The Pentax K-01 is a special model, not a new line of cameras

Na Horuk · 10-07-2012, 03:09 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by top-quark

One possible explanation is that everyone who bought one loves theirs so much that they're holding on to it. The alternative, and likelier, explanation is that no bugger bought one in the first place!

Nope, I thin its the first one. Look at the posts of people who bought one on this forum. People complained about all Pentax DSLR's, that there are problems, bugs, etc. But there are almost no complaints about the K-01, from actual owners. And it is heavier than the K-r, but it is better built.
It really is sad that the photographer community isn't mature enough for a camera like the K-01. The main complaint is always the design. The only valid complaints are lack of VF (but that's just something you have to deal with, its not the end of the world) and maybe odd red and green button placement, which requires a slightly different grip if you want to use those buttons on the go.

ogl · 10-07-2012, 03:27 AM

Originally posted by Na Horuk

Nope, I thin its the first one. Look at the posts of people who bought one on this forum. People complained about all Pentax DSLR's, that there are problems, bugs, etc. But there are almost no complaints about the K-01, from actual owners. .

Welcome to Russian pentax club
?-01: "??????" ???????? ? ????????? ? ??????? ??????? - ?????? ?????-?????

http://translate.google.ru/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8...D1%81%D0%B8%2F

No ideal camera, but bugs are not serious, to say honest

VladimirYo · 10-07-2012, 04:06 AM - **1 Like**

Oh Ogl, please be positive.
Last days you look more like RH ver.2 )))

Medium FormatPro · 10-07-2012, 04:49 AM

Originally posted by ogl

Originally posted by Blue A K-02 ff body would knock the socks of folks. It's easiest way to make a lot of Pentaxians happy...

It would be very easy to convert the camera over from existing chip to full frame. Add to that, it also would not be difficult to add the option of an evf.

Originally posted by top-quark

its commercial failure was pretty much a given

Because Pentax has a rather difficult time properly marketing their products. How often are any of the products from Pentax actually ever advertised - especially outside of the K30?

mecrox · 10-07-2012, 05:14 AM

Originally posted by Na Horuk

Nope, I thin its the first one. Look at the posts of people who bought one on this forum. People complained about all Pentax DSLR's, that there are problems, bugs, etc. But there are almost no complaints about the K-01, from actual owners. And it is heavier than the K-r, but it is better built.
It really is sad that the photographer community isn't mature enough for a camera like the K-01. The main complaint is always the design. The only valid complaints are lack of VF (but that's just something you have to deal with, its not the end of the world) and maybe odd red and green button placement, which requires a slightly different grip if you want to use those buttons on the go.

Yes, the K-01 is a nice camera. But it's only a nice camera if you are already a Pentax-owner. If you are not, there are better choices out there and chances are high you'll buy one because the store won't stock Pentax anyway. Pentax simply have to break out of feeding off their userbase. They won't sell more equipment any other way. Most people just want a camera. They don't want the nerdulent stuff about RAW parameters and the glory that was K-mount and they do want their camera to look reasonably OK. One may ask, well why are they buying a K-01 instead of a P&S, but the answer is that APS-C is rapidly becoming the new P&S as makers try to keep well clear of mobiles. Smaller cameras with bigger sensors seems to be the trend. Trying to shoehorn an old FF mount into this space just isn't going to work, imho. What you end up with is the K-01.

ogl · 10-07-2012, 06:03 AM

Originally posted by VladimirYo

Oh Ogl, please be positive.
Last days you look more like RH ver.2 )))

You are off target as usual

RonHendriks1966 · 10-07-2012, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by VladimirYo

Oh Ogl, please be positive.
Last days you look more like RH ver.2 )))

Originally posted by ogl

You are off target as usual

Not at all: You do look like a second Ron Hendriks

TaoMaas · 10-07-2012, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by top-quark

Pentax have succeded in missing the point of a mirrorless - high IQ, low bulk - twice now.

