[VisualDarkness]

[/COLOR]@VisualDarkness... Agreed on the attractiveness of the Metabones Speed Booster option. But from what I've seen, Sony's IQ in the latest APS-C iteration is not up to the K3 in the rez department (Alpha 6000); nor is there IBIS... both of which are significant negatives from my perspective; though surely not from that of others. I could be swayed: a camera without a strong EVF [option] is not what I really want at my age, considering my lens and subject preferences.

Still the possibility to fix those things lies within the NEX/A concept, while the K-01 concept limits the possibilities as a whole. Short-term the K-01 concept might hold enough possibilities but the fact is that the concept really limits possibilities long-term.

K-01 reminds me of Voigtländer cameras in that they are fun, well built and interesting concepts. But just as the Ultramatic CS that can't mount normal lenses brighter than F2.0 due to mount size and my Prominent which ran into the limit of rangefinders being useless for long lenses at the same time as the mount prohibited super-wides, the K-01 got built in limitations that it will hit sooner or later. Even if you build a lens that doesn't protrude at all it will still be a brick compared to smaller options.

Should Pentax be like Voigtländer and try to push limited concepts to the limit or try to come up with new more open concepts? Both ways are possible with inherent risks.

[Doundounba]

A K-02 with 12mp full frame sensor an OLED EVF and cinema 4K would be a great mirror less camera in low light !

I agree that a full-frame K-mount mirrorless that takes video seriously would make a compelling camera - though a lot depends on pricing, of course. It shouldn't be much bigger than the K-01. I'm sure Pentax have been watching Sony's A7 efforts (and especially their sales figures) with a lot of interest. At some point there seemed to be rumors that the mythical Pentax full frame would be mirrorless. There was also some debate as to how much space you need to make IBIS on a full frame sensor, as I recall...

[Kayaker-J]

@VisualDarkness... From a limited look-see, the Alpha 6000 seems just about close enough to getting there -- with misgivings about the menu system and the loss of pixels in the EVF, compared to the NEX 6 (the aging eye factor again) -- that I might have felt a pang of remorse at my March K3 purchase had the Sony come in minus the AA filter (or with a benignly "weak" one, as on my Oly E-PL5) and shown that they can milk the performance from their own sensors as effectively as others have. I'm also not sure the newest Alpha has gained a clean bill of health from the enthusiast community as yet regarding the kind of funky mechanical issues we've seen on the FF A7 and A7R -- I'd want to know that, for sure. So basically, I agree. I keep getting drawn in toward the Alpha/NEX concept by the truly splendid, consistent results Yu-Lin Chan has been getting from a NEX 6 during the past year or so and posting on his Lens Bubbles blog site... utilizing a dizzying array of adapted MF vintage lenses, which is his thing.

The K-01 as-a-"brick" issue, in itself, doesn't bother me that much, as I always carry a sling bag or backpack; and it should be said that between the friendly 17+ ounce weight in a solid, essentially metal body... and a form factor that slips in and out of a bag compartment more smoothly than does a DSLR, the K-01's form factor doesn't get quite the respect it deserves in practice. No, I would have designed it differently myself (I am an industrial/architectural designer, BTW); but realistically, its shortcomings are exactly what finally gave the camera its useful, present niche in the Pentax system following the price crash.

Since Pentax did re-institute production for the Japanese market Smurf version, one might guess that they didn't lose their shirts on this one. Since it's been pointed put that, as an example, the Nikon 1 system cameras utilize about 1/10 the parts of their low end DSLRs... AND require far fewer costly adjustments to manufacture, maybe Pentax was dumb like a fox to some extent; if you catch my drift.

[VisualDarkness]

I see exactly what you mean and I agree with that too. I like the K-01, I want a K-01 and I think K-01 is a fun camera. Though sadly it's tough to sell on fun factor alone in a crowded market, you need something extra. That "extra" i tough to bring in a K-01 concept, hence why they brought in a well-known designer to add it.
Like I brought up earlier, ask Voigtländer. Well-built and fun to use only brings you so far, you also need to be able to evolve and fine-tune withing your concept so that there's new niches to be conquered.

