, still dismiss the Q as a "stupid toy" solely because of the sensor size. (read on another site, last week) I personally am not interested in the Q, but the evidence from those who actually use it is that the image quality is as good as cameras with larger sensors. As you say, it gets the job done. I'm an electrical/computer engineer, by definition a spec-head, but I'll admit that results are more important than just sensor size (or else how could MFT compare to APS-C?).

The K-01 is larger than the competition, the only exceptions being cameras from Fuji that are deliberately courting the rangefinder market. You can't possibly compare the brick-like K-01 to some of the svelte Olympus PENs or the futuristic Sony models. It is huge in comparison.

I should have been more specific. I meant small size relative to other dSLRs, which has always been Pentax' strength. The K-01 couldn't compete with smaller-register distance MILCs, and shouldn't have tried. At the moment, the K-01 is the only example of a mirrorless legacy mount camera. Some say this is a dead end; some say it is the future of dSLRs.

MFT has long been a legacy compatible mount and so are the NEX and Samsung systems. The K-01 has the distinction of being one of the least compatible of all mirrorless cameras.

I think we are evaluating "compatibility" differently. I can swap lenses between my dSLR and K-01 and have full functionality, autofocus, SDM, exposure modes, etc. If there is another MILC that I can do that with, I am not aware of it. To me, that is the value and selling point of a legacy mount. My mindset is within the Pentax system. I understand that those with no investment in a particular system have different priorities.

---

Last edited by THoog; 02-27-2013 at 06:37 PM. Reason: Corrected "vastly".

[perpetual3]

There are plenty of other good small sensor digital cameras. Practically every brand has one. But at least the Q has cuteness on its side, which is more than can be said for the K-01.



If these points were true you may have a point.

The K-01 has marginally superior IQ (in certain regards) to certain other mirrorless cameras but is not up to something like the O-MD.

That's a misleading statement because it implies that the OMD IQ is better than K01 when it is not. The OMD represents the best that m43s can do - rising to the level of the APSC as found in the K01.

[JJJPhoto]

Which OM-D model? I've read recent comments from an OM-D / K-01 owner who said the K-01's IQ was vastly superior. I guess opinions vary.

I own the K-01 and the OM-D and shoot with both regularly (although I haven't had the K-01 as long as the OM-D). I would say the image quality (from purely an image sensor / technical standpoint) is better from the K-01 than the OM-D, but the OM-D has better AF so you rarely have to worry about missing a shot because the subject moved as you were focusing.

I took this with the K-01:


I took this with the 0M-D:


Both are VERY detailed without distracting noise, although the K-01 shot was taken at ISO 400 and the OM-D shot was taken at ISO 250. I will say colors tend to "pop" more from the K-01 compared to the OM-D, but whether or not that's a good thing depends on the eye of the photographer/beholder.

I'll also point out that I took this shot with the OM-D using standard center-point AF while my daughter was sliding down a slide at the playground. The shot is perfectly focused and I couldn't have taken this "snapshot" with manual focus or with the slower AF on the K-01.


Still, I personally like the image quality from the K-01 better than the OM-D as long as lightning quick AF isn't essential.

[THoog]

Thanks, JJJphoto. Maybe I should have just said "superior", and not "vastly superior". How do they compare for low light performance?

[JJJPhoto]

Thanks, JJJphoto. Maybe I should have just said "superior", and not "vastly superior". How do they compare for low light performance?

The OM-D is by far the best Olympus m4/3 camera so far in terms of ISO noise but it still isn't quite as clean as the larger sensor in the K-01. I personally feel like I have to do at least a little noise reduction on any OM-D portrait that I take at ISO 800 or above because the noise is "a little" too distracting for me. But I can edit a portrait taken with the K-01 at ISO 800 or 1600 and don't feel the need to apply noise reduction.

On the flip side, the OM-D has an easier time locking AF in dark environments where the K-01 hunts ... particularly if you have the distracting AF assist light disabled on both cameras.

[GeneV]

I think we are evaluating "compatibility" differently. I can swap lenses between my dSLR and K-01 and have full functionality, autofocus, SDM, exposure modes, etc. If there is another MILC that I can do that with, I am not aware of it. To me, that is the value and selling point of a legacy mount. My mindset is within the Pentax system. I understand that those with no investment in a particular system have different priorities.

That really is what makes the K-01 concept unique. It is hard to accept size comparisons to other cameras, because they don't do what the K-01 does with legacy DSLR lenses. Even if size is compared to other APS-C mirrorless models, as another poster noted, the size of the lens is still a great equalizer in terms of the overall benefit of any difference in size. You won't slip any of them into a pants pocket.

[normhead]

That really is what makes the K-01 concept unique. It is hard to accept size comparisons to other cameras, because they don't do what the K-01 does with legacy DSLR lenses. Even if size is compared to other APS-C mirrorless models, as another poster noted, the size of the lens is still a great equalizer in terms of the overall benefit of any difference in size. You won't slip any of them into a pants pocket.

"Is that a K-01 in your pants or are you happy to see me?"

[GeneV]

"Is that a K-01 in your pants or are you happy to see me?"

That kind of bulge wouldn't make me too happy.

[Mr Spocko]

I never liked the idea esp no viewfinder which was insane really for this type of camera. I won't be crying now this little experiement is over