[RonHendriks1966]

It looks like this sensor:
FTF6080C 48 MP Color CCD - Product Detail - Teledyne DALSA

Would be great a 48 megapixel MF camera with fixed lens.

Maybe a little expensive.

[Mareket]

It's cute, like the Q and the K-01 has a baby. But I can't see how it'd make a good design for the camera. Props to the student for coming up with it though, even if it is lacking any sort of flair whatsoever. I'm sick of this boring minimalist bauhaus b******.

Also WHY WOULD YOU STICK A HORRIBLE FISHEYE ADAPTER ON AS A CONCEPT LENS!?

[LamyTax]

"SLR -- difficult to use".

I hate designers.

[Warpig]

"SLR -- difficult to use".

I hate designers.

Don't put us all in the same bag.
I am a designer, and I also don't like the approach he made to the "prototipe", too subjective. It's clear that he's still in school. Good presentation anyway.

[LamyTax]

Don't put us all in the same bag.
I am a designer, and I also don't like the approach he made to the "prototipe", too subjective. It's clear that he's still in school. Good presentation anyway.

No, no I don't, don't get me wrong.

It's not that. I'm into utilitarism for tools. I want engineers and users to design it, not someone who went to art school and wants to create something that's really just made to be looked at.

Most better DSLRs I know are designed with ease of use in mind and little else. I don't need a designer to come and screw things over .

Needless to say, I hate the K-01 as a camera.

[Mareket]

I dunno, I wholeheartedly agreed with Marc Newson when he said most cameras today look like crap (to paraphrase slightly). The K-5 is a good example of a bad bunch.

Then agtain I think the Q is the cutest thing ever and I love the K-01. I think the X Pro-1 is one of the most boring looking cameras on earth. I'm not too hot on the K-30 either, but I like the fact that they've used some flourish and had the courage to actually put something there rather than strip it down to the bare minimum in an effort to keep things simple. Screw simple.

Screw this design in that case too. Simple is boring. Simple is the little black dress, the generic sunset shot, the fish & chips. When will designs start having character again?Other than my mouse I can't see anything around me that I love the design of. Well, my mouse and the model VW van I have in front of me.

I'm sick of modern design.

</rant>

[Alizarine]

It's not that. I'm into utilitarism for tools. I want engineers and users to design it, not someone who went to art school and wants to create something that's really just made to be looked at.

Which is why designers get pummeled by engineers afterwards. The Nikon F (the first one...huge) looked like a toolbox with a lens mount to me. It's where subjective meets objective that the sides clash, and this is natural. What makes a product is where the two sides agree on and the finance people start handing out the cash to build it

I'm guessing that from where Kim's design is, after meeting with engineers, it'll probably end up with something very similar to the Q, but larger.

[Alizarine]

" Si " in some major province language eg Hokkien used in China,Taiwan,Malaysia and Singapore mean "dead". its a nonononono.

Thanks for the reminder... kinda forgot that the pronunciation of the character for "death" is similar to "si" even in Japan (which is why they use "yon" for the number four)

[LamyTax]

I dunno, I wholeheartedly agreed with Marc Newson when he said most cameras today look like crap (to paraphrase slightly). The K-5 is a good example of a bad bunch.

It's called "ergonomics" and is pretty much all that matters for a tool. You want a camera that's comfortable to hold for hours, with all important buttons well within reach of your fingers. That's the basic platform which designers will have to work on.

DSLRs are NOT "difficult to use" like he says. What he actually says is "photography is difficult". Which is true if you want to control all parameters. But that's nothing you can change by making the camera body look beautiful. Rather the opposite. The k-01 isn't exactly great in terms of ergomics.

The K5, however, is quite well designed in terms of ergonomics, is it not.

Which is why designers get pummeled by engineers afterwards. The Nikon F (the first one...huge) looked like a toolbox with a lens mount to me. It's where subjective meets objective that the sides clash, and this is natural. What makes a product is where the two sides agree on and the finance people start handing out the cash to build it

I'm guessing that from where Kim's design is, after meeting with engineers, it'll probably end up with something very similar to the Q, but larger.

It's just a blown up compact camera, or rangefinder.

[Docrwm]

For tools form MUST follow function or it's a fail. On the Q and K-5 it did, but on the K-01 it did not. This one looks to fall in the K-01 camp minus the M&M's.

[Mareket]

I'd argue that consumer cameras aren't tools. Like cars, you use them as a way to accomplish something, be it getting from A to B or to capture photographs. But no one seems to argue that a car is just a tool and needs to be kept minimalist and ergonomic. Granted, cars are basically designed to draw attention and cameras to avoid attention, but it's not a tool like a drill or a fork.

To me they aren't anyway.

[Docrwm]

I'd argue that consumer cameras aren't tools. Like cars, you use them as a way to accomplish something, be it getting from A to B or to capture photographs. But no one seems to argue that a car is just a tool and needs to be kept minimalist and ergonomic. Granted, cars are basically designed to draw attention and cameras to avoid attention, but it's not a tool like a drill or a fork.

To me they aren't anyway.

Any object can fall afoul of a designer that ruins its functionality - cars, cameras, anything. Cameras are tools, but like anything else they can become status symbols sadly. You can vary the color and a few textures but the button placement, the grip, and many other features just plain are functional issues and if they are in the wrong place you impede the use of the tool. The K-01 is an example - nothing fell to my hands/fingers properly when I held it. Form trumped function on it IMHO. The K-5 - form follows function and its a utilitarian tool. K-30 has a few more design flourishes on it but none, from my hour with one, that detracts from function.

[lytrytyr]

The K5, however, is quite well designed in terms of ergonomics, is it not.

Getting a K-5 after two years using the K-x,
I find some of the details on the K-5,
like the rotary switch for focus mode,
very fiddly to use.
Some users have had these rotaries break, too.

[gazonk]

I find some of the details on the K-5,
like the rotary switch for focus mode,
very fiddly to use.

Agree about that switch, but I'm glad it's not easy to move, since I want it to stay in SEL all the time. Which other details don't you like? I can't think of any - just happy with my K-5 Or, if I just had to come up with something to complain about here's what's what I've noticed after 2 months of use:

1) While my K10d tended to underexpose, the K-5 almost never does, but sometimes overexposes. I would rather have preferred the K10d behavior, since the K-5 has such wonderful shadow DR anyway.
2) AWB has a tendency to sometimes get the cyan<->magenta balance wrong in the magenta direction. Actually, I had one single fear about the K-5: That colors wouldn't match those of the K10d, and one reason for that was that I saw a lot of pictures posted which seemed to have too much purple in them. I don't worry about that anymore, in fact I think the colors are even better than those of the K10d. But every now and then AWB is wrong in the magenta direction, and then I'll see the purple I was worried about. But if I correct WB, everything is just fine. I tend to always fine-tune WB in PP anyway, so it's not a bit deal.

[Verglace]

Oh please no more polarising designs Pentax should take a page from fujifilm and go retro! k1000 design anyone? even if we lose SR to shave off some width it will be a true proper compact dslr if there ever is such a thing!