[Daedbird]

The K-01 fire sale made a believer out of many.....especially those who probably would have never bought one otherwise, like me. On video, its better than the K3

[Steve.Ledger]

On video, its better than the K3

In what way?

[Daedbird]

In what way?

1. The K-01 allows me to have different settings for internal and external mice, the K3 does not. This is a big deal if I am filming on the fly without my mic.
2. The K-01 uses whatever shooting mode I am in at that moment, the K3 does not. While the K3 does allow you to preselect a mode and settings, its not as convenient as the K-01.

I have to run some tests, but I have been pretty happy about the K-01 sharpness and quality, but the K3 seems not as sharp in video mode. But maybe its my example, which I am sending in....

[Tony Belding]

I've got to admit... I'm one of those who got the K-01 at the low, low price and then took a while to figure out what it was all about. Here's one comment from that blog page that struck me:

I never really understood the purpose of this camera, since it is functionally nothing more than an emasculated DSLR.

That's it. If you look at the K-01 as a stripped-down DSLR, it's not good. If you think of it as a K-30 minus the viewfinder, minus the weather sealing, minus the second command dial... and a bit smaller, but still not really a compact camera... then it doesn't make sense. I'm sure that's why it didn't make sense to a lot of people, if they thought it was a DSLR substitute. When the OM-D E-M5 came out, you could tell at a glance that its intended role was a miniaturized SLR, complete with 1970s retro styling and fake pentaprism hump. When the K-01 came out, it looked like something from Dr. Seuss. (Although, I still think the black K-01 looks bauhaus, like the camera counterpart of a Lamy 2000.)

Then you come at it from another direction, and consider the K-01 as an overgrown Q. It's like a Q with a much bigger sensor, hand-filling grip, bigger display, bigger battery, more powerful flash, more processing power, buttons you can hit with your finger instead of the teeny tip of your fingernail, and access to the whole panoply of K-mount lenses! Think of the K-01 as a sort of digital Lomography camera: something you can pick up and play with, experiment, horse around with your camera. Try the interval shooting! The HDR mode! Try the cross-processing setting with random exposure and color errors! Try stacking the art filters and see what weird results come out! Try putting on that cheap-and-crummy old 19mm Vivitar lens that you picked up at the flea market for nearly nothing!

I think the price was the biggest sticking point. It's not that the K-01 isn't worth the money. It's very solidly built and has a great sensor, etc. It's just that "fun camera" and a high price tag just don't correlate in most people's minds, at least here in the USA. We see a camera that's expensive-ish, and we suddenly become very serious-minded and want to compare long lists of features and specifications with every other camera in that price range. Then the K-01 didn't fare well, until the clearance deals came along. And the funny thing is... If you already had a bunch of K-mount lenses, or could pick up some old ones off fleaBay, you could have come out cheaper with the K-01 (even at the pre-clearance prices) than with a new Q and a set of all-new lenses to go with it.

[Steve.Ledger]

1. The K-01 allows me to have different settings for internal and external mice, the K3 does not. This is a big deal if I am filming on the fly without my mic.
2. The K-01 uses whatever shooting mode I am in at that moment, the K3 does not. While the K3 does allow you to preselect a mode and settings, its not as convenient as the K-01.

I have to run some tests, but I have been pretty happy about the K-01 sharpness and quality, but the K3 seems not as sharp in video mode. But maybe its my example, which I am sending in....

I don't have a K-3 to run any comparisons, but I find what you say very surprising indeed. My K-01 is an excellent camera for stills, so sharp my eyes bleed, but for video it's very mediocre. I've seen K-3 samples which are far better (though still not good enough that I'd want to buy one)

[barondla]

Then you come at it from another direction, and consider the K-01 as an overgrown Q. It's like a Q with a much bigger sensor, hand-filling grip, bigger display, bigger battery, more powerful flash, more processing power, buttons you can hit with your finger instead of the teeny tip of your fingernail, and access to the whole panoply of K-mount lenses! Think of the K-01 as a sort of digital Lomography camera: something you can pick up and play with, experiment, horse around with your camera. Try the interval shooting! The HDR mode! Try the cross-processing setting with random exposure and color errors! Try stacking the art filters and see what weird results come out! Try putting on that cheap-and-crummy old 19mm Vivitar lens that you picked up at the flea market for nearly nothing!

I think the price was the biggest sticking point. It's not that the K-01 isn't worth the money. It's very solidly built and has a great sensor, etc. It's just that "fun camera" and a high price tag just don't correlate in most people's minds, at least here in the USA. We see a camera that's expensive-ish, and we suddenly become very serious-minded and want to compare long lists of features and specifications with every other camera in that price range. Then the K-01 didn't fare well, until the clearance deals came along. And the funny thing is... If you already had a bunch of K-mount lenses, or could pick up some old ones off fleaBay, you could have come out cheaper with the K-01 (even at the pre-clearance prices) than with a new Q and a set of all-new lenses to go with it.

