K-01 - why did it not suceed?

lytrytyr · 12-16-2019, 09:08 PM - **1 Like**

Because we never saw the SMC Pentax-DA 12 mm F5.6 XS,
which would have protruded into the camera body
like the Voigtlaender lens for Nikons with mirror lockup:

Fogel70 · 12-16-2019, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by BillO

Why did the K-01 not succeed? I like some of the features coming out in mirrorless cameras, but I have no desire to start a new collection of lenses, or give up things like auto focus and exposure or open aperture metering. It would have been swell if the K-01 started a series that carried on with newer models.

I belive there where many reasons it did not succeed.
- Too high price. It was only when price was lowered to no profit level that they could sell the camera. When you could buy K-01 + 40 XS for little more than the lens cost. So many got it as a lens with a kit-camera.
- Too wierd design. It kind of made it look cheap but it was made of premium materials which made expensive.
- Released too early. With only CDAF and few lenses optimized for it made it perform too poorly. It really needed on sensor PDAF.
- Too little support from Pentax. Without enough lenses optimized for it, it did not make much sense for most users. The retractable 18-50 had made a much better kit lens option than screwdrive 18-55. Instead they made 40XS lens as kit lens option.
- Only interesting for existing K-mount owners as a second body. But it was too expensive at introduction for this.
- No viewfinder option.

In short it was viewed as an expensive, wierdly designed, poorly performed, viewfinder less DSLR.
With very little value added compared to any Pentax DSLR.

larryaustin3 · 12-16-2019, 11:06 PM

$800 was just an absurd price at launch. I think people looked at the price relative to the specs and decided there was no way they would pay a premium for a designer camera. Pentax is all about value for money, and this was not. It was sort of like the equivalent of a concept car. Has a camera company developed a product that is so dissimilar to its other offerings? I feel the same way about the K-S1. I give Pentax credit for thinking outside the box, though.
When the K-01 price dropped to $299, I bought it thinking it would be a backup camera, but I ended up using it all the time. I actually have grown to love it. Image if they somehow wedged a full-frame sensor into that same body and added PDAF and a bigger buffer? What if Pentax made the cheapest full-frame mirrorless camera on the market? I don't think people would complain about the styling then.

**PJ1** · 12-16-2019, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by Fogel70

it was made of premium materials which made expensive.

Interesting. This applies to the original Q as well. They went for less expensive materials in the later Q bodies. They could have done it for the K-01.

The Q body went from magnesium alloy to plastic in the Q10, Q7 and Q-S1. I don't think the later bodies are any less robust because of that. But Leica trades on bodies milled from a solid block of aluminium. The K-01 had an internal aluminium frame. Perhaps having a metal body or frame is seen as something that imparts status.

larryaustin3 · 12-16-2019, 11:34 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by PJ1

They went for less expensive materials in the later Q bodies. They could have done it for the K-01.

Marc Newson said in this interview that he insisted on using noble materials.
Interview: K01 by Marc Newson for Pentax | Dezeen

BigMackCam · 12-17-2019, 12:31 AM

Originally posted by reh321

My understanding is that the {Nikon} F-to-Z adaptor doesn’t have a motor, so all lenses depending on screw-drive become manual focus. I don’t believe that would be acceptable for Pentax in the year 2020.

I believe you're correct. Sony's LA-EA4 A-to-E-mount adapter - which I own - has screw-drive, and it works extremely well. So it's quite possible to fit a good screw-driver motor into such a unit...

fsge · 12-17-2019, 01:19 AM

I think the design was a first hurdle, it contributed to the "brick" effect

**RobA_Oz** · 12-17-2019, 01:35 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by stevebrot

(...am wondering how my KMZ multi-finder might work on a K-01...)

It’d have to be more balanced than on a Q. Don’t laugh: I’ve tried it.

Wasp · 12-17-2019, 01:48 AM

I would say that the lack of dual pixel autofocus and electronic viewfinder held it back. Perhaps the time is right for a K-02 with DPAF and EVF. Add a top LCD and GPS and I will come running with cash in hand.

