New K-01 mirrorless camera coming

**jeffshaddix** · 01-20-2012, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by Asahiflex

XSut up!

Xtra Saucy!

bobmaxja · 01-20-2012, 07:51 AM

XS, well we are in Japan , Extra Sushi. Sushi is made with RAW fish. THis mean great Raw photo

ihasa · 01-20-2012, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by Asahiflex

XS = Xtra Sunken?

It would be really exciting if they have gone with the sunken-lens approach, and put controls round the protruding lens mount. Especially if that includes a WR gasket! But I don't care if this is just a 'fat' MILC with a K-mount, a butchered Kr with optional clip on EVF... at the right price it would still be cool. For street photography (and many types of photography in fact) lightning speed AF and optical viewfinders are not really that necessary.

**jeffshaddix** · 01-20-2012, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by bobmaxja

XS, well we are in Japan , Extra Sushi. Sushi is made with RAW fish. THis mean great Raw photo

Ding ding ding! My vote lies here.

Clavius · 01-20-2012, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by konraDarnok

What's so great about it? I'd rather have a viewfinder that was closer to WYSIWYG. Which is why the SLR was invented in the first place -- it's closer to the final picture than dual reflex -- it's also why DOF preview was added -- but optical viewfinder can't show you exposure. EVF can.

Because it's only WYSIWY if you stand absolutely still, taking a picture of a motionless subject.

Go ahead, try an EVF. Try NEX for example. It looks like liveview, but on a very tiny screen. It's slow, it lags and it feels like your isolating stills from a video. Try taking pictures at a sports event with a NEX, it's almost impossible.

I like the idea of a detachable hotshoe EVF though. People with bad eyesight, or older people could then get these to use peak focussing to help them focus...

...But then again, that's what the catch-in-focus already does a 100% accurate. I use that option with my Porst 55 ƒ1.2, and the few pictures I have to trash can be blamed on user error: myself. I love that function, together with the continuous drive shooting it's magical.

Focussing that same Porst sucked on the NEX5n that I briefly had.

falconeye · 01-20-2012, 07:54 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by mecrox

If this camera has CDAF focusing, does that mean that existing K-mount lenses won't work all that well on it because they are designed for PDAF?

Lenses aren't designed for PDAF (or CDAF). They have (or don't have) an AF motor or screw and a given mechanical accuracy. E.g., my old FA31 focusses in under 1s (using K-5 CDAF).

The necessity of dedicated CDAF lenses is a µFT phenomenon which must be related to technical problems of FT lenses other brands don't have. Maybe, related to their focus by wire concept, I don't know.

Originally posted by TOUGEFC

I think it would be safe to say the the other two lenses in the "3 lens kit" would be "XS" versions of the DA21 and DA70....

The other two lenses are said to be the standard ones. Only the 40 is rumored to be XS.

Originally posted by ihasa

It's very similar thickness to DSLR. Falk, in your opinion is there much scope to reduce that thickness in the future to something closer to a film SLR (49mm say). Sensor assemblies can only get thinner in the future, right? Perhaps removing the SR mechanism would reduce thickness too?

To gain another 10 mm is difficult.

You may want to look at my K-5 cut model photo:
Falk Lumo: Pentax K-5 Preview

The removal of SR would gain you 10mm. But if you want to keep it (and I think this is a must) then you probably have to remove the LCD and reduce the number of PCBs behind the sensor from 2 to 1. Which means to redesign the SR mechanism because it currently can only shift a small daughter PCB. But the electronics wil have to go somewhere. So what you gain in depth you loose in width or height ...

I guess the 5mm the K01 is rumoured to be thinner than a K-5 come from a thinner plug between sensor daughter board and main PCB.

gazonk · 01-20-2012, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

Moreover, if the lens offerings are pancakeish small, then the decision has been made NOT to compete on body size a la NEX and m43, but focus on small, fast glass while retaining backwards compatibility.

Mount depth does not make or break consumer appeal because on virtually all of these systems, once you add a lens, the camera is nowhere near "pocketable" (and oversold concept appealing to many fewer consumers than the rhetoric would have us believe).

If the camera looks "sleek", it will look very compact side by side with a NEX with the 18-55 lens mounted - even with one of the primes mounted. In fact, even the tiniest NEX, the C-3, with the 30mm macro mounted (the smallest lens except for the super wide 16mm pancake) has a total depth of 33mm + 55,5mm = 88,5mm, while the rumored new Pentax with the DA40 mounted has a depth of 59mm + 15mm = 74mm!

