[RonHendriks1966]

It was designed by Hoya and sold by Ricoh

And according to two douchebags who work at a camera shop and post videos to YouTube it's a 'complete piece of garbage'.

Chris Niccolls came by and left a comment

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/138-pentax-k-01/270339-absolute-piece-garbage.html#post2909098

---------- Post added 16-08-14 at 15:50 ----------

I thought the K-01 was a Pentax aps-c sensor MILC. They've had it already! (Or maybe I only think my K-01 is a Pentax.)

Maybe not counting as a MILC, since it´s just a BRICK.

[D1N0]

I thought the K-01 was a Pentax aps-c sensor MILC. They've had it already! (Or maybe I only think my K-01 is a Pentax.)

K-01 was a a dslr without a mirror

[ElJamoquio]

I just saw a grey market D610 for sale for $1389. I paid more than that for my K-5.

[Nicolas06]

I just saw a grey market D610 for sale for $1389. I paid more than that for my K-5.

I sold my K-5 €300 a few month ago for a K-3. The K-3 I paid €1050. You can also buy an A7, new for €1200 without grey market or anything.

That's can be said the sensor is better and compared to K5, a D610 is surely a superior offering. Now compared to K3, the D610 has sure a bigger sensor, but that's about it. For the rest, the K3 tend to (slightly) be better.

But honestly, if you one want an FF, go for it, that way there no more thinking of it, years after years.

[ElJamoquio]

I sold my K-5 €300 a few month ago for a K-3. The K-3 I paid €1050. You can also buy an A7, new for €1200 without grey market or anything.

That's can be said the sensor is better and compared to K5, a D610 is surely a superior offering. Now compared to K3, the D610 has sure a bigger sensor, but that's about it. For the rest, the K3 tend to (slightly) be better.

But honestly, if you one want an FF, go for it, that way there no more thinking of it, years after years.

Personally I don't think I'll purchase a grey market camera. A grey market lens, sure. I was posting the price for general market knowledge; as general information in a debate. I have no need for an additional FF camera.


Right now the US version of the D610 is $1700, for reference. The US K-3 is $1200 (both at adorama). A few years ago the K-5 was $1400 or so and the D800 was $3k or so. What will next year bring?

[ElJamoquio]

I love the 43mm focal length. The reason there aren't other 43's from other manufacturers is that we have five fingers on each hand. There's plenty of options at 40, 45... and even 50 isn't too far away. I like the 43 field of view better than 40 or 50 myself.

If you think the 18-135 has comparable image quality (at 135) to a 135 prime... I'd argue that the 135 prime doesn't have good IQ. YMMV.

[GlassJunkie]

I love the 43mm focal length. The reason there aren't other 43's from other manufacturers is that we have five fingers on each hand. There's plenty of options at 40, 45... and even 50 isn't too far away. I like the 43 field of view better than 40 or 50 myself.

If you think the 18-135 has comparable image quality (at 135) to a 135 prime... I'd argue that the 135 prime doesn't have good IQ. YMMV.

... Having owned both lenses, the 18-135 WR is a great lens, but it's not a SMCP-F 135 F2.8 that's a good copy. I agree with you, miss the F, but advanced age says I need to reduce glass tonnage when afield. The DA* 50-135 is nice, and despite it being at the long end of its range, very nice. I do occasionally notice that I don't manage my K-3 properly and oversaturate color with the 50-135. USER Error...

[stevebrot]

Maybe not counting as a MILC, since it´s just a BRICK.

You mean something like this?



The Argus C3 (above) was a very serviceable interchangeable lens 35mm camera that supported an assortment of quality lenses and was capable of very nice photos. Unfortunately it handled like a brick. I have held a C3 and while the K-01 is softer and grippier in the hand the two are eerily the similar in the hand.

BTW...If I came across a K-01 at a good price I may well buy it. The form factor has its plus points in my opinion over the compromise of mounting the same K-mount lenses on a NEX.

Are we sufficiently off-topic yet?

Steve

[woodywesty]

You mean something like this?



The Argus C3 (above) was a very serviceable interchangeable lens 35mm camera that supported an assortment of quality lenses and was capable of very nice photos. Unfortunately it handled like a brick. I have held a C3 and while the K-01 is softer and grippier in the hand the two are eerily the similar in the hand.

BTW...If I came across a K-01 at a good price I may well buy it. The form factor has its plus points in my opinion over the compromise of mounting the same K-mount lenses on a NEX.

Are we sufficiently off-topic yet?

Steve

"Off topic".. are you kidding? we've been off the planet for the last while! But that is one beautiful little camera you're showing there.. WOW! thanks for posting it.

[RonHendriks1966]

You mean something like this?