**PJ1** · 12-17-2019, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by Wasp

Perhaps the time is right for a K-02 with DPAF and EVF. Add a top LCD and GPS

You mean a K-1ii without an OVF.

Fogel70 · 12-17-2019, 02:51 AM

Originally posted by PJ1

Interesting. This applies to the original Q as well. They went for less expensive materials in the later Q bodies. They could have done it for the K-01.

The Q body went from magnesium alloy to plastic in the Q10, Q7 and Q-S1. I don't think the later bodies are any less robust because of that. But Leica trades on bodies milled from a solid block of aluminium. The K-01 had an internal aluminium frame. Perhaps having a metal body or frame is seen as something that imparts status.

At least some of the controls where also made of aluminium. I don't believe I have seen Pentax using this on any other digital ILC, not even 645Z.

**stevebrot** · 12-17-2019, 09:25 AM

I noticed that several posts on this thread state the opinion that the K-01 was overly expensive on launch at just under $800 USD. That might be the case, considering that for only another $50 in a very few months (July 2012) one could have a K-30 and another $50 over that would get you a K-5. Of course, K-r prices were on close-out. The logic goes like this...

You want cheap? Get K-r!

You want K-5 with Marc Newson, better video, less bulk, no viewfinder, no mirror and no WR? Get K-01!

You want mirror, viewfinder, better video, SR, WR, only a little more bulk, and most of K-5 goodies? Get K-30...only $50 more!

You want K-5? Get K-5...only $100 more than K-01!

The take-away from the above is not that the K-01 was particularly expensive, but that the K-30 proved to be its most brutal competitor.

In regards to my personal experience with the K-01, it was fire sale priced at my local brick and mortar (yes, those were the days...RIP Camera World) and I seriously considered picking one up as a second body while doing research for purchase of my K-3 kit. I actually liked the feel of the camera in the hand. I expected the handling of an Argus C-3, but it actually felt pretty nice. Pity, it could not be braced against my face for the shot and that the LCD was hard to see under bright conditions.

Steve

reh321 · 12-17-2019, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by RobA_Oz

It’d have to be more balanced than on a Q. Don’t laugh: I’ve tried it.

I am tempted to laugh because I use the two-handed hold similar to what I learned fifty years ago on range-finder cameras, and I have no 'balance' problems at all on the Q-7 which I use regularly, at least once or twice each week. But I believe you, partly because people here also report 'balance' issues with the KP; for some reason, Sony, Canon and others keep selling MILC cameras even smaller than the KP, though.

BillO · 12-17-2019, 11:20 AM

I think if I can find one at reasonable price (and they do seem to be getting more reasonable) I'll buy one and use it with a small good quality and versatile zoom lens. The SMC Pentax-F 35-70mm F3.5-4.5 comes to mind. That would make a great little kit for keeping in the car.

**luftfluss** · 12-17-2019, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by BillO

I think if I can find one at reasonable price (and they do seem to be getting more reasonable) I'll buy one and use it with a small good quality and versatile zoom lens. The SMC Pentax-F 35-70mm F3.5-4.5 comes to mind. That would make a great little kit for keeping in the car.

The F 35-70 generally autofocuses very nicely with the K-01. It's a favorite combo of mine.

12-16-2019, 10:16 PM	#32
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 2,888	Originally posted by BillO Why did the K-01 not succeed? I like some of the features coming out in mirrorless cameras, but I have no desire to start a new collection of lenses, or give up things like auto focus and exposure or open aperture metering. It would have been swell if the K-01 started a series that carried on with newer models. I belive there where many reasons it did not succeed. - Too high price. It was only when price was lowered to no profit level that they could sell the camera. When you could buy K-01 + 40 XS for little more than the lens cost. So many got it as a lens with a kit-camera. - Too wierd design. It kind of made it look cheap but it was made of premium materials which made expensive. - Released too early. With only CDAF and few lenses optimized for it made it perform too poorly. It really needed on sensor PDAF. - Too little support from Pentax. Without enough lenses optimized for it, it did not make much sense for most users. The retractable 18-50 had made a much better kit lens option than screwdrive 18-55. Instead they made 40XS lens as kit lens option. - Only interesting for existing K-mount owners as a second body. But it was too expensive at introduction for this. - No viewfinder option. In short it was viewed as an expensive, wierdly designed, poorly performed, viewfinder less DSLR. With very little value added compared to any Pentax DSLR. Last edited by Fogel70; 12-16-2019 at 10:51 PM.

