[Na Horuk]

This is just nonsense. You can't make any claims that enthusiast photographers generalise how a camera should look any more than the general public.

Of course he can. And if you look at forums, I think this is pretty much right. A lot of "hardcore photographers" hated it because it didn't fit their idea of what a camera is, a lot of them stated that openly. Iconography is an art of itself, it has nothing to do with aesthetic choices of new products, most icons show an old fashioned device and not its modern equivalent. Its not a good argument for anything. The general public is just more flexible when it comes to the aesthetic of a product. For example, if you are a wine connoisseur, you might hate the idea of plastic corks, and even more so wine in a box. But the general public, who don't care about wine in that way, won't care about its container.

why not just accept the K-01 has an aesthetic design that isn't liked my many?

I think he did accept that, he is merely dissecting the reason for the intense dislike, which was often developed over looking at some photos of the camera, rather than actually using it. In practice, my black K-r almost never receives compliments from non-photographers, while the K-01 does. But actual photographers usually sneer at my K-01 or look at it with interest. Clearly its design is an important factor. Of course its not the only factor and clearly even this is a legitimate reason, but you shouldn't just call it absurd. Remember how many people said they would consider it, if only it was all-black and without the rubber flap?
I'm not even defending it, I'm just saying that its appearance was a big reason for the dislike in photography forums. Mentioned more often than its actual faults.

---

Last edited by Na Horuk; 04-27-2013 at 02:28 PM.

[ElJamoquio]

make sense of the overall response to the K-01 both inside and outside the camera enthusiast community.

I can't put it in my pocket.
I can't look through a viewfinder.
I can't press the buttons with my fingers.
I can't push the rubber flaps back.
I can't AF well with it.


At $200 it makes sense. At $750 it didn't. I tried it. I didn't like it.

[johnmflores]

This is just nonsense. You can't make any claims that enthusiast photographers generalise how a camera should look any more than the general public. Why do you think camera icons for the general public look like a traditional camera? It's so they can recognise it as a camera.

The K-01 doesn't depart from the general layout of a traditional camera anyway, it still has the all the traditional features in all the usual places. It's just, in some people's eyes ( and not others of course ) and ugly version.

why not just accept the K-01 has an aesthetic design that isn't liked my many? After all does it reallty matter as long as you like yours?

Now you're speaking nonsense. Painters as a group evaluate paintings with a different set of criteria than non-painters. Likewise, guitarists probably evaluate songs with a different set of criteria than non-guitarists. In each case, painters and guitarists are drawing from a knowledge base that's radically different than others.

Let me be clear here - I'm not saying then that they will all think alike and all have the same opinion on things. No, everyone's entitled to their own opinion. But when painters look at a Picasso, they're probably seeing things and thinking about things that a non-painter has little knowledge and no first-hand experience of.

Am I wrong in drawing the conclusion that the online camera community as a whole had a negative view of the K-01's looks?
Am I wrong in making a personal observation that the non-camera people that I met thought that the K-01 looked neat?
Is there anything wrong in finding patterns in data and trying to understand them?

I'm not in any way shape or form implying that someone that doesn't like the K-01's looks is wrong.

[johnmflores]

I can't put it in my pocket.
I can't look through a viewfinder.
I can't press the buttons with my fingers.
I can't push the rubber flaps back.
I can't AF well with it.


At $200 it makes sense. At $750 it didn't. I tried it. I didn't like it.

That's fine.

I have other cameras that fit in my pocket
I don't miss the viewfinder 90% of the time
I have no problems with the buttons
I have no issue with the rubber flap.
I have other cameras with better AF.

At $750 it made sense for me. It's already paid for itself in paid assignments.

To each his/her own.

[bossa]

I can't put it in my pocket.
I can't look through a viewfinder.
I can't press the buttons with my fingers.
I can't push the rubber flaps back.
I can't AF well with it.


At $200 it makes sense. At $750 it didn't. I tried it. I didn't like it.

I don't know what sort of pockets you have but with the baggy shorts I wear these days I have no problems stuffing the K-01 in my pocket depending on the lens attached of course.

[bossa]

Now you're speaking nonsense. Painters as a group evaluate paintings with a different set of criteria than non-painters. Likewise, guitarists probably evaluate songs with a different set of criteria than non-guitarists. In each case, painters and guitarists are drawing from a knowledge base that's radically different than others.

Let me be clear here - I'm not saying then that they will all think alike and all have the same opinion on things. No, everyone's entitled to their own opinion. But when painters look at a Picasso, they're probably seeing things and thinking about things that a non-painter has little knowledge and no first-hand experience of.

Am I wrong in drawing the conclusion that the online camera community as a whole had a negative view of the K-01's looks?
Am I wrong in making a personal observation that the non-camera people that I met thought that the K-01 looked neat?
Is there anything wrong in finding patterns in data and trying to understand them?

