What do you think the replacement for the K-01 will be like?

Steve Beswick · 12-29-2012, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by boriscleto

A FF EVIL would require a new mount, and Pentax can't afford to alienate any users.

The term "full frame" in this context refers to an image sensor the size of one "frame", a.k.a. exposure on 35mm film. The K mount was developed for 35mm film cameras. Why would they need a new mount?

GXRUser · 01-01-2013, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by squareeyes

Next K-01? Articulated LCD, weather seal, WIFI, one-buttom switch from AF to MF, more XS Lens support (16 to 35 mm with virtually no front protrusion)...
no eye level anything

The K-01 is an awesome camera with no peer in adapter based APS digitals

Add an EVF.

An articulated LCD is acceptable, but only if readability in bright light is achieved.

wanderography · 01-02-2013, 07:07 AM

I don't even see the point in this topic, the k-01 flopped, it didn't have a viewfinder for the social inept's to hide behind, it wasn't classic looking enough for the hipsters, and it wasn't pentax enough for the pentaxians. I love the camera, just wish it had a tilting screen... Pentax themselves said they are not continuing with the K-01 line, and plus if they did make a new one don't expect to get it at the ROSS price all the late comers got it for, ROSS price = closeout, closeout during first year of a cameras release = flop...

Medium FormatPro · 01-02-2013, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by wanderography

I don't even see the point in this topic, the k-01 flopped, it didn't have a viewfinder for the social inept's to hide behind, it wasn't classic looking enough for the hipsters, and it wasn't pentax enough for the pentaxians. I love the camera, just wish it had a tilting screen... Pentax themselves said they are not continuing with the K-01 line, and plus if they did make a new one don't expect to get it at the ROSS price all the late comers got it for, ROSS price = closeout, closeout during first year of a cameras release = flop...

But the Pentax K-01 has better video than the K-5's; especially the one that has been phased out and suffers from serious sensor burn issues. Nothing quite like paying for a companies failure in the imaging sensor. Then there's the Pentax glass - and items such as the P 16-50 another lemon priced well above 1k. So when one purchases current Pentax lines is one really rolling the dice??

And to those that actually bought the camera without hand testing it and/or reading up on it... I'd blame them more than even any attempt at camera design

**monochrome** · 01-02-2013, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by Medium FormatPro

And to those that actually bought the camera without hand testing it and/or reading up on it... I'd blame them more than even any attempt at camera design

Blame us for what?

What if we bought it in the pre-order period after reading all the spec.s, were delighted with the camera, still are delighted with the camera and use it now as the principal digital camera?

What are we to be blamed for?

zmohie · 01-03-2013, 05:38 AM

I would like it to be like this leica

GXRUser · 01-03-2013, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by zmohie

I would like it to be like this leica

exactly... the K-01 with the addition of an integrated EVF.

Na Horuk · 01-03-2013, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by zmohie

I would like it to be like this leica

Pentalux K-02?

ChopperCharles · 01-03-2013, 05:46 PM

The only reason the K-01 flopped is because Pentax decided to bring it out at a ridiculously high price. If they started it at $599 with the 40mm XS lens, it would have been more of a game changer. If they started it at $499 with the lens, it would have flown off of e-shelves. But they started it at the same price as the K-30, which is outright ludicrous.

Personally, I love my K-01, and I really hope a K-02 will eventually see the light of day. It's the perfect size for me. It's smaller than my K-x, and SIGNIFICANTLY smaller than a K-30 or K5. It feels like an old K1000, sans viewfinder. Drop the Mark Newson crap and give me a K-02 in silver and black which follows the same styling cues that the K1000, Spotmatic, and other Pentax camers of lore, I'll buy it too. The K-01 SHOULD have had vintage styling. That alone would have gone a huge, huge distance to selling the camera. (Hipster culture and all). The fact that it would have been an amazingly capable camera AND one that looks vintage-schweet would have turned it from a poor seller to a top performer. But come on, a neon yellow camera designed by some has-been graphic artist? That's a joke. The only name that should be on a Pentax camera is "Pentax".

Charles.

wanderography · 01-04-2013, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by monochrome

Blame us for what?

What if we bought it in the pre-order period after reading all the spec.s, were delighted with the camera, still are delighted with the camera and use it now as the principal digital camera?

What are we to be blamed for?

I was one of those who saw the specs and pre-ordered. I figured great, a box that takes pictures that I can use manual glass on, what I always wanted, I'm not a bells and whistles kind of guy, I just want what my MX gives me in digital format, and the K-01 delivered on that part... but like I said, swivel screen, where was that at pentax?

