Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-12-2015, 01:40 AM   #16
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Far North Qld
Posts: 3,291
Well only if a K-02 was actually envisaged by RICOH. There's no MX-2 either, but I'd not say the MX-1 was a failure either, it's an exceptionally fine camera.
I think we've all become a a bit used to the idea that there should always be a 'sequel'

Perhaps one could say that the K-S1 failed so they quickly produced a K-S2 to compensate? Just like the K-50 quickly followed the K-30?

10-12-2015, 01:57 AM   #17
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,740
QuoteOriginally posted by WildBikerBill Quote
The video encoder in Pentax DSLRs so far has been class trailing with probably the worst moire, aliasing, and detail of any of the video capable DSLRs.
The fact that Video is sub-sampled off the sensor is also a major contribution to the issues with video on DSLRs. Higher end video cameras, like those from AARI and RED Use the full sensor area with a Global shutter.
10-12-2015, 02:53 AM - 1 Like   #18
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,009
The reasons that the K-01 failed were clear. It was way too expensive at launch, it was under-specified (lousy frame rate, poor buffer), and it lacked an EVF. People chose to complain about the design and ergonomics a lot, but if Pentax had released a second version priced at 500 dollars with an EVF, PD AF on the sensor, and better frame rate and buffer, I think it would have done quite well.

The size is about as small as you can make a k mount camera and keep the on board flash. But the camera body size is a red herring as Pentax has an awful lot of small primes that work well with the K-01 and body plus glass size is what you really need to look at when you are considering a camera. The NEX cameras may be thinner, but once you stick most FE mount lenses on them, they seem to increase in size to equivalent to the K-01 plus a k mount lens of similar focal length.
10-12-2015, 03:45 AM   #19
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Far North Qld
Posts: 3,291
The Pentax Q was way too expensive at launch, as was the MX-1 and so the story continues with the K-S series.
If this was a reason for the 'perceived' failure, then they have learned nothing. But I disagree.. Almost all new release cameras from all brands are too expensive initially. But Pentax/Ricoh don't mind dropping the price by large margins - unlike the other brands.

BTW: This fixation on cameras 'must have EVF' is quite odd. The most common, most used and most popular cameras in the world do not have an EVF.
I'm speaking of course about the smartphones

10-12-2015, 06:57 AM   #20
Loyal Site Supporter
THoog's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: North Carolina
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,485
QuoteOriginally posted by Steve.Ledger Quote
OK, I was being a little sarcastic with my first response.
So the K-01 was a failure relative to what, exactly?
As there is no other camera design quite like it and as it is Pentax's ONLY aps-c mirrorless camera, I can't quite understand why anyone could suggest it failed at anything.
For one thing, it has quite a cult following in the West. I'm pretty sure they sold plenty in Asian markets. And I'm fairly certain the RICOH learned a heck of a lot from the exercise.
If by failure you or others mean is didn't live up to your own expectations or requirements, then I'd say the problem lies not in the camera.
I agree. Despite it being universally accepted that the K-01 was an failure, eighteen months after its release, (when a "K-02" should have appeared if there was going to be one) Pentax produced another run of K-01s for sale in Japan only. That forces me to question whether it was as much a disaster as everyone says. It also forces me to question the 'no successor' assumption - maybe it really was intended as a one-off. Maybe they decided taking the mirror out of a DSLR wasn't worth it to get an MILC, but used the lessons learned to make a smaller DSLR (the K-S1 trims all the corners that the K-01 left blocky).
10-12-2015, 07:23 AM   #21
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
The first comparison has some difference. No EVF and not being fullframe makes the K-01 a little bigger then maybe needed. The comparison to nex-3 doesn't apply since that has no stabilisation and a smaller battery.

Well it should have some better video recording to compete with other brands. I did make some nice video's with mine.

Probably never will see a sequal.
10-12-2015, 12:12 PM   #22
Site Supporter
6BQ5's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,105
If the K-01 was intended as a "single run" product then it was successful in the sense that every unit produced got sold. Ricoh got their money back plus some. Could have they gotten more? Maybe, but that is something that can be debated till we're all dead and buried. Anyway, being a "single run" product begs the question, "Why?". Did Ricoh want something very specific out of it and now that they have it they move on? Or, is this a new trend in product development methodology? Should we get used to lines of technology that have a definite start and a definite stop without seeing a natural progression? I would argue that a clear progression of performance improvement can be followed from the *ist D to the current K-3 ii. The model numbers changed, the outline of the camera changed, and maybe even the operational approach of the camera changed but it is very easy to see how lessons learned from one model enters the next.

One important element of the continuity in the K DSLRs is because of the mount. The mount is a monument that drives the design of the camera. No K mount = no camera, or at least not a K DSLR series. As long as the K mount exists the K DSLRs will see a logical and fruitful progression.

I would include the MX-1 with the K-01. The MX-1 seems like a fine camera that works well for what it is but the camera is a discontinued model that went nowhere except into your hands. Ricoh changed gears and focused on the GR. Good for them. They are actively, although gently, updating that product and slowly growing it.

