the pics of K-01

bossa · 02-02-2012, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by TOUGEFC

I wish that was the case!

Im not free yet, still have about 13years to go!
LOL!

You never know, you may get parole yet.

bossa · 02-02-2012, 11:10 PM

I was looking around for a 1/3 body or to replace a few lenses with a zoom but I might just try one of these K-01 for 'prime' use and use my 2 K5's for the larger lenses.

Laurentiu Cristofor · 02-03-2012, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by Catalana

Here are some images I found on DigitalFotoNetz.de :: Index
Enjoy...

That mode dial control looks so misplaced. The camera looks particularly ugly in the first and third shots. Ugh!!!

djc737 · 02-03-2012, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by bossa

I was looking around for a 1/3 body or to replace a few lenses with a zoom but I might just try one of these K-01 for 'prime' use and use my 2 K5's for the larger lenses.

This is how I see the K-01 being used, I have four primes that I would like to use on it. The DA 15 and 21 while out hicking and the DFA 50 and 100 for very accurate macro work, CAF works better for this. The K-5 would still be used for the FA 31,77, 135, and Tamron 400. These all would be helped by the heftier girth of the Dslr.

LFLee · 02-03-2012, 09:59 AM

More photos here: Pentax K-01

Total of 52 photos

johnmflores · 02-03-2012, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

Is she used to holding up more than half a kilogram with extended arms while trying to use a zoom?

The K-01 is 4-6x more mass than the average P&S yet has the same ergonomics for shooting.

An optional EVF and an articulating LCD solve this problem. Not done. Problem.

Have you ever seen a mom holding a 20 pound child as they open the door of the minivan to load 20 shopping bags filled with turkeys and canned food? The K-01 will be a walk in the park.

markku55 · 02-03-2012, 10:39 AM

Why should you keep the display far away from your eyes, I normally look at display as close as I can.
I have some problem to look really close, because of my age and also because of my glasses, but not all are so poor in looking close

Quicksand · 02-03-2012, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by bossa

(1) Is there anyone who holds a DSLR with a long, heavy lens using only one hand?
I'm not sure what you mean by this question? I hold long lenses with my left hand and control the camera with my right.

Exactly!

I was responding to a post in which it was suggested that it would be difficult to hold a half-kilogram camera at arm's length.

My (semi-) serious question was intended to highlight how silly it would be to operate the K-01 in that fashion. I hold my K-5 up to my eye with no problem, and I don't imagine that holding a VF-less camera 20-30 cm further out is going to topple me over.

Pentaxor · 02-03-2012, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Quicksand

Serious questions:

(1) Is there anyone who holds a DSLR with a long, heavy lens using only one hand?

unless you are Mr. Universe.

Quote:

(2) Is there anyone who uses their face to support the weight of a DSLR?

nope. your face can't hold or carry a dslr. unless you are an alien.

basically, carrying or using long heavy lenses is always a challenge, regardless if the body is small or lighter. in which case, more often a bigger and heavier dslr body is better to counter-balance the weight of the large lens in front. handholding it with both hands is tough enough. that's why you see most people use tripods or monopods with such combo.

your face is more for stabilization but would still be susceptible for camera shake since the camera and lens would still rely on how stable your overall handling is. as long as you are shooting above 1/200, you don't have to worry about sticking your face on the camera. VF helps a bit with stabilization while shooting with longer heavier lenses below 1/200. but it will not completely eliminate movement. above 1/200, it makes no difference whether you stick your face on the VF or focus using the screen display.

for me, it took a bit of getting used to the habit on relying on the screen display. so far, I manage to survive and able to take pictures without having a viewfinder. if I feel like I need to use a VF, I can always use a hoodman loupe. whether it's for stabilization or for better viewing (since the screen display during daylight shooting is susceptible to glare or poor contrast).

the biggest selling point of the K-01 is the price you have to pat for K-01 sensor, mirrorless concept, faster AF operation and great video capabilities (possible even longer and better heat tolerance). you may lose the OVF and battery life. if those are big deal for you, then the K-01 is not for you. as for me, using the hoodman would be much better than viewing on the small OVF. just my cents.

bossa · 02-03-2012, 02:40 PM

Well I wouldn't hold ANY camera at arms length with a heavy lens on board as it'd kill your back sooner of later. I reckon I'd have to try holding my K-5 and 300mm at about 6" to get an idea of how it'd work out.

