[EchoOscar]

unless you were lurking then you have no idea how loud, obnoxious and vitriolic the condemnation was from the moment the first photo hit the press and how persistent, even today, some posters here are in their utter condemnation of the k-01 are and their disgust with Pentax for doing it.

Like I said, that's nothing new or unique. I have been witnessing the exact same reaction and behaviour within some other industries, and it's always more or less the same. Sometimes even worse than the K-01 noise. Just change some key words within the noise.

The fact that a product from Pentax is still triggering a lot of passion, both positive and negative, is actually a good thing. It means the brand still has some sex appeal left. Let's face it, some brands just happen to trigger all sorts of passions in people, and it's a good thing for Pentax that they are still one of those. I think it would be much worse if the reaction was indifference all over.

Just for the heck of it, let's throw in a quick mind game. Imagine for a moment that the K-01 was made by Canikon. It's pretty obvious that the press and the talks would have been quite different't isn't it. Chances are the camera might still be in production, albeit not selling too well, even with a Canikon logo. Most people wouldn't still be getting it, let alone buying it but, it would sell better, because of the mighty mainstream brand. A lot of the press wouldn't dare badmouthing an offspring of the mighty Canikon.

Or, imagine that the Canon EOS-M was a Pentax product, and it's pretty certain that the camera would have been laughed off the map in no time. But because it was made by Canon, it is still appearing in the pages of each online store, albeit often discounted, and the press and the blogosphere are trying hard to find something positive to say about it.
That's just how the world spins.

[klchew]

Didn't expect to have so many responses, some of which were very well argued and put. Don't know if its this forum or just Pentax owners in general but I get the feeling that people here seem to be more "civilized" than on other forums. Or maybe I'm wrong

I like the Pentax K-01 and like the way it functions but for the life of me, I'm not sure in which niche Pentax wanted to stick it in. For a small camera which I can pick up and carry anywhere with better resolution than a normal point and shoot camera, I have the Pentax Q. For a normal light SLR which uses K mount lenses, I take my Pentax K30. For sports photos or when I really want reliability and good quality lenses, I use my Canon 7D with its L lenses.

However, the Pentax K-01 is not small or well thought out as the mini SLR Pentax Q. It doesn't have the viewfinder, weatherproofing and shooting abilities of the Pentax K30. Its stuck in between them and doesn't seem to better the Pentax Q or Pentax K30 in any manner. Just my 2 cents.

[THoog]

I think the point of the K-01 was not to fit in existing niches. The K-01 really is unique in that it is the only MILC with a legacy mount. Whether there will be others or if it's a dead end, only time will tell. (Well, lots of folks on the internet will tell you their opinion, but only time will tell in fact. )

How does it better a Q or K-30? Well, the IQ and low-light capabilities are better than a Q, and it can use dSLR lenses natively with full functionality. It's just small enough to fit in a jacket pocket, and I don't find the K-x, K-r, or K-30 nearly as comfortable for one-handed shooting. Also, the K-01 is much quieter indoors and it doesn't look like a dSLR, so people take no notice of it. It's the best or worst of both worlds, depending on your needs and perspective.

Also, I find the lack of a viewfinder to be a major plus, as it gets the camera away from my face and lets me explore new points of view. Yes, my dSLRs have LiveView, but I only used it when I had to until I started shooting a K-01. If there were a successor with an EVF, I would hope that it would be optional, both to keep the size down, and to keep from getting locked back into one mode of shooting.

[EchoOscar]

How does it better a Q or K-30? Well, the IQ and low-light capabilities are better than a Q, and it can use dSLR lenses natively with full functionality. It's just small enough to fit in a jacket pocket, and I don't find the K-x, K-r, or K-30 nearly as comfortable for one-handed shooting. Also, the K-01 is much quieter indoors and it doesn't look like a dSLR, so people take no notice of it. It's the best or worst of both worlds, depending on your needs and perspective.

Those are valid points to counter the original argument of this thread, which is also visible in the title.
However....

Also, I find the lack of a viewfinder to be a major plus, as it gets the camera away from my face and lets me explore new points of view. Yes, my dSLRs have LiveView, but I only used it when I had to until I started shooting a K-01. If there were a successor with an EVF, I would hope that it would be optional, both to keep the size down, and to keep from getting locked back into one mode of shooting.

Apparently the sun never shines in North Carolina, or you never go oudoors during daylight, with something longer than 50mm.

Always shooting at arm's length may be natural to some, but the EVF/OVF is not only a viewing and composing aid to some, it also acts as a third point of support, as well as a block against backlight.