[ElJamoquio]

- NEX/A can AF Sony/minolta lenses with the official adapter. Can slow AF EF lenses with Metabones. Can use Speedbooster to simulate FF with FF lenses.
- Canon can AF EF lenses with official adapter.
- Fuji X can use Speedboster.

Compared to other systems the "native support" is diminishing as a pro since AF-adapters and Speedbosters are becoming more and more common. Pentax would need to make a shorter mount with an intelligent adapter to get the same level of potential as the other mounts. This is where the mechanical part of the K-mount makes things harder.

I thought I made my point. The K-01 can A/F K-mount lenses. The Nex's, Canon's, and Fuji's can't.

---------- Post added 05-18-14 at 01:16 PM ----------

2. ...Missing only a little, perhaps, if you consider 9 midrange/mid-to-short tele plastic kit zooms from Nikon [assuming you might also consider scavenging something like the 24-85mm zoom from the FX side for your D3300/5300]... and zero DX prime telephotos

Zero DX prime telephotos? If the DA70 was a Nikon, it'd be labeled an FX. There's no visible vignetting of the DA*300 on FF.

The longest true-APS-C-only prime that Pentax has is the DA 35 Limited.

snappers, but I can't work with a DX lens lineup like that for what I will modestly term my little artistic efforts... and I won't carry the FX bulk monsters, particularly when they yield impractical and non-traditional fields of view on a crop sensor body.

'FX bulk monsters'? You're aware that the D600+24-85 is faster, wider, longer, lighter, and sharper than the K-3+16-50? Just carry a FF body too, you're all set.

I looked for your Thom Hogan thing, didn't find it.

---------- Post added 05-18-14 at 01:20 PM ----------

@ElJamoquio...

1. The K-01 isn't really that close to the weight of a K30, let alone a K5. Pentaprisms are heavy.

OK, should've used K-30.

K-01 was ~560 grams, or let's say 780 grams with a lightish 220 gram limited lens.
K-30 was ~650 grams, or let's say 870 grams with the same lens.


That's not a difference worth losing the OVF for, for most people who want a non-pocketable camera.

[JPT]

Since Pentax did re-institute production for the Japanese market Smurf version, one might guess that they didn't lose their shirts on this one.

I think it is unlikely they lost a lot of money on the K-01 and it may have been reasonably profitable. What makes me think this is that the white/blue version was reintroduced at 49,800 yen with the DA40 XS - much cheaper than the original price (79,800 yen, I think). That makes me think that the original pricing was extremely optimistic and not much of a reflection of the true price of producing the camera. If the 49,800 yen is the 'real' price of the camera, the current street price of 35,000 yen is not a fire sale, it is just the kind price reduction that happens to every camera. It's funny. When people don't like the look of a camera, the price reduction is evidence of failure. When it's a camera like the K-5 II being sold at nearly half its launch price, it's a bargain.

And about the K-01's size/weight, when you pack a bag to go out, you notice the difference between the K-01 and a DSLR. One thing about a brick is that it is the most efficient shape for packing. The limiteds and this camera were made for each other and they justify the overall concept of the K-01 - for me at least. Without the K-01 or something equally compact in the line up, the DA limiteds will always be mounted on a comparatively oversized body, and that is a missed opportunity in my view.

[ElJamoquio]

The K-01 price went down at ~3x faster rate than the K-5, FWIW.

[monochrome]

The K-01 price went down at ~3x faster rate than the K-5, FWIW.

I have never in all my years heard such a chorus of negativitiy as I heard immediately upon introduction of the preliminary release photos of the K-01 body. The camera was completely doomed before it even was available for pre-order. Price had very little to do with it. Pentax attempted a different take on mirrorless at a time when the review community enforced a strict orthodoxy over what was an acceptable deviation from a black, mirorred camera - and Pentax suffered for it. Once they were rebuffed they didn't really even try to push back.

Without the K-01 or something equally compact in the line up, the DA limiteds will always be mounted on a comparatively oversized body, and that is a missed opportunity in my view.

IMHO the DA40XS is too small. I bought body-only and added the DA40Ltd., which I think is the perfect walkaround lens for the K-01. For more studious work I often use the FA35/2 which I think is impressive with that sensor and the PRIME-M engine.

And I have a blast with manual focus K-series lenses, even though I often need to meter by hand. I actually prefer using the K-01 for many applications to my K3.