Now if they could create a very compact kit zoom too (retracting into the body?), they might have a real winner!

edit: And if you mount the new Sony 50mm 1.8 on the NEX C-3 and the FA50/1.4 on the K01, the K01 will be only 1mm thicker (so it will be thinner than the NEX-7).

SteveM · 01-20-2012, 07:57 AM

Not to put too negative a spin on things, I think it is probably a good thing Pentax releases a mirrorless as there seems to be a market for them right now.

If it's to add to the product line, then fine, but if it is to replace the SLR, then it's a step backwards. I understand the "pros" of mirrorless, but with that, we need to factor in the negative aspects as well.

I'm presuming that the body will be a little smaller than the K-r, which will be part of the selling point. There is a gadget aspect that I'm just not buying into.....it reminds me of the zoolander phone from a few years ago when tiny cell phones were the fad. "Smaller" might be "in" right now, but that doesn't mean it's better.

Fogel70 · 01-20-2012, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by konraDarnok

I wouldn't call the K-5 implementation 'slow' it's is slower, but it's also more accurate than the Phase AF. And as I stated up thread, I'd use it for most shooting conditions on the K-5 if I had a viewfinder that allowed it -- holding the camera at arm's length sux.

CDAF is slow compared with PDAF on K5, and I'm not sure continous AF would work at all with CDAF on K-mount lenses designed for DSLR.

konraDarnok · 01-20-2012, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by Clavius

Because it's only WYSIWY if you stand absolutely still, taking a picture of a motionless subject.

I disagree. And I can't account for how you 'feel' about electronic viewfinders.

Clavius · 01-20-2012, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by konraDarnok

I disagree. And I can't account for how you 'feel' about electronic viewfinders.

Don't twist my words. It's not a feeling, it's hands on experience. In contrast to you, I brought arguments to support my findings.

And if you disagree, tell everybody why so we can al learn. Or is it just a feeling in your case?

konraDarnok · 01-20-2012, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by Clavius

Don't twist my words. It's not a feeling, it's hands on experience. In contrast to you, I brought arguments to support my findings.

And if you disagree, tell everybody why so we can al learn. Or is it just a feeling in your case?

You said the EVF of the NEX "feels" like still frame. I disagree, it's that simple.

Emacs · 01-20-2012, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by Clavius

Don't twist my words. It's not a feeling, it's hands on experience. In contrast to you, I brought arguments to support my findings.

Dude, in my expirience EVF turned to be much more reliable than OVF for manual focusing and just as good for composing.
And I have told you already, you are very … unique person

**Aristophanes** · 01-20-2012, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by ihasa

It's very similar thickness to DSLR. Falk, in your opinion is there much scope to reduce that thickness in the future to something closer to a film SLR (49mm say). Sensor assemblies can only get thinner in the future, right? Perhaps removing the SR mechanism would reduce thickness too?

Maybe this camera is a first step, acknowledging there will probably be scope to miniaturise further in the future. And I don't think you need to go any thinner than 49mm, which is roughly what the MX is.

Why quibble over 15mm?

Not everyone likes miniature. Many like full size cameras and dogs!

Clavius · 01-20-2012, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by Emacs

Dude, in my expirience EVF turned to be much more reliable than OVF for manual focusing and just as good for composing.

Don't be silly. We have already gone over that. You've let your inability to use catch-in-focus cloud your judgement. The EVF is ok, until there is movement involved, then you have to keep waiting until the screen catches up with the action, but then the moment is gone. With CIF I can catch the eye of a frantic child that's running around aimlessly, using my Porst 55 ƒ1.2. It's so freaking easy.