Had the Q been placed as an alternative to a high-end compact (and shipped with something like an F2 - F4 standard zoom), it might have had a point. As a competitor to MFT, it doesn't cut it.

You must have never really used the Q. Maybe picked one up and looked at it...read about it online and in magazines, but that's about it, right? The Q is a very deceptive camera. Seems way too small to be taken seriously, but like a Minox, you quickly realize that it is a deadly serious camera. At the same time, it's also like a puppy...so small and cute, you can't help but like it. It's my wife's "carry around" camera and she loves it. She liked the images from her DSLR, but hated it's bulk. People say that the best camera is the one you'll actually carry and use. For my wife, it's her Q.

top-quark · 10-07-2012, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by TaoMaas

You must have never really used the Q. Maybe picked one up and looked at it...read about it online and in magazines, but that's about it, right? The Q is a very deceptive camera. Seems way too small to be taken seriously, but like a Minox, you quickly realize that it is a deadly serious camera. At the same time, it's also like a puppy...so small and cute, you can't help but like it. It's my wife's "carry around" camera and she loves it. She liked the images from her DSLR, but hated it's bulk. People say that the best camera is the one you'll actually carry and use. For my wife, it's her Q.

Don't get me wrong here: it's not the tiny sensor or small size that's an issue; it's the missing the whole point that's the problem. If I had the money to spare, I'd probably still end up getting an X10, XZ-1 or (now) an RX 100. Had it been made competitive with an LX5 (price, optics) and marketed accordingly, it might have stood a chance. However, £800 with a slow 3x zoom was hubristic, to say the least. The Q10 looks to have a lot more going for it - at least the price is about right.

TaoMaas · 10-07-2012, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by top-quark

...it's not the tiny sensor or small size that's an issue; it's the missing the whole point that's the problem.

Hmmm...what do you think the point is?

Na Horuk · 10-07-2012, 08:57 AM

I saw a Q in a photo store here recently, the old Q, not the Q10, still being sold for around 600 euro (depending on lens kit). The seller told me they were willing to give a big discount, but.. I doubt the discount will be big enough to matter. I would love to have a Q, but 600 for a camera that has been cut in half in cost in many other countries? A camera that now has a successor? Meh

Blue · 10-07-2012, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Na Horuk

Nope, I thin its the first one. Look at the posts of people who bought one on this forum. People complained about all Pentax DSLR's, that there are problems, bugs, etc. But there are almost no complaints about the K-01, from actual owners. And it is heavier than the K-r, but it is better built.
It really is sad that the photographer community isn't mature enough for a camera like the K-01. The main complaint is always the design. The only valid complaints are lack of VF (but that's just something you have to deal with, its not the end of the world) and maybe odd red and green button placement, which requires a slightly different grip if you want to use those buttons on the go.

I agree with you. The biggest knock on the K-01 is its looks. However, what inside that case is pretty good.

illdefined · 10-07-2012, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by Blue

I agree with you. The biggest knock on the K-01 is its looks. However, what inside that case is pretty good.

Funny, the argument against the Q is the opposite. Looks great and serious to use, but what's inside is what's holding it back..

Blue · 10-07-2012, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by illdefined

Funny, the argument against the Q is the opposite. Looks great and serious to use, but what's inside is what's holding it back..

They need to make a Q looking case and put the K-01 in it with a ff sensor.

Parallax · 10-07-2012, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by Blue

.................. with a ff sensor.