[THoog]

Apparently the sun never shines in North Carolina, or you never go oudoors during daylight, with something longer than 50mm.

Always shooting at arm's length may be natural to some, but the EVF/OVF is not only a viewing and composing aid to some, it also acts as a third point of support, as well as a block against backlight.

Come to think of it, I did a couple hundred shots in bright sunlight this week, mostly 70mm with a manual focus lens. Sure, sometimes the LCD is nigh-useless - but an VF is useless when shooting at arm's length or waist level. Different tools and techniques for different situations.

Is a K-01 an ideal camera for all situations? Heck, no. Are there times where I'd rather use it than a compact or dSLR? Sure. Sports and action photography are low on my list of interests, but I do a lot of shooting in museums where light is poor, flash and tripods are not allowed, and loud shutters draw unwanted attention. For me, for that situation, the K-01 is almost perfect - or at least the best compromise (and all cameras are compromises) I've come across in 30 years.

[EchoOscar]

but an VF is useless when shooting at arm's length or waist level. Different tools and techniques for different situations.

Yup, horses for courses, or something like that.
I come from a different camp. Having been used to classic SLR's and rangefinders, trying to shoot aim and shoot with the backside TV alone feels awkward, and I believe more than once I have almost banged my GXR against my forehead, until I bought the EVF.

I do a lot of shooting in museums where light is poor, flash and tripods are not allowed, and loud shutters draw unwanted attention. For me, for that situation, the K-01 is almost perfect - or at least the best compromise (and all cameras are compromises) I've come across in 30 years.

They sure are. Maybe today more so than during the film era. Maybe.
It just occurred to me that my current digital cameras are pretty quiet, too, both the mirrorless and the DSLR. The K-01, as well as the Sony SLT cameras are still rather 'loud' compared to my GXR with the A12 or A16 lens units, as well as some other high end compacts, which are using a leaf shutter.

[THoog]

Yup, horses for courses, or something like that.
I come from a different camp. Having been used to classic SLR's and rangefinders, trying to shoot aim and shoot with the backside TV alone feels awkward, and I believe more than once I have almost banged my GXR against my forehead, until I bought the EVF.

They sure are. Maybe today more so than during the film era. Maybe.
It just occurred to me that my current digital cameras are pretty quiet, too, both the mirrorless and the DSLR. The K-01, as well as the Sony SLT cameras are still rather 'loud' compared to my GXR with the A12 or A16 lens units, as well as some other high end compacts, which are using a leaf shutter.

My dad made me shoot his 1950 Agfa rangefinder before I was allowed to touch his SLR; I've looked through a viewfinder for most of my life. I struggled with the K-01 at first, but when I discovered the potential (or hit myself in the forehead enough times, whichever), it really opened new viewpoints for me. I'm rather tall, and most stuff in museums is displayed at belly-button height. Getting down on my knees to get a different perspective can be a hassle; I noticed that I had kind of gotten into a rut of "the world as seen from six feet". The K-01 forced me out of that rut.

To be honest, I had hoped the K-01's shutter would be even quieter, but compared to a K100D, K-x, or K-30, it's stealthy. I was tempted by other sytems in the past, but nothing had the right combination of price, features, and not having to deal with changing systems / using two systems.

[jon404]

I think the real question is the inverse -- why did Canon fail to copy the K-01? They had a perfect chance to mimic the best camera design of the digital age, and failed.

[EchoOscar]

My dad made me shoot his 1950 Agfa rangefinder before I was allowed to touch his SLR; I've looked through a viewfinder for most of my life. I struggled with the K-01 at first, but when I discovered the potential (or hit myself in the forehead enough times, whichever), it really opened new viewpoints for me. I'm rather tall, and most stuff in museums is displayed at belly-button height. Getting down on my knees to get a different perspective can be a hassle; I noticed that I had kind of gotten into a rut of "the world as seen from six feet". The K-01 forced me out of that rut.

To be honest, I had hoped the K-01's shutter would be even quieter, but compared to a K100D, K-x, or K-30, it's stealthy. I was tempted by other sytems in the past, but nothing had the right combination of price, features, and not having to deal with changing systems / using two systems.

My first ever self bought SLR was a fully mechanical, fully manual old Minolta SRT-100x, and in hindsight, I'm glad that I chose to spend some of my summer job and donated money on that relatively cheap option back in my teens. A fully manual body was and is a great learning tool. That's why I'm not too exited about the latest entry level models by Sony and others, because they tend to replace simplicity with even more full auto modes, scenes and thingies. To make sure that the newbies will never evolve from p&s status, or at least will stay there much longer than necessary.