12-17-2019, 02:00 AM	#40
PJ1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Mosquito Creek, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,174	Originally posted by Wasp Perhaps the time is right for a K-02 with DPAF and EVF. Add a top LCD and GPS You mean a K-1ii without an OVF. Last edited by PJ1; 12-17-2019 at 02:01 AM. Reason: Mistake on my part

12-17-2019, 09:25 AM	#42
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	I noticed that several posts on this thread state the opinion that the K-01 was overly expensive on launch at just under $800 USD. That might be the case, considering that for only another $50 in a very few months (July 2012) one could have a K-30 and another $50 over that would get you a K-5. Of course, K-r prices were on close-out. The logic goes like this... You want cheap? Get K-r! You want K-5 with Marc Newson, better video, less bulk, no viewfinder, no mirror and no WR? Get K-01! You want mirror, viewfinder, better video, SR, WR, only a little more bulk, and most of K-5 goodies? Get K-30...only $50 more! You want K-5? Get K-5...only $100 more than K-01! The take-away from the above is not that the K-01 was particularly expensive, but that the K-30 proved to be its most brutal competitor. In regards to my personal experience with the K-01, it was fire sale priced at my local brick and mortar (yes, those were the days...RIP Camera World) and I seriously considered picking one up as a second body while doing research for purchase of my K-3 kit. I actually liked the feel of the camera in the hand. I expected the handling of an Argus C-3, but it actually felt pretty nice. Pity, it could not be braced against my face for the shot and that the LCD was hard to see under bright conditions. Steve

12-17-2019, 10:07 AM	#43
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 22,157	Originally posted by RobA_Oz It’d have to be more balanced than on a Q. Don’t laugh: I’ve tried it. I am tempted to laugh because I use the two-handed hold similar to what I learned fifty years ago on range-finder cameras, and I have no 'balance' problems at all on the Q-7 which I use regularly, at least once or twice each week. But I believe you, partly because people here also report 'balance' issues with the KP; for some reason, Sony, Canon and others keep selling MILC cameras even smaller than the KP, though. Last edited by reh321; 12-17-2019 at 10:20 AM. Reason: changed wording to 'similar to' because rangefinder had viewfinder and Q-7 requires LV

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Why I got a Ricoh GR...but why did you ?	lesmore49	Ricoh GR	7	11-02-2019 06:17 PM
Why did you buy a K-01?	slackercruster	Pentax Mirrorless Cameras	156	09-28-2013 04:26 PM
Why did I order the D7000. Why?	tbirdas	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	41	02-26-2011 02:43 AM
any idea why Tokina did not make a 50-135mm for Pentax mount?	Reportage	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	01-11-2010 11:56 AM
Curious, who did not get a K20 and why?	vievetrick	Photographic Technique	63	06-26-2008 05:49 AM

12-16-2019, 09:08 PM - 1 Like	#31
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,265	Because we never saw the SMC Pentax-DA 12 mm F5.6 XS, which would have protruded into the camera body like the Voigtlaender lens for Nikons with mirror lockup:

12-16-2019, 11:06 PM	#33
larryaustin3 Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Upstate New York Posts: 94	$800 was just an absurd price at launch. I think people looked at the price relative to the specs and decided there was no way they would pay a premium for a designer camera. Pentax is all about value for money, and this was not. It was sort of like the equivalent of a concept car. Has a camera company developed a product that is so dissimilar to its other offerings? I feel the same way about the K-S1. I give Pentax credit for thinking outside the box, though. When the K-01 price dropped to $299, I bought it thinking it would be a backup camera, but I ended up using it all the time. I actually have grown to love it. Image if they somehow wedged a full-frame sensor into that same body and added PDAF and a bigger buffer? What if Pentax made the cheapest full-frame mirrorless camera on the market? I don't think people would complain about the styling then.

