Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-26-2014, 05:46 PM   #406
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
luftfluss's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,338
QuoteOriginally posted by JPT Quote
I wonder what the reaction would have been if Marc Newson had applied the same design style to a smaller camera like a Q-mount camera or the MX-1 (which I personally feel is a tacky pastiche of a retro camera). I think he got a tough design brief - something like "We've made this giant brick that takes photos. Decorate it for us!" Certainly Newson did not make the decision to omit an EVF or base the camera on K-mount, which are the main decisions the defined its shape.
I agree. I think Newson was given a set of strict design parameters, so he probably did not have a voice regarding an EVF or articulated LCD.

---------- Post added 09-26-14 at 08:50 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by D1N0 Quote
Great blanket statements but not very accurate. The fact is that the K-01 failed where Fuji and Olympus and Sony and Panasonic and Samsung succeeded. People wanted a compact system with lenses designed for it. Not a me too product with lack of commitment.
K-01 was not a "me too product" at all, to its detriment when compared with other mirrorless. Great for K-mount users, though.

---------- Post added 09-26-14 at 08:53 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by zoolander Quote
So I don't care what people say about him, or what awards he received, or the queen gave him an knighthood, or if the Nobel committee gave him an award. The K-01 was poorly designed, because Marc Newson is a bad designer ......PERIOD ! As can be seen by his own website. I mean the guy is taking the piss out of his clients, his interior design is like out of the Simpsons - they're caricatures. The K-01 is a caricature. His chairs are caricature. He should be working on the sidewalk doing caricatures of passers-by.

So the biggest mistake of Pentax in the K-01 was to throw away money on Marc. Instead, they should have used the money on the new lens mount, and designed it in house.

Marc made a fool of Pentax and Pentax's customers with his caricature camera.
Guess who had to approve the design every step of the way?

The way the K-01 looks and operates is what Pentax wanted.

09-26-2014, 05:53 PM   #407
Ooh! Shiney! Me Want!
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Working From Home
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,218
QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
K-01 was not a "me too product" at all, to its detriment when compared with other mirrorless. Great for K-mount users, though.
K-01 did not fail. It fully met Pentax's goals for the camera. We didn't understand the goals and mistakenly compared the camera to other MILC's in the context of the other stuff then on the market - but that's our fault, not theirs.
09-26-2014, 06:01 PM   #408
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,873
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
K-01 did not fail. It fully met Pentax's goals for the camera. We didn't understand the goals and mistakenly compared the camera to other MILC's in the context of the other stuff then on the market - but that's our fault, not theirs.
I don't understand how you can definitively say that.
09-26-2014, 06:01 PM   #409
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Greater Montreal Area
Posts: 736
They failed miserably at explaining their goal. If they'd succeeded, it'd still be there in a form or another.

09-26-2014, 06:05 PM - 1 Like   #410
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,873
QuoteOriginally posted by mamethot Quote
They failed miserably at explaining their goal. If they'd succeeded, it'd still be there in a form or another.
Not if their goal was to create a camera for a market and then abandon that market a year or so later.



09-26-2014, 06:13 PM   #411
Ooh! Shiney! Me Want!
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Working From Home
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,218
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
I don't understand how you can definitively say that.
QuoteOriginally posted by mamethot Quote
They failed miserably at explaining their goal. If they'd succeeded, it'd still be there in a form or another.
K-01 was a test platform for new electronics / new IBIS system / new shutter / Focus Peaking. You've all seen the DCWatch article explaining all of this. Everything worked. MX-1 tested hinged LCD. Q FW update tested Eye-Fi programmed integration. They do this all the time.

K-30/K50/K-S1 is a K-01 with an OVF. They didn't want to risk the traditional body cameras if the technology and production process failed (which it clearly didn't do) - but they could throw away the K-01 as a failed design attempt (which they cleverly did do) - except in Japan, where it was enough of a success that they released a special blue and white Smurf run that sold out during pre-order.

As I recall the final comments, "The planned production run was completed"

If you recall the deafening volume of negativity during the winter and spring of 2012, no one cared about explanations. It was a piranha feeding frenzy.
09-26-2014, 06:34 PM   #412
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
luftfluss's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,338
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
K-01 did not fail. It fully met Pentax's goals for the camera. We didn't understand the goals and mistakenly compared the camera to other MILC's in the context of the other stuff then on the market - but that's our fault, not theirs.
I didn't say the K-01 failed. Expanding on my statement that its uniqueness was to its detriment compared with other MILCs, the K-01's design didn't jive with what the public/reviewers expected from a MILC, so (IMO) its sales were not commensurate with its actual capabilities.

Anyway, I don't believe corporate spin, either. The K-01 came and went, hopefully Pentax learned something, and I like mine so much that I will most likely eventually buy another.
09-26-2014, 06:36 PM - 1 Like   #413
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 6,556
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
I don't understand how you can definitively say that.
Apparently the goal was to create a camera with bad ergonomics, limited functionality and that would appeal to people with poor taste. The last thing they wanted was to sell a lot of cameras. The K-01 was outstanding success.

