[mecrox]

What proof is there that the K-01 is replacing anything? For that matter, where's the credible rumour that it's a K-r replacement? I emphatically believe the K-r will be replaced by a DSLR, and I've stated why several times in this thread, i.e. quote from Pentax UK General Manager. So what have you got?

BTW, you haven't said whether you own any Pentax gear. I suspect you don't and you're just here to troll.

Yes, I think you are right in suggesting that the K-01 may be a new direction and not a replacement. Someone who really wants to shoot with a DSLR is unlikely to put up with mirrorless until the alternative (EVF) is good enough which, so far as I can tell, it isn't yet though the day is not far off. However, the K-01 must be mostly a Hoya-era idea and it's certainly quite likely that it may be a bit of a parts-bin special because under the great Hoya non-investment terror there wasn't much money put into development so far as we know. It's also possible that the K-01 may be something that is designed for video first and stills second, rather than the other way round - hence the rumoured case design optimized for placing the camera down on a convenient surface.

[Rondec]

If you shoot mainly video then why do you use a PHOTOcamera for that?!?! That's what videocamera's are for.

I wish they would use a CCD for te higher IQ. Liveview and video can be stolen for all I care.

The distinction between "photo camera" and "video camera" is getting more blurry every day. The reason to use an SLR for video is clear -- nicer high iso, ability to change lenses/do narrow depth of field video for a reasonable cost.

Live view and video aren't going away. They are present as the result of higher read out speeds necessary to produce higher fps. I understand that for the "expert photographer" two fps should be adequate, but there are plenty of people who like having cameras capable of doing 7 fps (or even faster). Once you have a sensor capable of doing this, there is no reason not to enable video on a camera.

As to the CCD versus CMOS debate, I think it is a non-starter. At this point CMOS is as good in every respect (and better in many) than CMOS ever was. The sensor in the K5 will match any output from the K10, even at iso 100.

[falconeye]

OVF is a showstopper in video mode. All you will see is black. I shoot mainly video and I would take an EVF like the one on my GH2 over my K-7 anyday.

You state the obvious
This is why I hope the K-01 would have an EVF, because it could complement a K-5: OVF for stills, EVF for video, one pool of lenses.

[Clavius]

The distinction between "photo camera" and "video camera" is getting more blurry every day. The reason to use an SLR for video is clear -- nicer high iso, ability to change lenses/do narrow depth of field video for a reasonable cost.

Yes that's true, it's a fun feature. But someone who is serious about photography would never compromise IQ for a fun video feature. I never missed video when I had the K20d. And I still only used it once on my K5. Sidenote, my K5 has 103000 shutter actuations! (I cheated, because I do a lot of focus stacking.) For video I use this small sony thingy. Much more convenient, with better IQ. Logical, the device was actually made for video.

As to the CCD versus CMOS debate, I think it is a non-starter. At this point CMOS is as good in every respect (and better in many) than CMOS ever was. The sensor in the K5 will match any output from the K10, even at iso 100.

I cannot find any information anywhere to support what you stated here. Agreed, the K5 produces fantastic images... But I dare to realize they would be even better with a CCD equivalent of it's sensor.

Historically though, CCD's have always had better IQ performance then their CMOS counterparts. And not only better IQ, but also better DR performance.
(CCD vs. CMOS)

[asw66]

Perhaps with the introduction of large-sensor mirrorless bodies, future Pentax SLRs might drop the video option, positioning the SLRs as more specialised tools, with the mirrorless bodies being jacks of all trades.

[pcarfan]

Not likely. To me it seems the new camera is a cost cut version ............, thus recirculating old optics would make sense, inspite of 40mm being uninteresting focal length for a crop camera.

..................

Good catch. For me, it is a sign that Pentax (i.e. Hoya) minimized the investment which goes into this new system.


...................

I also got the sense Pentax doesn't want to spend a lot of R&D on this product as soon as I heard of the 40 (what an odd focal length for a kit) and using the current K-5 sensor (This actually is not a bad thing at all...but the next main sensor would most likely be at least the 24MP).

Reviews and specs sell cameras (I think Pentax relaized this a little late in the game), especially true for Pentax with little store presence. I think this lens will compete very well with AF speed which seems to be the big negative of EVIL over DSLRs and all the buzz is over this and pentax will get good review numbers with this lens. Also, the kit wouldn't be too much longer that the competition either with a comparable lens (even though the flang distance has to be longer) and with the added advantage of being able to use all existing K-mount lenses (wow!).

Paying a name designer I don't think cost as much as the R&D for each and every new feature (Pentax or any other small camera company brings new features a little at a time as otherwise the cost would be too prohibitive...like it took up to K-7 for the AF, metering and the interface to be good enough and cheap enough for Pentax to release the 645D at their target price for sucess...they must have spent a ton on the Q, hope more than the articulated flash is treansferable to other models).

With this assumption I would not expect a whole lot from this first model. EVF in all likelyhood will not be there (I hope this is the one thing they would have spent some R&D on as the ROI would have been good). Hopefully the other two or three lenses are indeed new and will be much smaller than the competition (Love the Samsung approach of small lenses, my favorite mirrorless comopany...Sony for me is a joke with those huge lenses albeit arguably the best body and sensor).

I am however excited over this K-01 as it is backwards compatible. The smallest camera possible to be used with existing lenses (size wise comparable to the Fuji X-Pro but backwards compatible). Eventually good EVF etc will find its place.