ChopperCharles · 01-04-2013, 07:43 AM

Swivel would have added quite a bit of thickness. I don't mind it not having a swivel screen, that's not a big concern for me. Neither is the lack of a viewfinder. The things I'd want for a K-02:

1. Better focusing in low light
2. AWB actually being able to tell when it's in tungsten light (Seriously, does ANY Pentax camera do this well?)
3. Peaking active when recording video
4. Vintage styling (Silver and black!)

Everything else the K-01 does I'm exceedingly happy with. Focus accuracy is amazing, so much better than my K-x. SO much better. IQ is all I could ask for and more.

Charles.

**THoog** · 01-04-2013, 11:39 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by wanderography

swivel screen, where was that at pentax?

There's no room for a swivel screen - there just isn't. It's clear from the design (and from the interview with the design team) that they were trying to squeeze the K-01 as much as possible to get a size comparable to other MILCs - that's also why they flattened the 40mm.

I know I've gone on about this before, but the K-01 only has 13mm behind the focal plane. About 10mm of that is shutter, sensor, shake reduction, etc., with about 3mm left for the screen. The screen on the NEX-5n looks to be about 8mm thick, plus a little for the rear wall. Stick that behind the sensor and it would make the body of the K-01 as thick as a dSLR (maybe thicker overall, since they have longer 'snoots' around the mount). Other MILCs have at least 20mm more room to work with because of their shorter register distance, giving them plenty of space for nifty things like articulated screens.

Even if Pentax had left off shake reduction, the body still would had to have been thicker for a swivel screen. I seriously doubt they would have done so, as that would be a whole new design, and apart from the shell and the lack of a mirror, very little about the K-01 is "from-scratch" - look at how much is shared with the K-30.

I'm just thankful they didn't put it in a body that looked like a squashed K-x (or a pudgy Panasonic LZ20). Instead of 'the brick', we'd be calling it 'the blob'...

GXRUser · 01-04-2013, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by THoog

There's no room for a swivel screen - there just isn't. It's clear from the design (and from the interview with the design team) that they were trying to squeeze the K-01 as much as possible to get a size comparable to other MILCs - that's also why they flattened the 40mm.

I know I've gone on about this before, but the K-01 only has 13mm behind the focal plane. About 10mm of that is shutter, sensor, shake reduction, etc., with about 3mm left for the screen. The screen on the NEX-5n looks to be about 8mm thick, plus a little for the rear wall. Stick that behind the sensor and it would make the body of the K-01 as thick as a dSLR (maybe thicker overall, since they have longer 'snoots' around the mount). Other MILCs have at least 20mm more room to work with because of their shorter register distance, giving them plenty of space for nifty things like articulated screens.

Even if Pentax had left off shake reduction, the body still would had to have been thicker for a swivel screen. I seriously doubt they would have done so, as that would be a whole new design, and apart from the shell and the lack of a mirror, very little about the K-01 is "from-scratch" - look at how much is shared with the K-30.

I'm just thankful they didn't put it in a body that looked like a squashed K-x (or a pudgy Panasonic LZ20). Instead of 'the brick', we'd be calling it 'the blob'...

I would have purchased the K-01 if it had an EVF, integrated or add on.

audiobomber · 01-04-2013, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by GXRUser

I would have purchased the K-01 if it had an EVF, integrated or add on.

A lot of people bailed for the same reason.

**THoog** · 01-04-2013, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by audiobomber

A lot of people bailed for the same reason.

I have to admit, when the K-01 came out, I was one of them. I always liked the idea of a mirrorless K-mount, because it would probably be quieter, but the initial price and lack of a VF turned me off. When they dropped the price in September (and after a museum visit where the guards were peering around corners to see who was making all the "Ka-chunk" noises), I bit.

After adapting to it (and it did take some getting used to), I really, really, really enjoy the K-01. Being able to get the camera away from my face and shoot at arm's length is liberating, for want of a better word. Yes, I could use LiveView before, but being forced to do it makes me think differently, and that rouses the creative part of my brain from its usual comatose state.

01-03-2013, 05:38 AM	#36
zmohie Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: egypt Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 435	I would like it to be like this leica Last edited by zmohie; 01-03-2013 at 06:14 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What do you think of the looks of the K-01?	kenyee	Pentax K-01	68	01-23-2013 07:27 AM
How do you think they pitched the idea of K-01 to Pentax High Command?	Reportage	Pentax K-01	26	12-24-2012 02:15 PM
The weaknesses of K-5 - what do you think?	ogl	Pentax News and Rumors	83	09-21-2010 02:23 PM
Do you think the K-7's video capablity will lead to a run on Russian lenses?	konraDarnok	Pentax DSLR Discussion	7	05-31-2009 08:51 PM
Look... I think you will like what you see	skinja	Post Your Photos!	10	03-15-2009 02:23 PM

12-29-2012, 09:02 PM	#31
Steve Beswick Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Ontario, California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,736	Originally posted by boriscleto A FF EVIL would require a new mount, and Pentax can't afford to alienate any users. The term "full frame" in this context refers to an image sensor the size of one "frame", a.k.a. exposure on 35mm film. The K mount was developed for 35mm film cameras. Why would they need a new mount?