01-20-2012, 07:54 AM - 1 Like	#306
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by mecrox If this camera has CDAF focusing, does that mean that existing K-mount lenses won't work all that well on it because they are designed for PDAF? Lenses aren't designed for PDAF (or CDAF). They have (or don't have) an AF motor or screw and a given mechanical accuracy. E.g., my old FA31 focusses in under 1s (using K-5 CDAF). The necessity of dedicated CDAF lenses is a µFT phenomenon which must be related to technical problems of FT lenses other brands don't have. Maybe, related to their focus by wire concept, I don't know. Originally posted by TOUGEFC I think it would be safe to say the the other two lenses in the "3 lens kit" would be "XS" versions of the DA21 and DA70.... The other two lenses are said to be the standard ones. Only the 40 is rumored to be XS. Originally posted by ihasa It's very similar thickness to DSLR. Falk, in your opinion is there much scope to reduce that thickness in the future to something closer to a film SLR (49mm say). Sensor assemblies can only get thinner in the future, right? Perhaps removing the SR mechanism would reduce thickness too? To gain another 10 mm is difficult. You may want to look at my K-5 cut model photo: Falk Lumo: Pentax K-5 Preview The removal of SR would gain you 10mm. But if you want to keep it (and I think this is a must) then you probably have to remove the LCD and reduce the number of PCBs behind the sensor from 2 to 1. Which means to redesign the SR mechanism because it currently can only shift a small daughter PCB. But the electronics wil have to go somewhere. So what you gain in depth you loose in width or height ... I guess the 5mm the K01 is rumoured to be thinner than a K-5 come from a thinner plug between sensor daughter board and main PCB. Last edited by falconeye; 01-20-2012 at 07:59 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Is the new pentax mirrorless coming out tomorrow?	justtakingpics	Pentax News and Rumors	12	07-26-2011 06:22 AM
There may not be a 2nd mirrorless camera	rustynail925	Pentax News and Rumors	5	06-29-2011 05:36 PM
Mirrorless Camera--Good or Bad?	InStitches49	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	15	11-10-2010 10:15 PM
[RUMOR] Canon's First Mirrorless Camera!	jct us101	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	12	09-14-2010 08:08 PM
New Pentax: K-5, K-r and Mirrorless models coming	JohnBee	Pentax News and Rumors	32	08-08-2010 01:57 AM

01-20-2012, 07:47 AM	#301
jeffshaddix Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,473	Originally posted by Asahiflex XSut up! Xtra Saucy!

01-20-2012, 07:51 AM	#302
bobmaxja Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Laval, Quebec Canada Posts: 2,171	XS, well we are in Japan , Extra Sushi. Sushi is made with RAW fish. THis mean great Raw photo

01-20-2012, 07:51 AM	#303
ihasa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: West Midlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,066	Originally posted by Asahiflex XS = Xtra Sunken? It would be really exciting if they have gone with the sunken-lens approach, and put controls round the protruding lens mount. Especially if that includes a WR gasket! But I don't care if this is just a 'fat' MILC with a K-mount, a butchered Kr with optional clip on EVF... at the right price it would still be cool. For street photography (and many types of photography in fact) lightning speed AF and optical viewfinders are not really that necessary.

01-20-2012, 07:52 AM	#304
jeffshaddix Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,473	Originally posted by bobmaxja XS, well we are in Japan , Extra Sushi. Sushi is made with RAW fish. THis mean great Raw photo Ding ding ding! My vote lies here.

01-20-2012, 07:53 AM	#305
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	Originally posted by konraDarnok What's so great about it? I'd rather have a viewfinder that was closer to WYSIWYG. Which is why the SLR was invented in the first place -- it's closer to the final picture than dual reflex -- it's also why DOF preview was added -- but optical viewfinder can't show you exposure. EVF can. Because it's only WYSIWY if you stand absolutely still, taking a picture of a motionless subject. Go ahead, try an EVF. Try NEX for example. It looks like liveview, but on a very tiny screen. It's slow, it lags and it feels like your isolating stills from a video. Try taking pictures at a sports event with a NEX, it's almost impossible. I like the idea of a detachable hotshoe EVF though. People with bad eyesight, or older people could then get these to use peak focussing to help them focus... ...But then again, that's what the catch-in-focus already does a 100% accurate. I use that option with my Porst 55 ƒ1.2, and the few pictures I have to trash can be blamed on user error: myself. I love that function, together with the continuous drive shooting it's magical. Focussing that same Porst sucked on the NEX5n that I briefly had.