But, I am very excited for future possibilities. Just take a look at your old Pentax SLR where the lens attachement is the only part (other than the grip) protruding out. This can be made to be collapsible to be used with two differnet mounts and still keep the size very small. Also, Pentax has always said they will only bring a FF out if it offers something unique. A Leica M9 like body (at least dimension wise) with AF and a good EVF and a FF sensor would be the frist in the market (ideally with very high resolution for landscape use etc as the AF will not be suitable for major action anyways). I think Fuji is heading there as well.

P.S: I hope this K-01 is the bridge product towards the FF EVIL. In that case EVF will be introduced here and when it comes to the FF the cost per unit will still be decent as the only new thing has to be the sensor. I know a FF without that huge optical viewfinder is a travesty of unimaginable proprtions to many (understandably so, but I think there is a definite market for this). An M9 like body with AF with current sensors will be an excellent small package for many. Now, with a collapsible mount, lenses can be designed to be even smaller. Imagine a small FF camera with a 18/3.5, 24/2 (assuming lens elements can sit inside the body) and a 35/2.4, 40/2 pancake lenses

[ogl]

An M9 like body with AF with current sensors will be an excellent small package for many. Now, with a collapsible mount, lenses can be designed to be even smaller. Imagine a small FF camera with a 18/3.5, 24/2 (assuming lens elements can sit inside the body) and a 35/2.4, 40/2 pancake lenses

M9 is digital rangefinder camera, not SLR.
I think it's not easy task to make from "M9 like body" SLR camera with AF.

Small FF cameras - Pentax already made such cameras in film era. I think it's not very easy too - to make small FF DSLR.

[pcarfan]

M9 is digital rangefinder camera, not SLR.
I think it's not easy task to make from M9 like body SLR camera with AF.

Small FF cameras - Pentax already made such cameras in film era.

Ogl I know its a RF camera and THAT's the added advantgae in being small AND having AF will be the frist in the market (something has to make up for the lack of an OVF, it would be small size body & may be lenses, and AF...with Leica undoubtedly price as well). Take the k-01 body for instance, what else other than the larger sensor needs to be in there to make it a FF camera? (no OVF? and all the added space can hold a FF sensor, no?) the AF is laready there, no?...I am just thinking out loud with you here and I could be wrong with these.

Yeah! they did in the old SLR days, THAT again is my exact point (lol!)...now, the deigtal camera with its thick sensor and SR has to be longer than those, but the inpsiration is there in their own brand ...My further point is this could indeed have been implemented in the K-01 to accomodate two mounts.


P.S: I see now the M9 is only 37mm long, wow!, but still 59mm when considering the smaller height and width will still be relatively small if not leica small.

[Rondec]

I cannot find any information anywhere to support what you stated here. Agreed, the K5 produces fantastic images... But I dare to realize they would be even better with a CCD equivalent of it's sensor.

Historically though, CCD's have always had better IQ performance then their CMOS counterparts. And not only better IQ, but also better DR performance.
(CCD vs. CMOS)

The most recent discussion that I know of was on DP Review and Gordon B Good there indicated that the differences in color are minimal, while CMOS has improvements in high iso and dynamic range. The bigger differences have more to do with level of anti aliasing filters and jpeg processing for an individual camera and actually have little to do with the sensor itself.

ccd or cmos? [Page 1]: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

[Docrwm]

Pentax does not equal K-mount. There is the 645, Q, & K-mount..... and there are a 9 damn versions of the K-mount. Pentax has ALWAYS had multiple mounts from the little Auto110 to the 6x7.

Functionally it does = K-Mount. The 110 is dead. The 645's are not consumer devices. The K-mount has kept a basic format and backward compatibility throughout its lifespan. It's pretty simple. As for Q - I'll say what most reviewers said - Meh. K-Mount endures.

[yusuf]

What would be the point if doing that?

With Nikon & Canon also announcing new models in CP+, everyone like to keep their cards close but at the same time they want make some noise & leverage later - who knows may be the the K-01 is the name for new DSLR for which they already made people talking under the wrap of a mirrorless, & the mirrorless could be an entirely different model. Let's see.

[ihasa]

Yes that's true, it's a fun feature. But someone who is serious about photography would never compromise IQ for a fun video feature.

There's no suggestion that there's any need to compromise IQ though. On the contrary, EVF can bring advantages. And of course, the latest CMOS sensors certainly do.

[ihasa]

I know a FF without that huge optical viewfinder is a travesty of unimaginable proprtions to many (understandably so, but I think there is a definite market for this). An M9 like body with AF with current sensors will be an excellent small package for many. Now, with a collapsible mount, lenses can be designed to be even smaller. Imagine a small FF camera with a 18/3.5, 24/2 (assuming lens elements can sit inside the body) and a 35/2.4, 40/2 pancake lenses

That is true, because a nice big comfortable OVF would be lovely whereas I care less about the smaller, darker OVF of APSC cameras and wouldn't actually mind if Pentax ditched OVFs on all their lower end bodies.

[mattt]

An observation from a few pages back....

Does anyone else think that the 40mm focal length is a bit odd for a launch/kit lens? On APS it equates to 60mm, a fairly unloved length, especially for primes. On FF, 40mm makes more sense, but this seems an odd camera, aimed at too low a price bracket for a full frame sensor. I'm not saying I wouldn't consider buying it, but I'm just a bit confused where Pentax is going with this. I guess there's still a great deal to find out about this camera.

David

APS-H puts it at 52mm equivalent... Not full frame but a nice middle ground maybe?

[audiobomber]

There's no suggestion that there's any need to compromise IQ though. On the contrary, EVF can bring advantages. And of course, the latest CMOS sensors certainly do.

The IQ compromise of having video on a DSLR was laid bare by the K20D and K-7 models; the loss of 1 stop of DR and 1/2 stop of high ISO performance.