01-01-2013, 01:14 PM	#32
GXRUser Senior Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 165	Originally posted by squareeyes Next K-01? Articulated LCD, weather seal, WIFI, one-buttom switch from AF to MF, more XS Lens support (16 to 35 mm with virtually no front protrusion)... no eye level anything The K-01 is an awesome camera with no peer in adapter based APS digitals Add an EVF. An articulated LCD is acceptable, but only if readability in bright light is achieved.

01-02-2013, 07:07 AM	#33
wanderography Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Hayward, California, USA Posts: 567	I don't even see the point in this topic, the k-01 flopped, it didn't have a viewfinder for the social inept's to hide behind, it wasn't classic looking enough for the hipsters, and it wasn't pentax enough for the pentaxians. I love the camera, just wish it had a tilting screen... Pentax themselves said they are not continuing with the K-01 line, and plus if they did make a new one don't expect to get it at the ROSS price all the late comers got it for, ROSS price = closeout, closeout during first year of a cameras release = flop...

01-02-2013, 10:42 AM	#34
Medium FormatPro Banned Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Charleston & Pittsburgh Photos: Albums Posts: 1,668	Originally posted by wanderography I don't even see the point in this topic, the k-01 flopped, it didn't have a viewfinder for the social inept's to hide behind, it wasn't classic looking enough for the hipsters, and it wasn't pentax enough for the pentaxians. I love the camera, just wish it had a tilting screen... Pentax themselves said they are not continuing with the K-01 line, and plus if they did make a new one don't expect to get it at the ROSS price all the late comers got it for, ROSS price = closeout, closeout during first year of a cameras release = flop... But the Pentax K-01 has better video than the K-5's; especially the one that has been phased out and suffers from serious sensor burn issues. Nothing quite like paying for a companies failure in the imaging sensor. Then there's the Pentax glass - and items such as the P 16-50 another lemon priced well above 1k. So when one purchases current Pentax lines is one really rolling the dice?? And to those that actually bought the camera without hand testing it and/or reading up on it... I'd blame them more than even any attempt at camera design

01-02-2013, 10:47 AM	#35
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by Medium FormatPro And to those that actually bought the camera without hand testing it and/or reading up on it... I'd blame them more than even any attempt at camera design Blame us for what? What if we bought it in the pre-order period after reading all the spec.s, were delighted with the camera, still are delighted with the camera and use it now as the principal digital camera? What are we to be blamed for?

01-03-2013, 09:51 AM	#37
GXRUser Senior Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 165	Originally posted by zmohie I would like it to be like this leica exactly... the K-01 with the addition of an integrated EVF.

01-03-2013, 02:24 PM	#38
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	Originally posted by zmohie I would like it to be like this leica Pentalux K-02?

01-03-2013, 05:46 PM	#39
ChopperCharles Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Durham, nc Photos: Albums Posts: 954	The only reason the K-01 flopped is because Pentax decided to bring it out at a ridiculously high price. If they started it at $599 with the 40mm XS lens, it would have been more of a game changer. If they started it at $499 with the lens, it would have flown off of e-shelves. But they started it at the same price as the K-30, which is outright ludicrous. Personally, I love my K-01, and I really hope a K-02 will eventually see the light of day. It's the perfect size for me. It's smaller than my K-x, and SIGNIFICANTLY smaller than a K-30 or K5. It feels like an old K1000, sans viewfinder. Drop the Mark Newson crap and give me a K-02 in silver and black which follows the same styling cues that the K1000, Spotmatic, and other Pentax camers of lore, I'll buy it too. The K-01 SHOULD have had vintage styling. That alone would have gone a huge, huge distance to selling the camera. (Hipster culture and all). The fact that it would have been an amazingly capable camera AND one that looks vintage-schweet would have turned it from a poor seller to a top performer. But come on, a neon yellow camera designed by some has-been graphic artist? That's a joke. The only name that should be on a Pentax camera is "Pentax". Charles.