01-20-2012, 07:54 AM	#307
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by Aristophanes Moreover, if the lens offerings are pancakeish small, then the decision has been made NOT to compete on body size a la NEX and m43, but focus on small, fast glass while retaining backwards compatibility. Mount depth does not make or break consumer appeal because on virtually all of these systems, once you add a lens, the camera is nowhere near "pocketable" (and oversold concept appealing to many fewer consumers than the rhetoric would have us believe). If the camera looks "sleek", it will look very compact side by side with a NEX with the 18-55 lens mounted - even with one of the primes mounted. In fact, even the tiniest NEX, the C-3, with the 30mm macro mounted (the smallest lens except for the super wide 16mm pancake) has a total depth of 33mm + 55,5mm = 88,5mm, while the rumored new Pentax with the DA40 mounted has a depth of 59mm + 15mm = 74mm! Now if they could create a very compact kit zoom too (retracting into the body?), they might have a real winner! edit: And if you mount the new Sony 50mm 1.8 on the NEX C-3 and the FA50/1.4 on the K01, the K01 will be only 1mm thicker (so it will be thinner than the NEX-7).

01-20-2012, 07:57 AM	#308
SteveM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,294	Not to put too negative a spin on things, I think it is probably a good thing Pentax releases a mirrorless as there seems to be a market for them right now. If it's to add to the product line, then fine, but if it is to replace the SLR, then it's a step backwards. I understand the "pros" of mirrorless, but with that, we need to factor in the negative aspects as well. I'm presuming that the body will be a little smaller than the K-r, which will be part of the selling point. There is a gadget aspect that I'm just not buying into.....it reminds me of the zoolander phone from a few years ago when tiny cell phones were the fad. "Smaller" might be "in" right now, but that doesn't mean it's better.

01-20-2012, 08:03 AM	#309
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 3,062	Originally posted by konraDarnok I wouldn't call the K-5 implementation 'slow' it's is slower, but it's also more accurate than the Phase AF. And as I stated up thread, I'd use it for most shooting conditions on the K-5 if I had a viewfinder that allowed it -- holding the camera at arm's length sux. CDAF is slow compared with PDAF on K5, and I'm not sure continous AF would work at all with CDAF on K-mount lenses designed for DSLR.

01-20-2012, 08:07 AM	#310
konraDarnok Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Photos: Albums Posts: 969	Originally posted by Clavius Because it's only WYSIWY if you stand absolutely still, taking a picture of a motionless subject. I disagree. And I can't account for how you 'feel' about electronic viewfinders.

01-20-2012, 08:12 AM	#311
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	Originally posted by konraDarnok I disagree. And I can't account for how you 'feel' about electronic viewfinders. Don't twist my words. It's not a feeling, it's hands on experience. In contrast to you, I brought arguments to support my findings. And if you disagree, tell everybody why so we can al learn. Or is it just a feeling in your case?

01-20-2012, 08:18 AM	#312
konraDarnok Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Photos: Albums Posts: 969	Originally posted by Clavius Don't twist my words. It's not a feeling, it's hands on experience. In contrast to you, I brought arguments to support my findings. And if you disagree, tell everybody why so we can al learn. Or is it just a feeling in your case? You said the EVF of the NEX "feels" like still frame. I disagree, it's that simple.

01-20-2012, 08:22 AM	#313
Emacs Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Moscow Posts: 1,223	Originally posted by Clavius Don't twist my words. It's not a feeling, it's hands on experience. In contrast to you, I brought arguments to support my findings. Dude, in my expirience EVF turned to be much more reliable than OVF for manual focusing and just as good for composing. And I have told you already, you are very … unique person

01-20-2012, 08:31 AM	#314
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by ihasa It's very similar thickness to DSLR. Falk, in your opinion is there much scope to reduce that thickness in the future to something closer to a film SLR (49mm say). Sensor assemblies can only get thinner in the future, right? Perhaps removing the SR mechanism would reduce thickness too? Maybe this camera is a first step, acknowledging there will probably be scope to miniaturise further in the future. And I don't think you need to go any thinner than 49mm, which is roughly what the MX is. Why quibble over 15mm? Not everyone likes miniature. Many like full size cameras and dogs!

01-20-2012, 08:35 AM	#315
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	Originally posted by Emacs Dude, in my expirience EVF turned to be much more reliable than OVF for manual focusing and just as good for composing. Don't be silly. We have already gone over that. You've let your inability to use catch-in-focus cloud your judgement. The EVF is ok, until there is movement involved, then you have to keep waiting until the screen catches up with the action, but then the moment is gone. With CIF I can catch the eye of a frantic child that's running around aimlessly, using my Porst 55 ƒ1.2. It's so freaking easy.