Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-11-2015, 01:00 PM   #1
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hoek van Holland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,252
Pentax K-01 too big

Just read a post on the dutch pentax forum site about the K-01 being too big for a mirrorless, and that is one of the reasons it failed.
hhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmm I wonder.....................


Compare camera dimensions side by side

10-11-2015, 01:05 PM   #2
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Far North Qld
Posts: 3,294
Mine works fine....
10-11-2015, 01:06 PM   #3
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hoek van Holland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,252
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Steve.Ledger Quote
Mine works fine....

so does mine
10-11-2015, 01:09 PM   #4
Pentaxian
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,332
The top view, I think, tells the story, rather than the front elevation, and it's the perception of thickness that makes people think it's too big, rather than the reality. Mind you, there's also no EVF on the K-01, and that would most likely have projected further to the rear, adding to the perception of thickness.

10-11-2015, 01:18 PM   #5
Loyal Site Supporter
Scorpio71GR's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Michigan
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,706
Mine works just fine and fits in my jacket pocket. I know my K3 doesn't fit in my jacket pocket. These reviews always dumbfound me. Yes it is bigger than other mirrorless cameras but it doesn't need it's own lemses. To use regular lenses physics dictates how far the sensor has to be from the lens not design. Mounting a 40mm xs or limited makes this a compact camera with an awesome sensor.
10-11-2015, 02:01 PM   #6
Site Supporter
Fenwoodian's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,274
I don't think it's too large.

I just returned from photographing autumn colors in northern Wisconsin. I had two cameras hanging from me. A Fuji X-E2 with the 27mm Fuji pancake lens on it, and an K-01 with a 50mm f/1.2 lens on it. Sure the Fuji rig was a bit lighter, but the K-01 outfit didn't seem overly heavy to me.
10-11-2015, 02:18 PM - 1 Like   #7
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Far North Qld
Posts: 3,294
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.
10-11-2015, 02:24 PM   #8
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,843
QuoteOriginally posted by Macario Quote
Just read a post on the dutch pentax forum site about the K-01 being too big for a mirrorless, and that is one of the reasons it failed.
hhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmm I wonder.....................


Compare camera dimensions side by side
First the A7Rii is a poor comparison. It has an EVF and is FF. The NEX-3N or plain jane NEX-3 is a better comparison. Also compare front to back width.

Compare camera dimensions side by side

Lastly don't forget that one of the attractions of some to Mirrorless is that they can mount old lenses on with adapters from many different brands. The flange distance from Pentax K isn't short enough to allow for that. Using Nikon F, Pentax K, Olympus, Canon FD all on the same body is part of what gets some people interested in these bodies.

The K01 is a nice K mount camera - but it is a very lackluster mirrorless camera compared to the competition. That doesn't mean it isn't the right mirrorless for people who want to use current K mount lenses in a small package. But when compared to the general mirrorless population - the K01 lacks an EVF even as an optional add on, it lacks a short registration distance for use of other lenses outside K mount, and it is rather thick. It isn't fighting on a level playing ground.

10-11-2015, 03:01 PM   #9
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 455
The problem is perception. Pentax did not promote the K-01 as the first mirrorless camera that can use DSLR lenses without a adapter and that they have small DA and FA limited lenses ( and short zooms like the 18-135 lens) that work well with it. That with the fact that the K-01 did not have a OVF, can't shoot multiple frames per second, and they crippled the video so that it could not auto focus and could not use shake reduction in video mode.
10-11-2015, 03:07 PM   #10
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Chicago Illinois
Photos: Albums
Posts: 62
I have a K01 along with several other Pentax DSLR I bought it because when they were selling them off they were dirt cheap for the cost of the lens and battery you got the whole camera not a bad deal. Now having had the K01 for a long time well it sure does grow on you and it takes very good pictures. If it had a view finder it would have done much better in the market. Small size is overrated when it comes to cameras I really do not want a tiny camera I am a full sized adult.
10-11-2015, 03:25 PM   #11
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hoek van Holland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,252
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
First the A7Rii is a poor comparison. It has an EVF and is FF. The NEX-3N or plain jane NEX-3 is a better comparison. Also compare front to back width.

Compare camera dimensions side by side

Lastly don't forget that one of the attractions of some to Mirrorless is that they can mount old lenses on with adapters from many different brands. The flange distance from Pentax K isn't short enough to allow for that. Using Nikon F, Pentax K, Olympus, Canon FD all on the same body is part of what gets some people interested in these bodies.