[normhead]

And I have a blast with manual focus K-series lenses, even though I often need to meter by hand. I actually prefer using the K-01 for many applications to my K3.

And my guess is everyone else who owns one feels the same way. You don't use a camera for what it doesn't do or isn't... that's peripheral information. You use a camera for what it is and what it does better. And the K-01 has some things it does better. The fact that many can't see a use for it is irrelevant. They can moan and groan all they want, for as long as they want. They won't talk one person who uses it out of using when appropriate. Their only recourse is to trash it so badly people who might like one will be discouraged from buying one. So what's up with that?

You aren't going to convince me that the $329 that included the 40 XS was not a good purchase. That combo fits in my jacket pocket. Put the 21 ltd in another pocket and you are soooo, laughing. I guess it's just that traditional DSLR users can't imagine it... so they trash it. WIth the K-3 and 60-250 plus 1.4 in my holster and the K-01 and 40 in my pocket, there's not much I'm not ready for.

[monochrome]

You aren't going to convince me that the $329 that included the 40 XS was not a good purchase

I like your response Norm. I bought my K-01 on pre-order, full price and the DA40 Ltd. had a discount at the time. My costs was considerably more than $329 (all-in, about $885, I think). To this day I don't feel like I overpaid, based on the year extra I owned the camera before the deal pricing started.

I did recently get a NIB DA40XS for $100 on a clearance at our local store. I think that was a deal. I stick that combo in a pocket sometimes instead of the Q/01. It shouldn't be legal to have this much fun with 'failed' products.

[VisualDarkness]

And my guess is everyone else who owns one feels the same way. You don't use a camera for what it doesn't do or isn't... that's peripheral information. You use a camera for what it is and what it does better. And the K-01 has some things it does better. The fact that many can't see a use for it is irrelevant. They can moan and groan all they want, for as long as they want. They won't talk one person who uses it out of using when appropriate. Their only recourse is to trash it so badly people who might like one will be discouraged from buying one. So what's up with that?

You aren't going to convince me that the $329 that included the 40 XS was not a good purchase. That combo fits in my jacket pocket. Put the 21 ltd in another pocket and you are soooo, laughing. I guess it's just that traditional DSLR users can't imagine it... so they trash it. WIth the K-3 and 60-250 plus 1.4 in my holster and the K-01 and 40 in my pocket, there's not much I'm not ready for.

I hope you don't aim that at me as I want a K-01 but won't probably buy one. The camera may be fun and good to work with but as a concept to invest in as a camera maker it's seriously limited.

[normhead]

I hope you don't aim that at me as I want a K-01 but won't probably buy one. The camera may be fun and good to work with but as a concept to invest in as a camera maker it's seriously limited.

Fair enough, but, I generally don't invest in concepts, I invest in functionality, so that statement leaves me a little cold.

And I generally go for the broad side of the barn approach as opposed to aiming at a particular individual. I just lob my comments in a general direction without paying much attention to who might be standing over there. It just seems less biased if I don't know who I might be hitting.

[VisualDarkness]

Fair enough, but, I generally don't invest in concepts, I invest in functionality, so that statement leaves me a little cold.

And I generally go for the broad side of the barn approach as opposed to aiming at a particular individual. I just lob my comments in a general direction without paying much attention to who might be standing over there. It just seems less biased if I don't know who I might be hitting.

Haha!
Nor do I invest in concepts like that, most consumers don't, but the question was "why no more pentax mirrorless?" and seen from their perspective concepts are important in the long term.

[normhead]

Haha!
Nor do I invest in concepts like that, most consumers don't, but the question was "why no more pentax mirrorless?" and seen from their perspective concepts are important in the long term.

IN answer to the original question then... in one of the Pentax Executive's interviews one of them said the K-01 has a design flaw that prevents it from being effectively upgraded. A new mirror less would have to be designed from scratch. Whether or not that's corporate speak for "we priced it way to high out of the gate and nobody bought it" is anybody's guess. Even if you accept the premise, that still doesn't explain why they wouldn't design a new FF mirrorless from scratch.

[ElJamoquio]

The K-01 for $300 was a great deal for Pentax users, in the short term. Long-term it impacted the viability of the company, albeit in a small way.