09-26-2014, 06:47 PM   #414
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Nevada, USA
Posts: 502
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
K-01 was a test platform for new electronics / new IBIS system / new shutter / Focus Peaking. You've all seen the DCWatch article explaining all of this. Everything worked. MX-1 tested hinged LCD. Q FW update tested Eye-Fi programmed integration. They do this all the time.

K-30/K50/K-S1 is a K-01 with an OVF. They didn't want to risk the traditional body cameras if the technology and production process failed (which it clearly didn't do) - but they could throw away the K-01 as a failed design attempt (which they cleverly did do) - except in Japan, where it was enough of a success that they released a special blue and white Smurf run that sold out during pre-order.

As I recall the final comments, "The planned production run was completed"

If you recall the deafening volume of negativity during the winter and spring of 2012, no one cared about explanations. It was a piranha feeding frenzy.
The official company stance on the K-01 project is likely as you've described. I wonder how different the story would have been had they not been forced to drop the price by a factor of > 2x before selling out the production run. And this was over a period of just a year or so, IIRC. They also planned a series of lenses to take advantage of the space not used by mirror, but only the 40XS was produced.

I suspect you hold negative forum comments as a major factor in the K-01's demise. True, to some extent, I guess, but my viewpoint is that forum-thought is a much much stronger reflection of acceptance by the buying public than it is a driver of acceptance. But that's just me; I wouldn't have any Pentax gear if I cared what other people thought.

Last edited by cfraz; 09-26-2014 at 06:48 PM. Reason: edited for clarity
09-26-2014, 06:48 PM   #415
Ooh! Shiney! Me Want!
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Working From Home
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,218
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
Apparently the goal was to create a camera with bad ergonomics, limited functionality and that would appeal to people with poor taste. The last thing they wanted was to sell a lot of cameras. The K-01 was outstanding success.
That would be me. I pre-ordered and it is my favorite camera of the twenty I own.

But I guess the K-30 was a failure, too - same camera, after all - but for the benighted fools who bought them

Aaaaannnndd - you're out. Again.

Last edited by monochrome; 09-26-2014 at 06:55 PM.
09-26-2014, 06:48 PM   #416
Senior Member
jeff knight's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Pacific Northwest USA
Posts: 259
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
Apparently the goal was to create a camera with bad ergonomics, limited functionality and that would appeal to people with poor taste. The last thing they wanted was to sell a lot of cameras. The K-01 was outstanding success.
That's crap. It was a great camera and a great design. It was a large segment of this forum who failed! We not only failed to recognize it as worthwhile, but we bashed it mercilessly affecting sales and contributing to it's failure. No more mirrorless K mount now or perhaps forever. The next generation probably would have had an EVF and we'd be rolling.
09-26-2014, 06:54 PM   #417
JPT
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tokyo
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,716
If you look around there are plenty of other cameras released around the same time available at steep discounts, including the K-30. I haven't seen a new K-01 on sale for a while.

I also agree that there is no clear evidence to say it succeeded, but equally no evidence to day it did not, except for the continued insistence that it was a failure from people who never wanted it to succeed in the first place.

And I think it did get a successor in the K-S1. It was also designed by an outside design firm, designed to be small and light and to appeal to young people who are put off by DSLR designs. In fact, in the light of the PF interview, you can argue that the K-01's philosophy has been expanded to be whole line of cameras - the S models.

I guess if we all repeat that the K-S1 is a failure enough times, it will become true as well.
09-26-2014, 07:48 PM   #418
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 6,556
QuoteOriginally posted by jeff knight Quote
That's crap. It was a great camera and a great design. It was a large segment of this forum who failed! We not only failed to recognize it as worthwhile, but we bashed it mercilessly affecting sales and contributing to it's failure. No more mirrorless K mount now or perhaps forever. The next generation probably would have had an EVF and we'd be rolling.
This forum is a microcosm of a microcosm. The opinions expressed here don't have much effect on the market, if any.

If it was actually a great camera with a great design sales would have actually reflected those traits and we would be talking about the new K-01s that was just introduced at Photokina. The K-01 was introduced at the same time as the Olympus EM-5 and the Fuji X-Pro 1. Both of those cameras are still selling $800 - $1,000. The K-01 can be bought all day long for $300. Price is actually a pretty good indicator of demand for a product, which is a pretty good indicator of what people think about the product. What I think and what you think is purely subjective.
09-26-2014, 08:46 PM   #419
Veteran Member
zoolander's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gold Coast
Photos: Albums
Posts: 351
QuoteOriginally posted by jeff knight Quote
That's crap. It was a great camera and a great design. It was a large segment of this forum who failed! We not only failed to recognize it as worthwhile, but we bashed it mercilessly affecting sales and contributing to it's failure. No more mirrorless K mount now or perhaps forever. The next generation probably would have had an EVF and we'd be rolling.
The camera is still for sale brand new from Japan on Ebay, for $300-$400 in light blue, and upwards of $1000 for silver. I know its a really good camera, the ergonomics aren't too great, but I can't pull the pin and buy the blue because it just doesn't look nice - its as simple as that.