The K01 is a nice K mount camera - but it is a very lackluster mirrorless camera compared to the competition. That doesn't mean it isn't the right mirrorless for people who want to use current K mount lenses in a small package. But when compared to the general mirrorless population - the K01 lacks an EVF even as an optional add on, it lacks a short registration distance for use of other lenses outside K mount, and it is rather thick. It isn't fighting on a level playing ground.
yes the thin body of the nex 3 makes a big difference Compact Camera Meter very pocketable and stable
10-11-2015, 05:17 PM   #12
New Member




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 24
Thinness is much overrated. You can shrink the body, but delivering a given level of light to the sensor directly implies a given diameter/aperture to the lens. So the only way to significantly shrink the lens means also shrinking the sensor, as this allows shrinking the diameter of the lens while delivering the same amount of light per unit area to the sensor. Maintaining the same FOV then requires also shrinking the focal length. This is why u4/3rds cleans up so handsomely with small, light kit. For a given FOV, the lens shrinks significantly both in diameter and length because of the smaller sensor.

E-mount? Not so much. The sensor stays the same size so the lens diameter can't shrink, and holding the same FOV means the focal length can't shrink. So the lens size can't significantly shrink the way u4/3rds lenses can. And putting anything other than a pancake on the E-mount quickly becomes a handling problem. The combination of a moderate to heavy lens with a thin body to grip simply isn't a happy place to be. This is why I like the "thick" Pentax K-01 body. Putting a Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 lens on it is a pleasure. I doubt the same can be said of any of the NEX-3, 5, 6, 7, and A6000 bodies.

Real reasons why the Pentax K-01 failed: (I have one by the way)

1. Video industry standard audio is 48 Khz 16 bit stereo.
CD standard audio is 44.1 Khz 16 bit stereo.
Pentax, you used a very non-standard 32 Khz sample rate.
Where on earth did that bone head decision come from?

2. Pentax, you weenied out the video bitrate at 21 Mbps.
The AVCHD spec. maxes out at 25 Mbps.
You can handle more detail+motion as the bitrate goes up.
Pentax, why did you cut it short?

3. 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.
#2 above would affect this.

4. Hooking up a monitor/recorder to the camera automatically puts it in playback mode. There is no getting around this.
This means hooking up an external monitor/recorder in the quest for better quality means you can't shoot.
Why? Pentax, Why?

5. There is no way to monitor the camera audio levels. Not even a visual display on the LCD.

Despite all the above flaws, Pentax, you saw fit to initially price the camera as if it was a real competitor to the Canons, Nikons, and Panasonic's which did not have the above deficiencies.

6. Personal beef: If you setup the camera to shoot video in manual mode, the rear LCD display shows a very close approximation of the image your settings will net. Vary the iso, aperture, or shutter speed, and watch the image get darker or brighter in consequence. This is great. But the same does not happen when in manual stills mode. Instead what is displayed is an auto-exposure image utterly divorced from your settings. This is bad.
Why? Pentax, Why?

Please Note: Pretty much ALL the above deficiencies are really, really basic flaws. Also, pretty much ALL the above deficiencies are a consequence of firmware, not hardware. They could likely all be fixed without any hardware changes whatsoever. Which is like saying, from the get-go, they chose to fail. Which is incredibly sad.

Last edited by WildBikerBill; 10-11-2015 at 05:53 PM.
10-11-2015, 06:51 PM   #13
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,994
QuoteOriginally posted by WildBikerBill Quote
Thinness is much overrated. You can shrink the body, but delivering a given level of light to the sensor directly implies a given diameter/aperture to the lens. So the only way to significantly shrink the lens means also shrinking the sensor, as this allows shrinking the diameter of the lens while delivering the same amount of light per unit area to the sensor. Maintaining the same FOV then requires also shrinking the focal length. This is why u4/3rds cleans up so handsomely with small, light kit. For a given FOV, the lens shrinks significantly both in diameter and length because of the smaller sensor.

E-mount? Not so much. The sensor stays the same size so the lens diameter can't shrink, and holding the same FOV means the focal length can't shrink. So the lens size can't significantly shrink the way u4/3rds lenses can. And putting anything other than a pancake on the E-mount quickly becomes a handling problem. The combination of a moderate to heavy lens with a thin body to grip simply isn't a happy place to be. This is why I like the "thick" Pentax K-01 body. Putting a Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 lens on it is a pleasure. I doubt the same can be said of any of the NEX-3, 5, 6, 7, and A6000 bodies.