I'm a somewhat short-sighted and somewhat outdoorsy guy, so shooting at arm's length is not the most comfortable option, sometimes even a struggle, and a camera with a viewfinder equipped with a dioptre adjustment is a big relief.
Just to use your example as a base for an alternative solution, to me the similar tool could be the Sony a37, for example. It has both an EVF and a tiltable screen (even easier to frame the low angle shots), focus peaking, PDAF, standard DSLR lens mount etc. and, it's roughly the same size as the K-01, not really that much bigger. It's got a curvier grip and a slight EVF hump, but that's about it. The shutter noise level is about the same, too, and these days you can get one for roughly about the same price as K-01 with a similar kit zoom lens, thanks to the arrival of a58. On the left side of the pond you can get even a Samsung NX-20 kit for almost the same price now. So unless you weren't already heavily invested in the K mount lenses, there are alternatives. Whether you shoot by extending your arm or by banging your forehead.

But to get back on the original topic, would I want the K-01 to look like the a37 or NX-20? No way.
As I said, earlier, the looks of the K-01 was the least of its problems, if a problem at all (Apart from the flippy-flappy rubber door, perhaps). It's just a bit too much form over function, at least for my needs and taste.

[regor]

If Pentax did that, it would fail misearably, because.... at equal product why buy Pentax over Canon. Everyone will tell you, Canon is much better (but we know it isn't true). Pentax has no future in imitating other brands. It has to find its niche, and if the K-01 wasn't it, it has to come up with something else new and unique or else it is doomed to just "survive" in the shadow of the big 2 and the proof is your own reaction to Canon new born even knowing that Pentax has been making some of the world's smallest DSLRs for years ! What I'd like to see next is a MILC body in the shape of a Cube (a la Hasselblad), with a square LCD on top (to which you can attach a mirror box viewfinder), with a square sensor the size of the width of APS-C. I'm sure Mark Newson can design one for us ;-) with the feel of the K-01.

[monochrome]

@regor:

By segmenting the dSLR market into so many different cameras, at ever closer price and feature points, Canon and Nikon combined have erected an effective barrier to entry for everyone else. It will be nearly impossible to compete effectively against any one camera and achieve enough economy of scale to turn a profit. Think Tide, Cheer and All laundry detergents in various package sizes (in the US) - the next brand can't even get on the shelf!! Somehow discount priced Surf made it - but then how does the next brand compete? Think Folgers and Maxwell House coffee. Campbells and Progresso soups. Hertz and Avis. 2 Bigs and everyone else is the norm in consumer products.

Pentax must make cameras that are distinct from the othjer two brands in some consistent way so they can competitively straddle two or more price/feature points. They could effectively be a "better value" feature wise than the lower priced entrant and a "better value" price wise than the higher while priced directly between them. Pentax has the historical pedigree to make this work with the durablity and weather sealed reputation (metal bodies are an erlement of IBIS) and can effectively market this brand reputation - at a price.

Were they to attempt to generate significant volume in order to spread costs, they would need to advertise and market aggressively to establish awareness of whatever their distinction is. The cost of this advertising and marketing would effectively neutralize for quite some time the benefit of the higher volume, so Pentax would have a higher Gross Revenue, but also higher variable costs such as SG&A, probably a higher capital commitment to Plant & Equipment, higher R&D Expense, higher carrying cost for Inventory. Add in a Balance Sheet Liability line for a longer warranty (and the associated manufacturing costs to reduce claims) - a 5 Year Warranty reserve last for 5 years. The associated sales profit lasts for one quarter.

This would effectively reduce their Return on Gross Sales, Return on Invested Capital and Return on Employee Expense. Since capital is scarce and competes with every other Ricoh product for a capital allocation, there had better be a major profit opportunity in cameras.

There's nothing inherently wrong with a business plan that expects those intial lower ratios over a targeted period if there's enmough opportunity - but they have to work. An aggressive company would go for it - and make it work. A conservative company would be content to earn a smaller actual Gross Return, but on smaller Gross Revenue at higher ratios.

Rocih is the former. Pentax is the latter.

[jon404]

@monochrome -- so then, also following up on regor's post, what sort of camera do you think would be both unique with better value? So far, what I'm hearing is a weather-sealed MILC mini-Hasselblad? Well, maybe not so mini. Any other ideas? The weather-sealing, absolutely... the K mount, absolutely. A large optical viewfinder, just like on my old 645N, would be a real treat, and cheaper to make than an EVF. What features or design motif do you think would work?

