[normhead]

It's nice to see another discussion of the famous K-01. Mine goes out with me every day, with a 21 Ld or 40 XS on it, around my neck. In my holster is the K-5 with DA*60-250 in it and the A-400 in my back pack. And it doesn't matter how many threads like this I read, I'm not leaving it home. The doubters on the internet can make all the noise they want. It counts for naught around here.

[THoog]

It was a DOG in sales. I got shouted down when I said this when it came out and even censured. It is simply a fact that it was a dog and remains one from a sales point of view.

I dunno... Dogs are pretty popular - like #1 or #2 most popular pet in the world. Maybe your choice of words upset the dog lovers?

[wombat2go]

I would happily swap my K-01 for a 1963 Voigtlander Vito C with a Lanther 2.8/50mm and a Pronto shutter.
Now that was a butt ugly camera but a delight to use and for a short time I had one, I used it in preference to the Pentax!

[audiobomber]

Yes, the K-01 is a competent camera for what it does, but its not a MILC in the sense that its meaningfully small and its not a dSLR.

Note that Pentax calls it a Hybrid, which is exactly descriptive of the K-01's form and function. I recall many threads where posters in this forum and the DPR Pentax forum asked for a MILC that would mount their K lenses. IMO, the K-01 failed because it had no eye-level viewfinder, and for no other significant reason.

[Docrwm]

Note that Pentax calls it a Hybrid, which is exactly descriptive of the K-01's form and function. I recall many threads where posters in this forum and the DPR Pentax forum asked for a MILC that would mount their K lenses. IMO, the K-01 failed because it had no eye-level viewfinder, and for no other significant reason.

I do not disagree, except to add price as another significant reason it failed. It was outrageously priced until the prices crashed. Remember that it came out about the same time as their other idiotic decision - Maximum Assured Pricing.

[audiobomber]

I do not disagree, except to add price as another significant reason it failed. It was outrageously priced until the prices crashed.

The original price looks good when you compare it to pricing on the Fujis and EM5.

[savoche]

$250 with a 40 XS? That would be hard to pass up, even though I've sworn a camera without a vf would never interest me.

"Luckily" I can't find it for less than $600 here, and that's with the 18-55, so problem solved

[GXRUser]

Unfortunately, the US market has demonstrated time and again that we prefer to buy cheap stuff that looks like something we saw on TV.

The K-01 team set out to make a one-of-a-kind camera, and they certainly achieved their goal, but the K-01 didn't take off with the average Jo in Japan, either - and Pentax is clearly more focused on the Japanese market (for now, at least). In a boom economy, it might have done better. So many what-ifs...

What if they had gone with AA-batteries and a pink version? Would it have caused outrage to the point of cardiac arrest? A camera that actually kills?

Well, the AA-batteries would have been a great idea.

Just add the EVF, rear IR receiver, USB remote release, USB tethering and it would be fantastic. Change to a articulated LCD for added versatility. Develop a version with either a SONY like SLT mirror or PDAF sensors integrated with the imaging sensor for Hybrid autofocus and you have a wonderful array of options for follow on development.

I think Pentax had the K-01 design completed and then asked Mark Newson to style the surface. If the K-01 is discontinued, it would make sense that this refers to the styling only.

Maybe the next APS K mount camera will be "styled" like a Spotmatic, but have an EVF. Is suspect such a camera body would have very similar internal design to the K-01 (K-30/K-5/etc.)

[JinDesu]

$250 with a 40 XS? That would be hard to pass up, even though I've sworn a camera without a vf would never interest me.

"Luckily" I can't find it for less than $600 here, and that's with the 18-55, so problem solved

I don't think it's $250 with the 40mm XS. It's $250 body.

[Docrwm]

The original price looks good when you compare it to pricing on the Fujis and EM5.

But not when compared to most of the alternatives, as evidenced by the tepid (at best) sales prior to the price crashing.

[THoog]

Well, the AA-batteries would have been a great idea.

I personally like having the option of using AAs, but they seem to be one of those polarizing design choices (no electrical pun intended). It seems to me that the designers went with the K-5 battery because they knew LiveView eats juice - it was the biggest battery on hand. If they had used the K-r/K-30 battery, they could have shaved 5mm off the body (and maybe halved the shot count).

Just add the EVF, rear IR receiver, USB remote release, USB tethering and it would be fantastic. Change to a articulated LCD for added versatility. Develop a version with either a SONY like SLT mirror or PDAF sensors integrated with the imaging sensor for Hybrid autofocus and you have a wonderful array of options for follow on development.

I think Pentax had the K-01 design completed and then asked Mark Newson to style the surface. If the K-01 is discontinued, it would make sense that this refers to the styling only.

I agree the concept has potential, both for larger feature-laden or slightly smaller less-featured directions. We've heard one comment from Pentax that indicated the K-01 was planned as a one-year run only, which would make sense for such a niche design. Or that might have been after-the-fact corporate speak.

Maybe the next APS K mount camera will be "styled" like a Spotmatic, but have an EVF. Is suspect such a camera body would have very similar internal design to the K-01 (K-30/K-5/etc.)

Under the skin, the K-01 was fairly conservative, using proven components that were shared with dSLRs. One not-so-obvious feature the K-01 did introduce was a smaller, more densely populated main circuit board (so far as I can tell from pictures). That may pay off in later products. Like I've said in other threads, the major size constraint (besides the mirror box) is the SR chassis.

[Docrwm]

I personally like having the option of using AAs, but they seem to be one of those polarizing design choices (no electrical pun intended). It seems to me that the designers went with the K-5 battery because they knew LiveView eats juice - it was the biggest battery on hand. If they had used the K-r/K-30 battery, they could have shaved 5mm off the body (and maybe halved the shot count).

I agree the concept has potential, both for larger feature-laden or slightly smaller less-featured directions. We've heard one comment from Pentax that indicated the K-01 was planned as a one-year run only, which would make sense for such a niche design. Or that might have been after-the-fact corporate speak.

Under the skin, the K-01 was fairly conservative, using proven components that were shared with dSLRs. One not-so-obvious feature the K-01 did introduce was a smaller, more densely populated main circuit board (so far as I can tell from pictures). That may pay off in later products. Like I've said in other threads, the major size constraint (besides the mirror box) is the SR chassis.

On the battery - true, but it also made it more compatible with existing dSLR users. It seems to have been designed as a back-up to the K-5 line.

It was clearly designed under Hoya so Ricoh may have said it was intended as a 1 year run but that clearly was not the original intention given how much Marc N costs.

The K-Mount depth for the camera is a stable # and is one of the two biggest reasons the K-01 is as large as it is, the other is the battery as you noted.

Overall there is very little dreadfully wrong with the K-01 (other than the skittles ) but also very little excitingly right about it either. That is, at the end of the day, why it sold so incredibly poorly despite what the Pentax Hymn singers assert.

[filmamigo]

IMO, the K-01 failed because it had no eye-level viewfinder, and for no other significant reason.

Agreed.

Plus price. It should have been priced as an entry-level camera, not a premium camera.

[audiobomber]

Agreed.

Plus price. It should have been priced as an entry-level camera, not a premium camera.

The price was right, if it had included an EVF.

[geomez]

IMO, the K-01 failed because it had no eye-level viewfinder, and for no other significant reason.

I'd have to say lack of the EVF option, either built-in or add-on, but also the styling. I don't mind the style, but I've heard it's not comfortable to hold and the location of the controls suffer from form-over-function regarding their location. I'd love to fondle one to see for myself, but non-point-and-shoot Pentax cameras are not physically sold in Vegas . If I could and found it ergonomically acceptable, I'd jump on the $250 price tag.