Looks are a subjective thing.

I really liked the look of the Canon EOS M, and I tried it out, and the menu was terrible, and difficult to find settings and change settings - so I walked away feeling angry. I don't want to buy a camera that frustrates me and makes me upset to go through menus, and to use it.

So why has the good looking (not ridiculously good looking! lol) EOS M failed, and the price has tumbled and I can buy a body + EF adapter for $399 AUD. But would I buy one, no way ! The menu is terrible and shooting with it is a frustrating experience. The menu system is obtuse and too far removed from a DSLR's menus system style.

People who own the K-01 are happy little campers. people who own the EOS M are happy little campers too.

The K-01 failed because of the Newson styling. The EOS-M failed because its darn frustrating to use. Those are hardly the fault of the forum members who are discerning buyers. Why should people reward a company for designing something poorly, and buying that product.

I bought a K-5, I think its a great camera, and there's very little wrong with it. Yeah there is room for improvement, but it never had some catastrophic issue, like being butt ugly, or being impossible to use, or being claimed to be weather sealed and the sealing failing (like with Canon and Nikon).

Someone could get an architect to design there home, and there are some terrible architects out there. When the owner try's to sell the home, and emphasizes it was designed by "Whats-his-name" a famous architect, the regular joe can walk through the place and find it ugly. There are plenty of architecturally designed homes and buildings out there which are butt ugly and have poor functionality, and I've seen plenty.
09-26-2014, 08:52 PM   #420
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
luftfluss's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,338
QuoteOriginally posted by JPT Quote
If you look around there are plenty of other cameras released around the same time available at steep discounts, including the K-30. I haven't seen a new K-01 on sale for a while.

I also agree that there is no clear evidence to say it succeeded, but equally no evidence to day it did not, except for the continued insistence that it was a failure from people who never wanted it to succeed in the first place.

And I think it did get a successor in the K-S1. It was also designed by an outside design firm, designed to be small and light and to appeal to young people who are put off by DSLR designs. In fact, in the light of the PF interview, you can argue that the K-01's philosophy has been expanded to be whole line of cameras - the S models.

I guess if we all repeat that the K-S1 is a failure enough times, it will become true as well.
Look at how many people here at PF have bashed the K-S1 simply because it has LEDs on the grip. LEDs that can be turned off.

---------- Post added 09-26-14 at 11:55 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by zoolander Quote
The K-01 failed because of the Newson styling. The EOS-M failed because its darn frustrating to use. Those are hardly the fault of the forum members who are discerning buyers. Why should people reward a company for designing something poorly, and buying that product.

I bought a K-5, I think its a great camera, and there's very little wrong with it. Yeah there is room for improvement, but it never had some catastrophic issue, like being butt ugly, or being impossible to use, or being claimed to be weather sealed and the sealing failing (like with Canon and Nikon).

Someone could get an architect to design there home, and there are some terrible architects out there. When the owner try's to sell the home, and emphasizes it was designed by "Whats-his-name" a famous architect, the regular joe can walk through the place and find it ugly. There are plenty of architecturally designed homes and buildings out there which are butt ugly and have poor functionality, and I've seen plenty.
You seem really hung up on the appearance of the camera. Upon release, if the K-01 had been $200 cheaper and had decent AF performance, the design would have merely been "quirky" to reviewers. But because the camera was pricey and the AF poor, it was easily to pile on the perceived faults.

---------- Post added 09-27-14 at 12:03 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
If it was actually a great camera with a great design sales would have actually reflected those traits and we would be talking about the new K-01s that was just introduced at Photokina. The K-01 was introduced at the same time as the Olympus EM-5 and the Fuji X-Pro 1. Both of those cameras are still selling $800 - $1,000. The K-01 can be bought all day long for $300. Price is actually a pretty good indicator of demand for a product, which is a pretty good indicator of what people think about the product. What I think and what you think is purely subjective.
You seem to be implying that if a product is good, it will become popular. Really? History have given us plenty of outstanding products that never gained serious traction (Commodore Amiga comes to mind) and poor products that were popular (Chevy Chevette).

You can buy Oly EM-5's for ~ $500 all day long.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
645z, ad, camera, cameras, canon, display, dslr, evf, features, ff, film, full-frame, glass, lens, lenses, market, mirror, mirrorless, money, nikon, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, results, sensor, time, value, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
This is what Pentax should do Rekusu Pentax Medium Format 19 01-12-2015 01:10 AM
What should I do? kodai84 Photographic Industry and Professionals 4 01-05-2014 08:49 AM
Focusing on Pentax K-Mount only - Or what should I do with my M42s antipattern Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 01-30-2013 10:26 AM
What Should I Do? tabl10s Pentax K-5 8 10-16-2012 03:55 AM
what Pentax should do nathancombs Pentax DSLR Discussion 12 07-06-2007 01:39 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:36 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top