01-04-2013, 12:55 AM	#40
wanderography Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Hayward, California, USA Posts: 567	Originally posted by monochrome Blame us for what? What if we bought it in the pre-order period after reading all the spec.s, were delighted with the camera, still are delighted with the camera and use it now as the principal digital camera? What are we to be blamed for? I was one of those who saw the specs and pre-ordered. I figured great, a box that takes pictures that I can use manual glass on, what I always wanted, I'm not a bells and whistles kind of guy, I just want what my MX gives me in digital format, and the K-01 delivered on that part... but like I said, swivel screen, where was that at pentax?

01-04-2013, 07:43 AM	#41
ChopperCharles Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Durham, nc Photos: Albums Posts: 954	Swivel would have added quite a bit of thickness. I don't mind it not having a swivel screen, that's not a big concern for me. Neither is the lack of a viewfinder. The things I'd want for a K-02: 1. Better focusing in low light 2. AWB actually being able to tell when it's in tungsten light (Seriously, does ANY Pentax camera do this well?) 3. Peaking active when recording video 4. Vintage styling (Silver and black!) Everything else the K-01 does I'm exceedingly happy with. Focus accuracy is amazing, so much better than my K-x. SO much better. IQ is all I could ask for and more. Charles.

01-04-2013, 11:39 AM - 1 Like	#42
THoog Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: North Carolina Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,685	Originally posted by wanderography swivel screen, where was that at pentax? There's no room for a swivel screen - there just isn't. It's clear from the design (and from the interview with the design team) that they were trying to squeeze the K-01 as much as possible to get a size comparable to other MILCs - that's also why they flattened the 40mm. I know I've gone on about this before, but the K-01 only has 13mm behind the focal plane. About 10mm of that is shutter, sensor, shake reduction, etc., with about 3mm left for the screen. The screen on the NEX-5n looks to be about 8mm thick, plus a little for the rear wall. Stick that behind the sensor and it would make the body of the K-01 as thick as a dSLR (maybe thicker overall, since they have longer 'snoots' around the mount). Other MILCs have at least 20mm more room to work with because of their shorter register distance, giving them plenty of space for nifty things like articulated screens. Even if Pentax had left off shake reduction, the body still would had to have been thicker for a swivel screen. I seriously doubt they would have done so, as that would be a whole new design, and apart from the shell and the lack of a mirror, very little about the K-01 is "from-scratch" - look at how much is shared with the K-30. I'm just thankful they didn't put it in a body that looked like a squashed K-x (or a pudgy Panasonic LZ20). Instead of 'the brick', we'd be calling it 'the blob'...

01-04-2013, 03:38 PM	#43
GXRUser Senior Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 165	Originally posted by THoog There's no room for a swivel screen - there just isn't. It's clear from the design (and from the interview with the design team) that they were trying to squeeze the K-01 as much as possible to get a size comparable to other MILCs - that's also why they flattened the 40mm. I know I've gone on about this before, but the K-01 only has 13mm behind the focal plane. About 10mm of that is shutter, sensor, shake reduction, etc., with about 3mm left for the screen. The screen on the NEX-5n looks to be about 8mm thick, plus a little for the rear wall. Stick that behind the sensor and it would make the body of the K-01 as thick as a dSLR (maybe thicker overall, since they have longer 'snoots' around the mount). Other MILCs have at least 20mm more room to work with because of their shorter register distance, giving them plenty of space for nifty things like articulated screens. Even if Pentax had left off shake reduction, the body still would had to have been thicker for a swivel screen. I seriously doubt they would have done so, as that would be a whole new design, and apart from the shell and the lack of a mirror, very little about the K-01 is "from-scratch" - look at how much is shared with the K-30. I'm just thankful they didn't put it in a body that looked like a squashed K-x (or a pudgy Panasonic LZ20). Instead of 'the brick', we'd be calling it 'the blob'... I would have purchased the K-01 if it had an EVF, integrated or add on.

01-04-2013, 08:53 PM	#44
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by GXRUser I would have purchased the K-01 if it had an EVF, integrated or add on. A lot of people bailed for the same reason.

01-04-2013, 09:25 PM	#45
THoog Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: North Carolina Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,685	Originally posted by audiobomber A lot of people bailed for the same reason. I have to admit, when the K-01 came out, I was one of them. I always liked the idea of a mirrorless K-mount, because it would probably be quieter, but the initial price and lack of a VF turned me off. When they dropped the price in September (and after a museum visit where the guards were peering around corners to see who was making all the "Ka-chunk" noises), I bit. After adapting to it (and it did take some getting used to), I really, really, really enjoy the K-01. Being able to get the camera away from my face and shoot at arm's length is liberating, for want of a better word. Yes, I could use LiveView before, but being forced to do it makes me think differently, and that rouses the creative part of my brain from its usual comatose state.