Real reasons why the Pentax K-01 failed: (I have one by the way)

1. Video industry standard audio is 48 Khz 16 bit stereo.
CD standard audio is 44.1 Khz 16 bit stereo.
Pentax, you used a very non-standard 32 Khz sample rate.
Where on earth did that bone head decision come from?

2. Pentax, you weenied out the video bitrate at 21 Mbps.
The AVCHD spec. maxes out at 25 Mbps.
You can handle more detail+motion as the bitrate goes up.
Pentax, why did you cut it short?

3. 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.
#2 above would affect this.

4. Hooking up a monitor/recorder to the camera automatically puts it in playback mode. There is no getting around this.
This means hooking up an external monitor/recorder in the quest for better quality means you can't shoot.
Why? Pentax, Why?

5. There is no way to monitor the camera audio levels. Not even a visual display on the LCD.

Despite all the above flaws, Pentax, you saw fit to initially price the camera as if it was a real competitor to the Canons, Nikons, and Panasonic's which did not have the above deficiencies.

6. Personal beef: If you setup the camera to shoot video in manual mode, the rear LCD display shows a very close approximation of the image your settings will net. Vary the iso, aperture, or shutter speed, and watch the image get darker or brighter in consequence. This is great. But the same does not happen when in manual stills mode. Instead what is displayed is an auto-exposure image utterly divorced from your settings. This is bad.
Why? Pentax, Why?

Please Note: Pretty much ALL the above deficiencies are really, really basic flaws. Also, pretty much ALL the above deficiencies are a consequence of firmware, not hardware. They could likely all be fixed without any hardware changes whatsoever. Which is like saying, from the get-go, they chose to fail. Which is incredibly sad.
Pretty sure those are all your personal reasons why you think the K-01 failed, and I think you should have stated as such. They are all video-related, implying that the mirrorless market is entirely video-driven, and that no one could possibly care about the photos they might take with it. That just can't possibly be true.
10-11-2015, 07:02 PM   #14
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Far North Qld
Posts: 3,294
QuoteOriginally posted by WildBikerBill Quote
Real reasons why the Pentax K-01 failed: (I have one by the way)

1. Video industry standard audio is 48 Khz 16 bit stereo.
CD standard audio is 44.1 Khz 16 bit stereo.
Pentax, you used a very non-standard 32 Khz sample rate.
Where on earth did that bone head decision come from?

2. Pentax, you weenied out the video bitrate at 21 Mbps.
The AVCHD spec. maxes out at 25 Mbps.
You can handle more detail+motion as the bitrate goes up.
Pentax, why did you cut it short?

3. 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.
#2 above would affect this.

4. Hooking up a monitor/recorder to the camera automatically puts it in playback mode. There is no getting around this.
This means hooking up an external monitor/recorder in the quest for better quality means you can't shoot.
Why? Pentax, Why?

5. There is no way to monitor the camera audio levels. Not even a visual display on the LCD.

Despite all the above flaws, Pentax, you saw fit to initially price the camera as if it was a real competitor to the Canons, Nikons, and Panasonic's which did not have the above deficiencies.

6. Personal beef: If you setup the camera to shoot video in manual mode, the rear LCD display shows a very close approximation of the image your settings will net. Vary the iso, aperture, or shutter speed, and watch the image get darker or brighter in consequence. This is great. But the same does not happen when in manual stills mode. Instead what is displayed is an auto-exposure image utterly divorced from your settings. This is bad.
Why? Pentax, Why?

Please Note: Pretty much ALL the above deficiencies are really, really basic flaws. Also, pretty much ALL the above deficiencies are a consequence of firmware, not hardware. They could likely all be fixed without any hardware changes whatsoever. Which is like saying, from the get-go, they chose to fail. Which is incredibly sad.
The above comments are all based your own expectations which Pentax failed to match. Although I admit the video area could have be better (and it's the same on recent Pentax DSLRs) there are people who have managed to do very well with it.

So no, this isn't a reason to say the K-01 failed.
It's a shame we don't have anyone from Pentax commenting on these forums, because there's going to be a good story about the K-01 (a project which was started while HOYA owned the brand)
10-11-2015, 09:32 PM - 1 Like   #15
Site Supporter
6BQ5's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,109
The K-01 failed only because it didn't lead to a K-02 where Ricoh could have continued to refine the system. This is not a technical failure but a business, marketing, and commercial failure.

Otherwise, it's fine by itself for those who enjoy using it.
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 07:11 PM. | 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