Aw geez! Not you too?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
PENTAX Introduces New K-5 II & K-5 IIs DSLR Cameras Versatile cameras feature newly d	Adam	Homepage & Official Pentax News	18	09-13-2012 07:14 AM
green line and red line on lens	dh4412	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	3	03-28-2011 11:39 AM
Special Pentax Moment	Voytech	Pentax DSLR Discussion	12	10-24-2010 02:39 AM
K-7 announces the end of the K line of cameras	janneman	Pentax News and Rumors	30	05-07-2009 03:35 PM
special time with a special lens (larger images)	Marc Langille	Post Your Photos!	30	11-01-2008 09:38 AM

10-07-2012, 03:09 AM - 2 Likes	#91
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	Originally posted by top-quark One possible explanation is that everyone who bought one loves theirs so much that they're holding on to it. The alternative, and likelier, explanation is that no bugger bought one in the first place! Nope, I thin its the first one. Look at the posts of people who bought one on this forum. People complained about all Pentax DSLR's, that there are problems, bugs, etc. But there are almost no complaints about the K-01, from actual owners. And it is heavier than the K-r, but it is better built. It really is sad that the photographer community isn't mature enough for a camera like the K-01. The main complaint is always the design. The only valid complaints are lack of VF (but that's just something you have to deal with, its not the end of the world) and maybe odd red and green button placement, which requires a slightly different grip if you want to use those buttons on the go.

10-07-2012, 03:27 AM	#92
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382 Original Poster	Originally posted by Na Horuk Nope, I thin its the first one. Look at the posts of people who bought one on this forum. People complained about all Pentax DSLR's, that there are problems, bugs, etc. But there are almost no complaints about the K-01, from actual owners. . Welcome to Russian pentax club ?-01: "??????" ???????? ? ????????? ? ??????? ??????? - ?????? ?????-????? http://translate.google.ru/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8...D1%81%D0%B8%2F No ideal camera, but bugs are not serious, to say honest

10-07-2012, 04:06 AM - 1 Like	#93
VladimirYo Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 290	Oh Ogl, please be positive. Last days you look more like RH ver.2 )))

10-07-2012, 04:49 AM	#94
Medium FormatPro Banned Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Charleston & Pittsburgh Photos: Albums Posts: 1,668	Originally posted by ogl Originally posted by Blue A K-02 ff body would knock the socks of folks. It's easiest way to make a lot of Pentaxians happy... It would be very easy to convert the camera over from existing chip to full frame. Add to that, it also would not be difficult to add the option of an evf. Originally posted by top-quark its commercial failure was pretty much a given Because Pentax has a rather difficult time properly marketing their products. How often are any of the products from Pentax actually ever advertised - especially outside of the K30?

10-07-2012, 05:14 AM	#95
mecrox Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Oxford, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,375	Originally posted by Na Horuk Nope, I thin its the first one. Look at the posts of people who bought one on this forum. People complained about all Pentax DSLR's, that there are problems, bugs, etc. But there are almost no complaints about the K-01, from actual owners. And it is heavier than the K-r, but it is better built. It really is sad that the photographer community isn't mature enough for a camera like the K-01. The main complaint is always the design. The only valid complaints are lack of VF (but that's just something you have to deal with, its not the end of the world) and maybe odd red and green button placement, which requires a slightly different grip if you want to use those buttons on the go. Yes, the K-01 is a nice camera. But it's only a nice camera if you are already a Pentax-owner. If you are not, there are better choices out there and chances are high you'll buy one because the store won't stock Pentax anyway. Pentax simply have to break out of feeding off their userbase. They won't sell more equipment any other way. Most people just want a camera. They don't want the nerdulent stuff about RAW parameters and the glory that was K-mount and they do want their camera to look reasonably OK. One may ask, well why are they buying a K-01 instead of a P&S, but the answer is that APS-C is rapidly becoming the new P&S as makers try to keep well clear of mobiles. Smaller cameras with bigger sensors seems to be the trend. Trying to shoehorn an old FF mount into this space just isn't going to work, imho. What you end up with is the K-01.