The Argus C3 (above) was a very serviceable interchangeable lens 35mm camera that supported an assortment of quality lenses and was capable of very nice photos. Unfortunately it handled like a brick. I have held a C3 and while the K-01 is softer and grippier in the hand the two are eerily the similar in the hand.

BTW...If I came across a K-01 at a good price I may well buy it. The form factor has its plus points in my opinion over the compromise of mounting the same K-mount lenses on a NEX.

Are we sufficiently off-topic yet?

Steve

That is one great camera...........

[boriscleto]

You mean something like this?



The Argus C3 (above) was a very serviceable interchangeable lens 35mm camera that supported an assortment of quality lenses and was capable of very nice photos. Unfortunately it handled like a brick. I have held a C3 and while the K-01 is softer and grippier in the hand the two are eerily the similar in the hand.

BTW...If I came across a K-01 at a good price I may well buy it. The form factor has its plus points in my opinion over the compromise of mounting the same K-mount lenses on a NEX.

Are we sufficiently off-topic yet?

Steve

The C3 comes up on shopgoodwill all the time. There is currently multiple C3s at $9.89 with no bids...

Probably because they were made for like 30 years...

I have never seen a K-01 on goodwill (though I bought a Q last month). I do see a lot of Canikons, Sony, and increasingly Olympus 4/3. There is currently a D5100, D3000, Sony A3000, and Olympus E-500 for example.

[stevebrot]

But that is one beautiful little camera you're showing there.. WOW! thanks for posting it.

Photo courtesy of Wikipedia


Steve

[bossa]

I just saw a grey market D610 for sale for $1389. I paid more than that for my K-5.

eGlobal has a D7100 body for around $800

Nikon D7100 Body Only Digital SLR Cameras :: Nikon :: Digital SLR Cameras - eGlobaL Digital Cameras Online Store

They do the D610 body for AU$1449

http://www.eglobaldigitalcameras.com.au/nikon-d610-body-only-digital-slr-cameras.html

[thibs]

More for artistic reasons than anything else. The 43mm on 35mm film gives a useable focal length that is somewhere between the standard 50mm (long considered to be closest to what "the eye sees") and the traditional wide angle range beginning at 35mm and proceeding to 28mm, etc. As a result, it gives a rather uncomfortable field of view that falls somewhere between the two. It of course makes up for this in other ways (notably, superior image quality), but there is a reason that it is the only 43mm on the market.

There was a Nikkor Ai-P 45mm f/2.8 unti lrecently (manual focus only and that's a pancake). But well... this doesn't exactly challenge your statement so much, does it ?

The formerly ubiquitous 135mm, usually seen at f/3.5, was previously dsigned and marketed primarily as a lightweight portrait lens, rather than a telephoto, and is not really the equivalent to the very few 200mms that you see today, the only examples of which I can think of are optimized as telephoto lenses, and as a result are large beasts, with 2.8 or wider apertures, fast focus, Optical stabilization etc. The Canon 200mm 2.8 is a 765g lens. The f/2 version is a whopping 2520g! The Pentax-F 135mm 2.8, by comparison, weighs a mere 395g and is substantially heavier than its predecessors. But still, Pentax users are not clamoring for it, despite its excellent image quality, since it is useless as a portrait lens on APS-C due to the long distance needed for good framing, and it does not have the handling characteristics suitable to a high-end telephoto which compensate for the short fixed reach it has. By comparison the Limited 50-135mm and and even DA 18-135 get you the same place without substantially reduced image quality and with better range versatility and better telephoto handling.

What about the FA135 ? Is it that different from the F ?

---------- Post added 17-08-14 at 10:02 ----------

I love the 43mm focal length. The reason there aren't other 43's from other manufacturers is that we have five fingers on each hand. There's plenty of options at 40, 45... and even 50 isn't too far away. I like the 43 field of view better than 40 or 50 myself.

True but also, at the time (K series etc) the 50 and specially the 55mm almost looked like what we saw with our eyes because of the characteristics of the viewfinder.
My KX (not K-x) with 55/1.8 is exactly the proper magnification for me to frame with both eyes open.

If you think the 18-135 has comparable image quality (at 135) to a 135 prime... I'd argue that the 135 prime doesn't have good IQ. YMMV.

Really? I remember the 135 was very highly regarded lens back then.
Or is its use on digital problematic ?

[aurele]

What about the FA135 ? Is it that different from the F ?

both share the same optical formula. I think the FA has a focus limiter.

True but also, at the time (K series etc) the 50 and specially the 55mm almost looked like what we saw with our eyes because of the characteristics of the viewfinder.

it's true that with the bigger VF focusing was easier. I'd love APS-C with the VF of the size of a FF one