Over at DPR people have been digging the boot into Pentax claiming that they missed the boat with the K-01. I can't even get to the end of the thread as the negativity is downright depressing. They seem to think it's obligatory to make a tiny camera when you remove the Pentaprism and mirror. As I find the K-5 too small without a grip the 'brick' nature of this K-01 will be welcome considering there'll be no grip available for it. It might be nice for Pentax to implement an autofocus mechanism for manual lenses with a shifting sensor (along the optical axis rather than laterally) at some stage too. A larger lens registration distance would allow that so leaving the mirror box itself intact may actually help that. That would allow cheaper lenses without motors although the camera might get more expensive. But I don't ever expect to see this as it's a bit of a shot over the keeper (cricket.. no baseball left field comments here)

Kunzite · 02-03-2012, 03:23 PM

Again, sensor shift AF? <sigh>
Just a quick note, the sensor would have to be moved backwards from it's resting (infinity) position; so a larger registration distance would have no effect. Think about a DSLR(-like) body, but several centimetres thicker.
IIRC the limits for such a focusing mechanism (inefficient for longer lenses) and difficulties with the lens design (think FREE) were already noted on a previous occasion.

It's nice to see people thinking about solutions. However, please, think about simple and trouble free solutions to real problems

bossa · 02-03-2012, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Kunzite

Again, sensor shift AF? <sigh>
Just a quick note, the sensor would have to be moved backwards from it's resting (infinity) position; so a larger registration distance would have no effect. Think about a DSLR(-like) body, but several centimetres thicker.
IIRC the limits for such a focusing mechanism (inefficient for longer lenses) and difficulties with the lens design (think FREE) were already noted on a previous occasion.

It's nice to see people thinking about solutions. However, please, think about simple and trouble free solutions to real problems

Fair enough. I was aware that it wouldn't work on longer lenses but was imagining it with smaller primes mainly.

And

I'll think about whatever I want mate.

gazonk · 02-03-2012, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by Kunzite

Again, sensor shift AF? <sigh>

But you don't need to do ALL the AF with sensor shift - you could do the heavy work with normal AF (or manually, for manual lenses) and let the sensor do the fine adjustments. I think it could be a clever solution to improve the speed of CDAF with old screw drive lenses. But yes, it would require even more space behind the lens mount. But even if you limit sensor movement to just 4 mm, you could do all the movement of wide angle lenses with the sensor only: You would have enough room to focus a manual 35 mm lens all the way down to 35 cm while leaving the focusing ring of the lens on infinity. Or, when using a 200mm lens at a distance of only 2 meters, the 4mm would give you room for adjusting focus roughly +/- 15cm.

cfraz · 02-03-2012, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by Quicksand

Exactly!

I was responding to a post in which it was suggested that it would be difficult to hold a half-kilogram camera at arm's length.

My (semi-) serious question was intended to highlight how silly it would be to operate the K-01 in that fashion. I hold my K-5 up to my eye with no problem, and I don't imagine that holding a VF-less camera 20-30 cm further out is going to topple me over.

My post suggested that it would be difficult to hold the K-01 camera with an attached DA *300 (1.5 kg) steady enough to make a blur free shot as earlier posts showed some enthusiasm for that combination.

I now understand your (semi) serious questions if you missed the lens.

So here's the relevant question. How far in front of your face can you hold the K-01/DA 300 and take a blur free shot? If its more than your eye's minimum focus distance, good (and I'm very impressed). Otherwise bring your tripod. Of course the above is moot if the sun is shining or your subject is moving.

Kunzite · 02-03-2012, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by bossa

And

I'll think about whatever I want mate.

By all means; but don't be surprised when a too impractical idea won't be implemented.

gazonk, I doubt you can improve anything like this. There is a saying: "never fix a working system"; well, the widely used focus-by-moving-the-lens-elements works, and there's no need for a replacement nor for adding redundancy. We don't want to hear about decentered sensors (as we do for lenses), right?

02-03-2012, 06:15 AM	#244
djc737 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: South jersey outside of Philly Posts: 281	K-01 plus small primes, that's the ticket.. Originally posted by bossa I was looking around for a 1/3 body or to replace a few lenses with a zoom but I might just try one of these K-01 for 'prime' use and use my 2 K5's for the larger lenses. This is how I see the K-01 being used, I have four primes that I would like to use on it. The DA 15 and 21 while out hicking and the DFA 50 and 100 for very accurate macro work, CAF works better for this. The K-5 would still be used for the FA 31,77, 135, and Tamron 400. These all would be helped by the heftier girth of the Dslr.

