Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-16-2019, 09:08 PM - 1 Like   #31
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,150
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, 10:16 PM   #32
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,308
QuoteOriginally posted by BillO Quote
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.
12-16-2019, 11:06 PM   #33
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 85
$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
Site Supporter
PJ1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Mosquito Creek, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,521
QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote
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
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 85
QuoteOriginally posted by PJ1 Quote
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
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 16,042
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
My understanding is that the {Nikon} F-to-Z adaptor doesnít have a motor, so all lenses depending on screw-drive become manual focus. I donít 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
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Genf
Posts: 1,124
I think the design was a first hurdle, it contributed to the "brick" effect
12-17-2019, 01:35 AM - 1 Like   #38
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,600
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
(...am wondering how my KMZ multi-finder might work on a K-01...)
Itíd have to be more balanced than on a Q. Donít laugh: Iíve tried it.

12-17-2019, 01:48 AM   #39
Pentaxian
Wasp's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Pretoria
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,491
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, 02:00 AM   #40
PJ1
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
PJ1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Mosquito Creek, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,521
QuoteOriginally posted by Wasp Quote
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, 02:51 AM   #41
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,308
QuoteOriginally posted by PJ1 Quote
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, 09:25 AM   #42
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 39,542
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
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 18,741
QuoteOriginally posted by RobA_Oz Quote
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
12-17-2019, 11:20 AM   #44
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.
12-17-2019, 12:14 PM   #45
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
luftfluss's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by BillO Quote
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.
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!
battery, bit, buyers, camera, complaints, cult, design, designs, experience, features, floor, grip, guy, interface, k-01, k-5, k01, light, mind, mirrorless, pentax, pentax k-01, price, reviews, user, video
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


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 Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:21 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