[monochrome]

@monochrome -- so then, also following up on regor's post, what sort of camera do you think would be both unique with better value? So far, what I'm hearing is a weather-sealed MILC mini-Hasselblad? Well, maybe not so mini. Any other ideas? The weather-sealing, absolutely... the K mount, absolutely. A large optical viewfinder, just like on my old 645N, would be a real treat, and cheaper to make than an EVF. What features or design motif do you think would work?

It has been discussed here to death. Unique is not necessary, nor is it desirable. Better is what is required.

To compete, in EVERY market segment erferenced, in any dSLR camera against the competition [preceeding EDITED for clarity]

• They already have better IQ
• They already have very good High ISO
• They already have better ergonomics
• They already have better weather sealing
• They already have better bodies
• They already have better UI (Menus)
• They need 100% viewfinders
• They need better flash
  • and external flashes
• They need better AF
  • different features for different users - faster, more AF points, smaller, more accurate
• They need faster shutter
  • especially for sports/action/birding
• They need a faster buffer
• They need tethering
• There are plenty of small features such as dual card slots they could offer
• They need a professional support network
  • which just isn't possible quickly
• They need lenses for FF

They need MARKETING


To slot three bodies between 5 or 6 competitor dSLR bodies with better value at a price, marketed for brand identity and awareness, and build PoS support, requires money and time. By definition a Pentax camera can't have the same profit margin if it is a better value.

The same exercise applies to mirrorless. Their bodies must have more and/or better features, that the market wants, at a better price than their competition.

It took a decade to lose the market, it will take at least that long to get it back - which Ricoh no doubt has but it is unclear whether they will invest.

What will probably happen is each camera will have a combination of the best (or very good) of some of these features.

[chiane]

Didn't expect to have so many responses, some of which were very well argued and put. Don't know if its this forum or just Pentax owners in general but I get the feeling that people here seem to be more "civilized" than on other forums. Or maybe I'm wrong

I like the Pentax K-01 and like the way it functions but for the life of me, I'm not sure in which niche Pentax wanted to stick it in. For a small camera which I can pick up and carry anywhere with better resolution than a normal point and shoot camera, I have the Pentax Q. For a normal light SLR which uses K mount lenses, I take my Pentax K30. For sports photos or when I really want reliability and good quality lenses, I use my Canon 7D with its L lenses.

However, the Pentax K-01 is not small or well thought out as the mini SLR Pentax Q. It doesn't have the viewfinder, weatherproofing and shooting abilities of the Pentax K30. Its stuck in between them and doesn't seem to better the Pentax Q or Pentax K30 in any manner. Just my 2 cents.

Klchew, you keep mentioning it doesn't have a viewfinder, if that's the end all be all of a camera. I and many others could care less about a viewfinder. Nothing I shoot, which is architecture from a tripod and shots of a toddler require a viewfinder. In fact, I am way happier without having to look through a viewfinder. You say it doesn't better a Q in any manner. Well, the image quality matches a k5, the Q, not so much. I'd also take the size of the k-01 with the xs 40mm out and about instead of the Q and the zoom lens. There's no pocket I own that holds one but not the other. Everything I see from the Q has noise in the image. I realize old people like this because it reminds them of film from the 70's, but not me. I have a K-r, and the K-01 has a nicer build, a dedicated movie record button, better image quality, a quieter shutter, a smaller body and I can use all my K mount lenses in autofocus and aren't super tele's.

Bottom line, it's a nice niche, be it small. I don't shoot sport, birds, or stand in the rain. Maybe I am one of few Pentax shooters that falls into that category, but for me it's perfect. I don't get having to analyze it to death on a forum. I think the design blows away that plastic Canon piece of junk they just announced that looks like a ugly box with a hundred protrusions like every other black dslr and features removed just to hit a price point. Yuck. I could go on, but it's not worth it.

[klchew]

Klchew, you keep mentioning it doesn't have a viewfinder, if that's the end all be all of a camera. I and many others could care less about a viewfinder. Nothing I shoot, which is architecture from a tripod and shots of a toddler require a viewfinder. In fact, I am way happier without having to look through a viewfinder.

The reason I keep mentioning the lack of a viewfinder is because of the problems that I have using a camera without one in very bright sunlight. I sometimes work in the Middle East and there are times when I try to take a shot with the Pentax Q or K-01 in the sun, and you cannot see what you are looking at because of the glare off the screen. The sunlight here is vicious and really washes out anything on the screen. At times, I am just pointing the camera at what I want to take and snapping away in hope of getting a decent shot because I can't really see what I'm focusing on. With my Canon 7D, looking through the viewfinder cuts the glare out and I can see what I want to take.