There is always a market for everything. Someone will buy whatever is made. It may take a while to find the target audience and to strike the right balance between price and performance though.
10-17-2015, 01:48 PM   #23
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Far North Qld
Posts: 3,291
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
No EVF and not being fullframe makes the K-01 a little bigger then maybe needed.
('than')
It was as big as it needed to be, Ron. I don't think they made it larger than it should have been just because they wanted to use more materials

10-17-2015, 01:51 PM   #24
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
QuoteOriginally posted by Steve.Ledger Quote
('than')
It was as big as it needed to be, Ron. I don't think they made it larger than it should have been just because they wanted to use more materials
No but when you look at how Sony is putting their NEX together and how Pentax makes it's interieur very traditional with wires and stuff you know that Pentax is a generation behind in electronics.
10-22-2015, 05:51 AM   #25
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,760
QuoteOriginally posted by DogLover Quote
They are all video-related, implying that the mirrorless market is entirely video-driven,
To be fair, my impression has always been that ILC videography is a far more significant force in the mirrorless world than it is in DSLR.

I think he gives the K-01 fair credit where it's due for handling, and I appreciate and share his sentiment with regard to micro four-thirds and compactness.

Personally I think it failed because it didn't have an SLR-like EVF and people didn't quite know how to handle it - but the non-standard video stuff doubtless didn't help. And so long as they had a fixed K mount, it was only ever going to appeal to existing Pentax users. I think you could quite easily ship a Pentax MILC with an included (and fully KAF-3 compliant) extension tube-type adapter for the K mount (to maintain registry distance) and then offer the rest as after-market, but that will be for Ricoh to decide once the full-frame is out and they start thinking about whether they will offer a mirrorless version.

---------- Post added 22-10-15 at 10:26 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Steve.Ledger Quote
The most common, most used and most popular cameras in the world do not have an EVF. I'm speaking of course about the smartphones
Not a fair comparison as they are not purely picture-taking machines - they must serve another purpose (several purposes these days), for which their shape dictates their form.

---------- Post added 22-10-15 at 10:30 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
body plus glass size is what you really need to look at when you are considering a camera.
YES, this, so much!!! It doesn't matter if your camera body is the size of an iPhone 4; if the lens you stick on it is the D-FA 150-450, then "subcompact" goes right out the window!
10-22-2015, 06:10 AM   #26
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,821
The K-01 was released in 2012 - 3 years is a big deal when it comes to technology. The first Q was released around that time, and it was ridiculously small, silly small. But today, the two are facing a lot of competition.I don't think Sony's lineup was so compact back before 2012, despite Sony having a lot more production power than Hoya-Pentax had.
Also, if the K-01 had the same register distance as the Sony cameras, the difference wouldnt be as big.
Next, is the shape itself. The K-01 has a nice boxy shape, so it never snags or gets stuck. I find the form very nice, but I understand that some people prefer a different style.
And the K-01 is a much lower tier camera than the A7RII. A better comparison, though no less friendly to Pentax, would be with the Sony A5000

Just saying, these things play a big role. For me, the K-01 size and shape is fine. Sure, taking off one or two cm would make it more competitive. Considering the current market, if Pentax makes another mirrorless, it would need a bigger sensor and smaller body. And bonus points for WR, viewfinder, more focus peaking options, faster burst rate,.. all sorts of things, as technology keeps improving. Still, I doubt Pentax will release a mirrorless K-mount any time soon.

Last edited by Na Horuk; 10-22-2015 at 03:01 PM.
10-22-2015, 06:35 AM   #27
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
The Leica is big.........

http://camerasize.com/compare/#285,639

I still think Pentax should put a fullframe sensor inside the K-01.
10-22-2015, 07:23 AM   #28
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,760
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
I still think Pentax should put a fullframe sensor inside the K-01.
Would you be willing to sacrifice SR if that kept things really small, or would that be a deal-breaker for you?
10-22-2015, 07:26 AM   #29
Site Supporter
6BQ5's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,105
QuoteOriginally posted by pathdoc Quote
Would you be willing to sacrifice SR if that kept things really small, or would that be a deal-breaker for you?
This becomes an interesting puzzle to solve. SR functionality can be moved from the body to the lens. Would that move be a deal-breaker for some people? Lenses may become more expensive although the body may be cheaper to produce. Adapted lenses would have no SR applied to them.
10-22-2015, 07:51 AM   #30
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,760
I suppose, in answer to my own question, it depends on how you perceive the camera. If it's your intended stand-alone one-and-only centre of your photographic system, or as a compact last-ditch backup to pull out when both your main bodies go down (a K-mount derringer for a two-gun cowboy, so to speak), then no SR = no go. But if you see it as an overgrown K-mount point-and-shoot, that changes the equation somewhat.

If there's a reason I'd want an EVF on any potential successor it's because (a) back screens are sometimes impossible to see in bright sunlight and (b) sometimes you want to keep your night vision for shots in the dark, and an EVF lets you keep at least one eye away from bright lights (if you can suppress the back screen). Hell, if it weren't for the need to check focus on critical shots and the almost universal desire to be able to review in-camera, I'd almost be happy to do away with the back screen and have all the essential information displayed in the EVF.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
body, camera, evf, k-01, k01, mirrorless, offer, pentax, pentax k-01, post, size, world
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-3 vs K-01 Live View Focus Speed - K-01 Wins! rmtschanz Pentax K-3 25 12-07-2015 06:02 PM
Too Big old4570 Macro Photography 2 12-08-2014 11:55 AM
Too much sound noise while recording with K-01 minilink Pentax K-01 25 07-04-2012 10:23 AM
Is the K-01 too big? Possible solution... Joe Nation Pentax K-01 31 04-28-2012 12:04 PM
K-01 with big lenses: Adam Pentax K-01 2 03-25-2012 07:10 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:53 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top