02-03-2012, 02:40 PM	#250
bossa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Adelaide Posts: 4,546	Well I wouldn't hold ANY camera at arms length with a heavy lens on board as it'd kill your back sooner of later. I reckon I'd have to try holding my K-5 and 300mm at about 6" to get an idea of how it'd work out. Over at DPR people have been digging the boot into Pentax claiming that they missed the boat with the K-01. I can't even get to the end of the thread as the negativity is downright depressing. They seem to think it's obligatory to make a tiny camera when you remove the Pentaprism and mirror. As I find the K-5 too small without a grip the 'brick' nature of this K-01 will be welcome considering there'll be no grip available for it. It might be nice for Pentax to implement an autofocus mechanism for manual lenses with a shifting sensor (along the optical axis rather than laterally) at some stage too. A larger lens registration distance would allow that so leaving the mirror box itself intact may actually help that. That would allow cheaper lenses without motors although the camera might get more expensive. But I don't ever expect to see this as it's a bit of a shot over the keeper (cricket.. no baseball left field comments here) Last edited by bossa; 02-03-2012 at 03:06 PM.

02-03-2012, 03:50 PM	#254
cfraz Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 521	Originally posted by Quicksand Exactly! I was responding to a post in which it was suggested that it would be difficult to hold a half-kilogram camera at arm's length. My (semi-) serious question was intended to highlight how silly it would be to operate the K-01 in that fashion. I hold my K-5 up to my eye with no problem, and I don't imagine that holding a VF-less camera 20-30 cm further out is going to topple me over. My post suggested that it would be difficult to hold the K-01 camera with an attached DA 300 (1.5 kg) steady enough to make a blur free shot as earlier posts showed some enthusiasm for that combination. I now understand your (semi) serious questions if you missed the lens. So here's the relevant question. How far in front of your face can you hold the K-01/DA 300 and take a blur free shot? If its more than your eye's minimum focus distance, good (and I'm very impressed). Otherwise bring your tripod. Of course the above is moot if the sun is shining or your subject is moving. Last edited by cfraz; 02-03-2012 at 07:07 PM. Reason: fix typos*

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Is it just me or does the K-x take better pics than the K-r?	vapentaxuser	Pentax DSLR Discussion	31	10-25-2012 05:38 PM
Misc A few various pics	shaun2k	Post Your Photos!	15	02-16-2010 06:23 AM
Question Attached pics vs External link pics	cbaytan	Site Suggestions and Help	15	12-27-2009 06:19 PM
Fun to take pics with a kit lens again (Beware lots of pics)	dsport	Post Your Photos!	16	11-19-2008 06:56 AM
Pics in a park by K20D+DA*50-135mm (Many PICS)	dsport	Post Your Photos!	2	10-18-2008 10:51 PM

02-02-2012, 11:07 PM	#241
bossa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Adelaide Posts: 4,546	Originally posted by TOUGEFC I wish that was the case! Im not free yet, still have about 13years to go! LOL! You never know, you may get parole yet.

02-02-2012, 11:10 PM	#242
bossa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Adelaide Posts: 4,546	I was looking around for a 1/3 body or to replace a few lenses with a zoom but I might just try one of these K-01 for 'prime' use and use my 2 K5's for the larger lenses.

02-03-2012, 01:43 AM	#243
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Originally posted by Catalana Here are some images I found on DigitalFotoNetz.de :: Index Enjoy... That mode dial control looks so misplaced. The camera looks particularly ugly in the first and third shots. Ugh!!!

02-03-2012, 09:59 AM	#245
LFLee Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,292	More photos here: Pentax K-01 Total of 52 photos

02-03-2012, 10:19 AM	#246
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Originally posted by Aristophanes Is she used to holding up more than half a kilogram with extended arms while trying to use a zoom? The K-01 is 4-6x more mass than the average P&S yet has the same ergonomics for shooting. An optional EVF and an articulating LCD solve this problem. Not done. Problem. Have you ever seen a mom holding a 20 pound child as they open the door of the minivan to load 20 shopping bags filled with turkeys and canned food? The K-01 will be a walk in the park.