Interesting idea. Don't think It s my reason for owning the K-01. I own both cameras and never think of the K-01 as a bigger Q. The creative modes are also on the dslrs. The Q is more Lomo like, by using the quick creative dial to select the effect.

Using all the old Pentax lenses on the K-01 is similar to any newer Pentax dslr in live view mode. The same lenses are transformed on the Q into telephoto monsters.

The K-01 is well built but does not touch the solid metal body of the original Q. The K-01 makes up for it in image quality.

Like the Q, the K-01 is a simple camera that is fun, and easy to shoot. The K-01 combines a straight forward
shooting style with incredible IQ.
thanks
barondla

[PiDicus Rex]

Then you come at it from another direction,

I did - I was thinking it was a smart step on the road to getting a Blackmagic Design Cinema Camera.
Now,.. I'd prefer to stick with the Pentax products and get an external recorder, (or onboard Raw), and keep using classic manual lenses.

[ChopperCharles]

I could use it as my only camera. I more or less do. I had a K-x, and once I bought the Q I didn't touch the K-x again. I have since bought a K-30, and for that, I only really use it if i need weather sealing, long telephoto (more stable using a viewfinder), or low light focus performance. But for 90% of my shooting, I use the K-01. The remaining 10% is split between K-30 and Q.

Charles.

[monochrome]

If you look at the K-01 as a stripped-down DSLR, it's not good. If you think of it as a K-30 minus the viewfinder, minus the weather sealing, minus the second command dial... and a bit smaller, but still not really a compact camera... then it doesn't make sense.

Well you could look at a K30 as a K-01 with a viewfinder, weather sealing, mirror box, second command dial and larger grip added on. After all, the K-01 was released first.

For the full suite of controls and menu options I have a K3. For a smaller camera to use with legacy lenses for easy, great IQ I have a K-01. For a trip or pocket camera system that punches far above its weight class in IQ and has many associated play benefits I have a Q and Q7. For 'remembering my youth' I have an SV, SP and KX (and an LX that is sort of For Sale).

Frankly, I have moments of sublime admiration that I can mount and use every single one of the 24 K-mount lenses I own on every single one of the cameras I own interchangeably.

[Rondec]

I've got to admit... I'm one of those who got the K-01 at the low, low price and then took a while to figure out what it was all about. Here's one comment from that blog page that struck me:



That's it. If you look at the K-01 as a stripped-down DSLR, it's not good. If you think of it as a K-30 minus the viewfinder, minus the weather sealing, minus the second command dial... and a bit smaller, but still not really a compact camera... then it doesn't make sense. I'm sure that's why it didn't make sense to a lot of people, if they thought it was a DSLR substitute. When the OM-D E-M5 came out, you could tell at a glance that its intended role was a miniaturized SLR, complete with 1970s retro styling and fake pentaprism hump. When the K-01 came out, it looked like something from Dr. Seuss. (Although, I still think the black K-01 looks bauhaus, like the camera counterpart of a Lamy 2000.)

Then you come at it from another direction, and consider the K-01 as an overgrown Q. It's like a Q with a much bigger sensor, hand-filling grip, bigger display, bigger battery, more powerful flash, more processing power, buttons you can hit with your finger instead of the teeny tip of your fingernail, and access to the whole panoply of K-mount lenses! Think of the K-01 as a sort of digital Lomography camera: something you can pick up and play with, experiment, horse around with your camera. Try the interval shooting! The HDR mode! Try the cross-processing setting with random exposure and color errors! Try stacking the art filters and see what weird results come out! Try putting on that cheap-and-crummy old 19mm Vivitar lens that you picked up at the flea market for nearly nothing!

I think the price was the biggest sticking point. It's not that the K-01 isn't worth the money. It's very solidly built and has a great sensor, etc. It's just that "fun camera" and a high price tag just don't correlate in most people's minds, at least here in the USA. We see a camera that's expensive-ish, and we suddenly become very serious-minded and want to compare long lists of features and specifications with every other camera in that price range. Then the K-01 didn't fare well, until the clearance deals came along. And the funny thing is... If you already had a bunch of K-mount lenses, or could pick up some old ones off fleaBay, you could have come out cheaper with the K-01 (even at the pre-clearance prices) than with a new Q and a set of all-new lenses to go with it.

I think the thing to me is that the if you are already invested in a K mount system, then the K-01 makes a lot of sense -- more sense than a NEX or Q in that you can mount all of your lenses natively with auto focus. It is awfully small when used in association with any of the DA limiteds or FA limiteds and gives really good image quality.

Because of the lack of viewfinder, I find that it is pretty useless with zooms (doesn't stop me from using it some times, but still).

[DRabbit]

The K-01 fire sale made a believer out of many.....especially those who probably would have never bought one otherwise, like me. On video, its better than the K3

I'm with ya there. I would likely never have bought it but for the fact that it was so inexpensive, and seemed like a no-brainer as a backup to my K5. I've come to love it as a tripod camera.