Pentax K-01 too big

**Rondec** · 10-22-2015, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by 6BQ5

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.

I wouldn't release a line of SR enabled lenses specifically for a mirrorless camera. The idea with mirrorless, in my humble opinion, is to keep the whole package as small as possible. The 5mm you gain each way by dropping SR are less than the size hit you get by stick a SR element in a zoom (they don't seem to stabilize most short primes).

If there is a place to consider optical shake reduction, it would be in telephoto lenses.

normhead · 10-22-2015, 08:18 AM - **1 Like**

Every point and shoot ever made is mirrorless, and the K-01 is definitely too big to fit in your pocket, so, I wear a coat with big pockets, problem solved.

pathdoc · 10-22-2015, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by normhead

Every point and shoot ever made is mirrorless

And every rangefinder! That strange hybrid called the Olympus Pen F seems to have managed the issue in some other strange way but IIRC even it was far, far closer to WYSIWYG than any P&S or RF.

RonHendriks1966 · 10-22-2015, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by pathdoc

Would you be willing to sacrifice SR if that kept things really small, or would that be a deal-breaker for you?

Would be no problem for me.

Steve.Ledger · 10-25-2015, 02:59 AM

Removing SR would make zero difference to the depth needed for the K-mount lenses, there'd be next to no reduction in body size by removing it.
Look how slim the MX-1 is, it has sensor shift SR as does the Q.
Pentax made the K-01 as small as was possible at the time. Marc Newson didn't design it to be too big.

Na Horuk · 10-25-2015, 04:55 AM

I think LCD screen takes much more space on the K-01 than the SR. And since screen technology has advanced a lot (due to tablets, smartphones), I think this can be applied to a camera, as well.

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 & K-3 II	25	12-07-2015 06:02 PM
Macro Too Big	old4570	Post Your Photos!	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

10-22-2015, 08:14 AM	#31
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	Originally posted by 6BQ5 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. I wouldn't release a line of SR enabled lenses specifically for a mirrorless camera. The idea with mirrorless, in my humble opinion, is to keep the whole package as small as possible. The 5mm you gain each way by dropping SR are less than the size hit you get by stick a SR element in a zoom (they don't seem to stabilize most short primes). If there is a place to consider optical shake reduction, it would be in telephoto lenses.

10-22-2015, 08:18 AM - 1 Like	#32
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Every point and shoot ever made is mirrorless, and the K-01 is definitely too big to fit in your pocket, so, I wear a coat with big pockets, problem solved.

10-22-2015, 09:35 AM	#33
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Originally posted by normhead Every point and shoot ever made is mirrorless And every rangefinder! That strange hybrid called the Olympus Pen F seems to have managed the issue in some other strange way but IIRC even it was far, far closer to WYSIWYG than any P&S or RF.

10-22-2015, 02:14 PM	#34
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Originally posted by pathdoc Would you be willing to sacrifice SR if that kept things really small, or would that be a deal-breaker for you? Would be no problem for me.

10-25-2015, 02:59 AM	#35
Steve.Ledger Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Far North Qld Posts: 3,301	Removing SR would make zero difference to the depth needed for the K-mount lenses, there'd be next to no reduction in body size by removing it. Look how slim the MX-1 is, it has sensor shift SR as does the Q. Pentax made the K-01 as small as was possible at the time. Marc Newson didn't design it to be too big.

10-25-2015, 04:55 AM	#36
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	I think LCD screen takes much more space on the K-01 than the SR. And since screen technology has advanced a lot (due to tablets, smartphones), I think this can be applied to a camera, as well.