12-16-2019, 11:20 PM	#34
PJ1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Mosquito Creek, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,174	Originally posted by Fogel70 it was made of premium materials which made expensive. Interesting. This applies to the original Q as well. They went for less expensive materials in the later Q bodies. They could have done it for the K-01. The Q body went from magnesium alloy to plastic in the Q10, Q7 and Q-S1. I don't think the later bodies are any less robust because of that. But Leica trades on bodies milled from a solid block of aluminium. The K-01 had an internal aluminium frame. Perhaps having a metal body or frame is seen as something that imparts status.

12-16-2019, 11:34 PM - 1 Like	#35
larryaustin3 Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Upstate New York Posts: 94	Originally posted by PJ1 They went for less expensive materials in the later Q bodies. They could have done it for the K-01. Marc Newson said in this interview that he insisted on using noble materials. Interview: K01 by Marc Newson for Pentax \| Dezeen

12-17-2019, 12:31 AM	#36
BigMackCam - Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 18,745	Originally posted by reh321 My understanding is that the {Nikon} F-to-Z adaptor doesn’t have a motor, so all lenses depending on screw-drive become manual focus. I don’t believe that would be acceptable for Pentax in the year 2020. I believe you're correct. Sony's LA-EA4 A-to-E-mount adapter - which I own - has screw-drive, and it works extremely well. So it's quite possible to fit a good screw-driver motor into such a unit...

12-17-2019, 01:19 AM	#37
fsge Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Genf Posts: 1,136	I think the design was a first hurdle, it contributed to the "brick" effect

12-17-2019, 01:35 AM - 1 Like	#38
RobA_Oz Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Tasmania, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 7,878	Originally posted by stevebrot (...am wondering how my KMZ multi-finder might work on a K-01...) It’d have to be more balanced than on a Q. Don’t laugh: I’ve tried it.

12-17-2019, 01:48 AM	#39
Wasp Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2017 Location: Pretoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,070	I would say that the lack of dual pixel autofocus and electronic viewfinder held it back. Perhaps the time is right for a K-02 with DPAF and EVF. Add a top LCD and GPS and I will come running with cash in hand.

12-17-2019, 02:51 AM	#41
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 2,888	Originally posted by PJ1 Interesting. This applies to the original Q as well. They went for less expensive materials in the later Q bodies. They could have done it for the K-01. The Q body went from magnesium alloy to plastic in the Q10, Q7 and Q-S1. I don't think the later bodies are any less robust because of that. But Leica trades on bodies milled from a solid block of aluminium. The K-01 had an internal aluminium frame. Perhaps having a metal body or frame is seen as something that imparts status. At least some of the controls where also made of aluminium. I don't believe I have seen Pentax using this on any other digital ILC, not even 645Z.

12-17-2019, 11:20 AM	#44
BillO Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 89 Original Poster	I think if I can find one at reasonable price (and they do seem to be getting more reasonable) I'll buy one and use it with a small good quality and versatile zoom lens. The SMC Pentax-F 35-70mm F3.5-4.5 comes to mind. That would make a great little kit for keeping in the car.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-17-2019, 12:14 PM	#45
luftfluss Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 10,689	Originally posted by BillO I think if I can find one at reasonable price (and they do seem to be getting more reasonable) I'll buy one and use it with a small good quality and versatile zoom lens. The SMC Pentax-F 35-70mm F3.5-4.5 comes to mind. That would make a great little kit for keeping in the car. The F 35-70 generally autofocuses very nicely with the K-01. It's a favorite combo of mine.