[ThorSanchez]

Who said it did not succeed ?

I bought mine in 2014 and still use it regularly alongside my K-3 and K-1

It is the perfect addition to my system , using the same batteries and lenses as my other cameras .

To me , it is a resounding success .

Quite obviously Ricoh/Pentax said it did not succeed. They discontinued it years ago and never produced a follow-on model.

As for using a sunshade instead to compensate for lack of a viewfinder... in today's market that seems like a ridiculous idea. Nobody is going to use an ungainly work-around when you can get far more advanced mirrorless cameras with EVFs from other manufacturers. Not unless you already own a K-01 and don't care to upgrade. Especially when a KP or a K-S2 are only slightly larger and have good viewfinders.

[photogem]

2014,.. and like I said, NOTHING had a bright enough and glare free enough screen then.

HDR brightness level screens have only existed in the last few years, and people should stop whining about older cameras not having them and do the same thing we still do on film sets - use a dang sunshade on the LCD.

With a SLR or DSLR you don't need the LCD as you do for the K-01.

Has all to be compared in correct relation

[reh321]

2014,.. and like I said, NOTHING had a bright enough and glare free enough screen then.

HDR brightness level screens have only existed in the last few years, and people should stop whining about older cameras not having them and do the same thing we still do on film sets - use a dang sunshade on the LCD.

Look at the title of this thread.
We are addressing the question asked - not whining,
If I wanted to use a 'sunshade' it would be different - but if they had added an EVF I wouldn't have needed it.
Instead, I got a K-30 which did need a 'sunshade'.

[photogem]

Look at the title of this thread.
We are addressing the question asked - not whining*,
If I wanted to use a 'sunshade' it would be different - but if they had added an EVF I wouldn't have needed it.
Instead, I got a K-30 which did need a 'sunshade'.

You mean "it didn't need one" I guess?


*???

[larryaustin3]

Quite obviously Ricoh/Pentax said it did not succeed. They discontinued it years ago and never produced a follow-on model.

Does that mean we can anticipate a thread titled "KP -- why did it not succeed?"

[Rondec]

Quite obviously Ricoh/Pentax said it did not succeed. They discontinued it years ago and never produced a follow-on model.

As for using a sunshade instead to compensate for lack of a viewfinder... in today's market that seems like a ridiculous idea. Nobody is going to use an ungainly work-around when you can get far more advanced mirrorless cameras with EVFs from other manufacturers. Not unless you already own a K-01 and don't care to upgrade. Especially when a KP or a K-S2 are only slightly larger and have good viewfinders.

I think they sold a lot of them -- they just sold them for 300 dollars (or sometimes less). I got mine for somewhere in the 250 dollar range and I still use it today. I'm guessing that it was cheap enough to manufacture that they still made money on it -- otherwise I'm not sure why they would have turned a new smurf version after the initial run sold out.

As to why they didn't release a second version, they have been slow to release just about anything. I'm guessing it takes all of their staff a year or two to get a camera out the door and they just didn't have the staffing to focus on a K-02.

[pres589]

It would be interesting to know when effort to develop the K-01 and/or any replacement (the fabled K-02) stopped and more effort went back to cameras like the K-3. If the question was "do we follow up the K-01 with another model or do we put all of that time & money into the K-3?" I think the answer would have been easy and justifiable.

The unfortunate aspect is how a big second effort based on the K-01 could have been so much better and perhaps been worth the effort.

The issue with not having an optical viewfinder makes me think the Sigma fp is destined to be a niche product though it seems to be fairing better in "the press" than the K-01 did. Fairly or not the K-01's styling probably doomed it.

[reh321]

You mean "it didn't need one" I guess?


*???

You guessed wrong.

It did need a “sunshade” but it had no viewfinder built in.
After my Q-7 experience I was unwilling to carry the bulk of a Hoodman around with me.
I ignored styling - I was interested in something that would do the job,
all I wanted was a lens, a sensor, and a shaded view through the lens.
So I got a K-30, which has a “sun shade” built-in in the form of a viewfinder.
No ‘whining’ - just action to get what I needed since Pentax had not provided an EVF, which remained as my first choice.
Even now it remains my first choice, even though I no longer save money hoping to spend on a MILC by Pentax.

[Fogel70]

The issue with not having an optical viewfinder makes me think the Sigma fp is destined to be a niche product though it seems to be fairing better in "the press" than the K-01 did. Fairly or not the K-01's styling probably doomed it.

I think that Sigma FP is more focused on videography, so it is designed for being just one component in a rig.
Sigma has removed everything not needed for video.

Because of the lack of EVF, I doubt many get Sigma FP for photography.
But the video segment has become quite large, so it might be a smart move from Sigme to focus on it.

I do not think Sigma did very well with with SD Quattro, their mirrorless camera with DSLR mount, even though it had EVF.
So I think it is the reason why they tested to see if they can do better in video segment.