I'm not in any way shape or form implying that someone that doesn't like the K-01's looks is wrong.

I'm a guitarist and a painter so I guess I must be really 'confused' [.. and a photographer too I suppose]

[johnmflores]

I'm a guitarist and a painter so I guess I must be really 'confused' [.. and a photographer too I suppose]

Seek medical attention immediately!

[jogiba]

Forget the K-01 ii , if Pentax came out with a 1" mirrorless like the Sony RX100 but with 14mp @ 80fps, 4K 60fps Quad HD mode , 3.69m dot 1280x960 EVF and fast F1.8 built-in zoom I would be all over it.

Aptina creates faster 14MP 1" sensor capable of 80 fps and 4K video: Digital Photography Review
Citizen Finetech Miyota creates 3.69m dot equivalent EVF: Digital Photography Review

[johnmflores]

Forget the K-01 ii , if Pentax came out with a 1" mirrorless like the Sony RX100 but with 14mp @ 80fps, 4K 60fps Quad HD mode , 3.69m dot 1280x960 EVF and fast F1.8 built-in zoom I would be all over it.

Aptina creates faster 14MP 1" sensor capable of 80 fps and 4K video: Digital Photography Review
Citizen Finetech Miyota creates 3.69m dot equivalent EVF: Digital Photography Review

Nikon V2 with the 18.5mm F1.8 is surprisingly close.

[RonHendriks1966]

Well it doesn't make sence to argue about loving it or hating it or being alowed to that opinion. It is sure that it didn't make enough sales at the high price, but get a little lift in sales at a lower price. So hopefully the entire production can be sold and that the revenues are big enough for the whole project.

We had over here this car, Smart ForFour made in a factory nearby:

Love it or hate it, but after a first buzz off production going to carsalesplaces all over Europe (stocking them) there where hardly any sales. So the whole production for around 6 months went straight to parkinglots all over the place around the factory up untill the point that 40.000 cars where in parking and production stopped. Beautifull or ugly doesn't matter at that point to the company making it anymore at that time.

[jogiba]

Nikon V2 with the 18.5mm F1.8 is surprisingly close.

An 18.5mm F1.8 50mm eqiv standard prime for 1" sensor is not that big a deal since there are F0.95 lenses for APS-C NEX and m4/3rd sensors.

[philbaum]

I remember disliking the odd shape of the NEX cams when they first came out. Then i got used to it when a friend had one. Then they went on sale and i bought one - now i love it. There's no accounting for taste and first hand experience.

The theater org. i do volunteer work for asked me to take some shots of kids enrolled in an acting class that they periodically run. I figured it would be less intimidating to use my compact camera than my DSLR. And it worked great, esp using the fold out LCD to shoot at lower heights and sometimes higher ones. They pretty well ignored me, and were having a ton of fun learning to act. There is no one camera that fits all needs.

[johnmflores]

An 18.5mm F1.8 50mm eqiv standard prime for 1" sensor is not that big a deal since there are F0.95 lenses for APS-C NEX and m4/3rd sensors.

I didn't say it was a big deal, just that it existed.

[IchabodCrane]

I'm using camera forum folks as a proxy for camera enthusiasts, i.e., people that like cameras and buy them and use them and seek out other people that like cameras and talk about them. They have a very different knowledge base of cameras, more considered opinions, deeper experiences, and thus a set of expectations as to what a camera is, what it should do, how it should look, etc,....than the general public at large. My observations are that camera enthusiasts as a whole judge the K-01 differently than non-camera enthusiasts. Sure, individuals make their own decisions, and there are a number of camera enthusiasts that like the K-01, but that doesn't mean their aren't trends or patterns in the aggregate of those decisions.

I'm not invalidating anything you are saying, just noting my observations.

The non-camera enthusiasts didn't buy the camera, either, in any appreciable quantity and that's the judgment that matters the most.

[johnmflores]

The non-camera enthusiasts didn't buy the camera, either, in any appreciable quantity and that's the judgment that matters the most.

No doubt. Where it gets interesting is trying to figure why people didn't buy it. I'd posit that the reasons camera enthusiasts didn't buy it differ from the reasons the general public didn't buy it. My guess is as follows:

Camera Enthusiasts (in order of importance)
Price
Key Features (Viewfinder, controls, AF, etc...)
Appearance


General Consumers (in order of importance)
Awareness (marketing, PR, retail presence, etc)
Size
Price

By my reckoning, once the price dropped deeply enough, the main criticism of camera enthusiasts melted away and product started to move despite the other criticisms. On the other hand, consumers didn't embrace the camera in droves because awareness was still quite low.

I'd imagine that Pentax is doing a thorough post-mortem to better inform their future efforts.