10-07-2012, 06:03 AM	#96
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382 Original Poster	Originally posted by VladimirYo Oh Ogl, please be positive. Last days you look more like RH ver.2 ))) You are off target as usual

10-07-2012, 07:03 AM	#97
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Originally posted by VladimirYo Oh Ogl, please be positive. Last days you look more like RH ver.2 ))) Originally posted by ogl You are off target as usual Not at all: You do look like a second Ron Hendriks

10-07-2012, 07:20 AM	#98
TaoMaas Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Oklahoma City Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,574	Originally posted by top-quark Pentax have succeded in missing the point of a mirrorless - high IQ, low bulk - twice now. Had the Q been placed as an alternative to a high-end compact (and shipped with something like an F2 - F4 standard zoom), it might have had a point. As a competitor to MFT, it doesn't cut it. You must have never really used the Q. Maybe picked one up and looked at it...read about it online and in magazines, but that's about it, right? The Q is a very deceptive camera. Seems way too small to be taken seriously, but like a Minox, you quickly realize that it is a deadly serious camera. At the same time, it's also like a puppy...so small and cute, you can't help but like it. It's my wife's "carry around" camera and she loves it. She liked the images from her DSLR, but hated it's bulk. People say that the best camera is the one you'll actually carry and use. For my wife, it's her Q.

10-07-2012, 08:41 AM	#99
top-quark Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Aylesbury, Bucks Photos: Albums Posts: 492	Originally posted by TaoMaas You must have never really used the Q. Maybe picked one up and looked at it...read about it online and in magazines, but that's about it, right? The Q is a very deceptive camera. Seems way too small to be taken seriously, but like a Minox, you quickly realize that it is a deadly serious camera. At the same time, it's also like a puppy...so small and cute, you can't help but like it. It's my wife's "carry around" camera and she loves it. She liked the images from her DSLR, but hated it's bulk. People say that the best camera is the one you'll actually carry and use. For my wife, it's her Q. Don't get me wrong here: it's not the tiny sensor or small size that's an issue; it's the missing the whole point that's the problem. If I had the money to spare, I'd probably still end up getting an X10, XZ-1 or (now) an RX 100. Had it been made competitive with an LX5 (price, optics) and marketed accordingly, it might have stood a chance. However, £800 with a slow 3x zoom was hubristic, to say the least. The Q10 looks to have a lot more going for it - at least the price is about right.

10-07-2012, 08:54 AM	#100
TaoMaas Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Oklahoma City Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,574	Originally posted by top-quark ...it's not the tiny sensor or small size that's an issue; it's the missing the whole point that's the problem. Hmmm...what do you think the point is?

10-07-2012, 08:57 AM	#101
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	I saw a Q in a photo store here recently, the old Q, not the Q10, still being sold for around 600 euro (depending on lens kit). The seller told me they were willing to give a big discount, but.. I doubt the discount will be big enough to matter. I would love to have a Q, but 600 for a camera that has been cut in half in cost in many other countries? A camera that now has a successor? Meh

10-07-2012, 08:59 AM	#102
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Na Horuk Nope, I thin its the first one. Look at the posts of people who bought one on this forum. People complained about all Pentax DSLR's, that there are problems, bugs, etc. But there are almost no complaints about the K-01, from actual owners. And it is heavier than the K-r, but it is better built. It really is sad that the photographer community isn't mature enough for a camera like the K-01. The main complaint is always the design. The only valid complaints are lack of VF (but that's just something you have to deal with, its not the end of the world) and maybe odd red and green button placement, which requires a slightly different grip if you want to use those buttons on the go. I agree with you. The biggest knock on the K-01 is its looks. However, what inside that case is pretty good.

10-07-2012, 09:12 AM	#103
illdefined Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: NYC Posts: 929	Originally posted by Blue I agree with you. The biggest knock on the K-01 is its looks. However, what inside that case is pretty good. Funny, the argument against the Q is the opposite. Looks great and serious to use, but what's inside is what's holding it back..

10-07-2012, 09:37 AM	#104
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by illdefined Funny, the argument against the Q is the opposite. Looks great and serious to use, but what's inside is what's holding it back.. They need to make a Q looking case and put the K-01 in it with a ff sensor.

10-07-2012, 09:53 AM	#105
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by Blue .................. with a ff sensor. Aw geez! Not you too?