02-03-2012, 10:39 AM	#247
markku55 Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Hanko, Finland Posts: 223	Why should you keep the display far away from your eyes, I normally look at display as close as I can. I have some problem to look really close, because of my age and also because of my glasses, but not all are so poor in looking close

02-03-2012, 01:38 PM	#248
Quicksand Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Central Ohio (formerly SF Bay Area) Posts: 1,519	Originally posted by bossa (1) Is there anyone who holds a DSLR with a long, heavy lens using only one hand? I'm not sure what you mean by this question? I hold long lenses with my left hand and control the camera with my right. Exactly! I was responding to a post in which it was suggested that it would be difficult to hold a half-kilogram camera at arm's length. My (semi-) serious question was intended to highlight how silly it would be to operate the K-01 in that fashion. I hold my K-5 up to my eye with no problem, and I don't imagine that holding a VF-less camera 20-30 cm further out is going to topple me over.

02-03-2012, 02:34 PM	#249
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Quicksand Serious questions: (1) Is there anyone who holds a DSLR with a long, heavy lens using only one hand? unless you are Mr. Universe. Quote: (2) Is there anyone who uses their face to support the weight of a DSLR? nope. your face can't hold or carry a dslr. unless you are an alien. basically, carrying or using long heavy lenses is always a challenge, regardless if the body is small or lighter. in which case, more often a bigger and heavier dslr body is better to counter-balance the weight of the large lens in front. handholding it with both hands is tough enough. that's why you see most people use tripods or monopods with such combo. your face is more for stabilization but would still be susceptible for camera shake since the camera and lens would still rely on how stable your overall handling is. as long as you are shooting above 1/200, you don't have to worry about sticking your face on the camera. VF helps a bit with stabilization while shooting with longer heavier lenses below 1/200. but it will not completely eliminate movement. above 1/200, it makes no difference whether you stick your face on the VF or focus using the screen display. for me, it took a bit of getting used to the habit on relying on the screen display. so far, I manage to survive and able to take pictures without having a viewfinder. if I feel like I need to use a VF, I can always use a hoodman loupe. whether it's for stabilization or for better viewing (since the screen display during daylight shooting is susceptible to glare or poor contrast). the biggest selling point of the K-01 is the price you have to pat for K-01 sensor, mirrorless concept, faster AF operation and great video capabilities (possible even longer and better heat tolerance). you may lose the OVF and battery life. if those are big deal for you, then the K-01 is not for you. as for me, using the hoodman would be much better than viewing on the small OVF. just my cents.

02-03-2012, 03:23 PM	#251
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Again, sensor shift AF? <sigh> Just a quick note, the sensor would have to be moved backwards from it's resting (infinity) position; so a larger registration distance would have no effect. Think about a DSLR(-like) body, but several centimetres thicker. IIRC the limits for such a focusing mechanism (inefficient for longer lenses) and difficulties with the lens design (think FREE) were already noted on a previous occasion. It's nice to see people thinking about solutions. However, please, think about simple and trouble free solutions to real problems

02-03-2012, 03:33 PM	#252
bossa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Adelaide Posts: 4,546	Originally posted by Kunzite Again, sensor shift AF? <sigh> Just a quick note, the sensor would have to be moved backwards from it's resting (infinity) position; so a larger registration distance would have no effect. Think about a DSLR(-like) body, but several centimetres thicker. IIRC the limits for such a focusing mechanism (inefficient for longer lenses) and difficulties with the lens design (think FREE) were already noted on a previous occasion. It's nice to see people thinking about solutions. However, please, think about simple and trouble free solutions to real problems Fair enough. I was aware that it wouldn't work on longer lenses but was imagining it with smaller primes mainly. And I'll think about whatever I want mate.

02-03-2012, 03:39 PM	#253
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by Kunzite Again, sensor shift AF? <sigh> But you don't need to do ALL the AF with sensor shift - you could do the heavy work with normal AF (or manually, for manual lenses) and let the sensor do the fine adjustments. I think it could be a clever solution to improve the speed of CDAF with old screw drive lenses. But yes, it would require even more space behind the lens mount. But even if you limit sensor movement to just 4 mm, you could do all the movement of wide angle lenses with the sensor only: You would have enough room to focus a manual 35 mm lens all the way down to 35 cm while leaving the focusing ring of the lens on infinity. Or, when using a 200mm lens at a distance of only 2 meters, the 4mm would give you room for adjusting focus roughly +/- 15cm.

02-03-2012, 04:04 PM	#255
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by bossa And I'll think about whatever I want mate. By all means; but don't be surprised when a too impractical idea won't be implemented. gazonk, I doubt you can improve anything like this. There is a saying: "never fix a working system"; well, the widely used focus-by-moving-the-lens-elements works, and there's no need for a replacement nor for adding redundancy. We don't want to hear about decentered sensors (as we do for lenses), right?