Originally posted by monochrome You, specifically and personally, had a significant hand in convincing people not to try it in the first three months, as you and I discussed at length last year, and you persist even as the last stocks are being fire-saled.
You overestimate my influence. If I would be as influential as you claim, then more Pentax users would have purchased the Q in the first months. In the end, both cameras were overpriced and that was the main reason why they did not sell well initially. One of them was also pointless and that is the reason why it was discontinued. The only thing that surprises me a bit is that they kept the Q - I was afraid they would kill that too - they might still do if they don't exploit the concept effectively.
So, to summarize:
I defended the Q and it got a sequel.
I criticized the K-01 and it got discontinued.
I did not influence camera sales in either case and based on what Pentax did with these products, I can claim that I judged both of them fairly. And I judged the K-01 even better than Pentax did because I would have killed it in the concept stage. You can wait for the day I'll be wrong about a Pentax product, to make fun of my predictions, or you can save your time by realizing that I do not make wild statements and it is hard for me to be wrong that way.
Originally posted by cristigj It certainly cant compete in terms of compactness with svelt offerings from Olympus, for instance, which are micro four thirds, in terms of form factor, but uses a similar LCD screen method instead of a viewfinder. Then again, the IQ and output of the images on the APS-C sized sensor kill any MFT sensor...that's just physics.
Even assuming that the K-01 is smoking MFT cameras, its problem was that it did not provide any advantage over APS-C MILCs either, as you noticed later in your message:
Originally posted by cristigj DxO rated the camera only slightly below the NEX-7..which has a MP count on a proprietary sensor which is almost double that of the K-o1--24mp as opposed to the K-o1's 16mp).
The problem with the K-01 is that it is a DSLR without a mirror and without any form of viewfinder. That is the concept, in a nutshell - and Pentax tried to hide it within a Marc Newson body design. That is what I always criticized and that is why other reviewers couldn't figure out its point either, because there is none once you look at it from outside the bubble of Pentax users. Sure, the camera works and can take pictures, but that is not a novelty these days - that is the point of cameras and these days they are all competent at working and taking pictures.
Inside the small world of Pentax users, the perceived benefit was the use of the K mount and the fact that Pentax could technically claim that it produces an APS-C MILC. But if you stop and look outside that bubble, you can see some interesting things. Take Canon, for example, which is the uncontested leader of photography today, personal feelings aside. They sell more cameras than anyone else and more importantly, they sell more lenses than anyone else. Pentax users get warm and fuzzy about the Pentax lens legacy, but Canon has produced 3 times more modern EF lenses than Pentax did in their entire history. So Canon has all this modern legacy glass and what do they bring to the MILC market when they decide to enter it? Is it a MILC built around their DSLR mount so that users can access all their lenses without an adapter? No, it is a proper MILC with a short mount registration distance plus an adapter for using legacy lenses. This is why Canon is #1 and Pentax management could learn a few things from watching them. People look at the Canon MILC as a failure, but that is where they are again wrong - Canon is just cautious - watch them and learn from them.