[Class A]

Class A, before feeling sorry for me take a look at the image posted by D1N0.

I don't know what the relationship between your comment and the posted image is.

Even if the K-01 had a red dot and a Leica badge, it still wouldn't look like the (not very good) Newson/Ive Leica. Your statement is not validated by this completely different looking product.

The K-01 - I've seen it, not only in pictures - is rather different, than bad.

Oh, it is bad.

I wrote a lengthy post about it at the time (-> Marc Newson's K-01 fails design principles test).

Back then I could already see (without using the camera) the unergonomic placement of the top plate buttons. What I did not know back then, IIRC, is that the rubber side flap is very fiddly to put back and one has a hard time making it look flush again. I actually held a K-01 and saw how bad that design is with my own eyes.

I could go on and mourn the fact how cheap he made the camera look despite being given access to high-quality materials, etc., but let's not re-open this sad chapter in Pentax's history.

[mecrox]

I don't know what the relationship between your comment and the posted image is.

Even if the K-01 had a red dot and a Leica badge, it still wouldn't look like the (not very good) Newson/Ive Leica. Your statement is not validated by this completely different looking product.


Oh, it is bad.

I wrote a lengthy post about it at the time (-> Marc Newson's K-01 fails design principles test).

Back then I could already see (without using the camera) the unergonomic placement of the top plate buttons. What I did not know back then, IIRC, is that the rubber side flap is very fiddly to put back and one has a hard time making it look flush again. I actually held a K-01 and saw how bad that design is with my own eyes.

I could go on and mourn the fact how cheap he made the camera look despite being given access to high-quality materials, etc., but let's not re-open this sad chapter in Pentax's history.

I believe the K-01 sold pretty well once the fire sale started At the original price it was a something of an acquired taste, shall we say. Pentax did not help by trailing the custom-designed XS lenses, including a prototype under glass (a 21mm??), then dropping any further mention of a new lens line apart from the XS 40mm - a pretty low manoeuvre, imho. I never really trusted them again. A huge amount of the mirrorless thing is in the lenses because of CDAF vs PDAF issues, so without a custom-designed lens line the whole thing is DOA I suspect. I enjoyed my K-01 but focus acquisition was never it's strong point.

Look, Pentax are now 5-7 years or so behind the leading mirrorless lines, I reckon. 5-7 years. It's too late for a major middle-market play, simple as that. It would not surprise me if Pentax did mirrorless starting from the top, with a mirrorless 645 to keep Fuji and Hasselblad at bay, then maybe a mirrorless FF. Those formats are where the money is anyway and so that would be it, apart from the Ricoh fixed-lens cameras whose embalming fluid is changed every four years but not a huge amount happens otherwise. It would not be a great surprise either if Ricoh management has been looking at venture capital buyouts of other bits of the camera empire. Why not do a deal with some folks who'll bring money and ideas to the table for anything below FF. Maybe one of those clever new Chinese outfits would like the APS-C business.

It's sometimes very hard to understand what Ricoh is doing in cameras. I wonder if they know themselves.

[panonski]

I

It's sometimes very hard to understand what Ricoh is doing in cameras. I wonder if they know themselves.

LOL ...

SO TRUE !

[Zygonyx]

So true.... Ricoh have virtually not a clue of why they are involved in the photog industry

[Kunzite]

I don't know what the relationship between your comment and the posted image is.

It shows that people have double standards.

Even if the K-01 had a red dot and a Leica badge, it still wouldn't look like the (not very good) Newson/Ive Leica. Your statement is not validated by this completely different looking product.

It's not that different.
The reverse, of course, is IMHO true as well - the Leica without its dot and a Pentax badge would be heavily criticized for its design (and features, but that's a given).

Oh, it is bad.

I wrote a lengthy post about it at the time (-> Marc Newson's K-01 fails design principles test).

That is an opinion and not a fact.
IMHO the K-01's design is "form follows function"; IIRC even the chimney has a functional role, other than supporting the mode dial (I'd have to search for designer interviews to confirm this, though). The "fake prism bulge"? It's actually housing the flash. In your criticism, though, it's "dishonest".
As I said, opinion and not fact - and I'm keeping my opinion that the camera was heavily criticized by people unwilling to give it a chance. Because it was different.

[monochrome]

Leica by Marc Newson and Jony Ive:

Compare Newson's (derivative) K-01 design to the Leica Digilux. Does the Digilux fail a design principles test as well?

(Steve Huff K-01 Review)

Follow the link - hot links prohibited.

[RobA_Oz]

Look, Pentax are now 5-7 years or so behind the leading mirrorless lines, I reckon. 5-7 years. It's too late for a major middle-market play, simple as that.

Well, maybe. We were regularly hearing the same sort of thing about the 35FF DSLR market, up until the appearance of the K-1.

It would not surprise me if Pentax did mirrorless starting from the top, with a mirrorless 645 to keep Fuji and Hasselblad at bay, then maybe a mirrorless FF. Those formats are where the money is anyway …

Certainly, the per-unit profits are in that market, but the 645D/Z sales success has been partly a combination of the body's price point and partly because of the existing lens range. Introducing a mirrorless MF body to compete with Fuji and Hasselblad means accepting fewer sales if it's priced in similar territory to the competition, and plowing more capital into developing a new lens range (Tamron doesn't make MF lenses that can be rebadged) as well as a new body. All of that makes for a tricky business case to convince the hard nuts in Ricoh's senior management, but it's not totally out of contention if the numbers can stack up appropriately.

It's sometimes very hard to understand what Ricoh is doing in cameras. I wonder if they know themselves.

I don't think it's hard at all. They're in cameras to deliver products that make a profit, unlike Hoya, who were there to asset-strip, and unlike Canon and Nikon, who think it's a two-make game. Then there's Sony, who acts like a bespoke tailor trying to compete in a prêt-à-porter market...

[mecrox]

Well, maybe. We were regularly hearing the same sort of thing about the 35FF DSLR market, up until the appearance of the K-1.

Pentax were already making DSLRs and the lenses for them, on the same mount. None of this is the case with a move to a conventional MILC in whatever format, a crucial difference especially with lenses. Apples and oranges.

Certainly, the per-unit profits are in that market, but the 645D/Z sales success has been partly a combination of the body's price point and partly because of the existing lens range. Introducing a mirrorless MF body to compete with Fuji and Hasselblad means accepting fewer sales if it's priced in similar territory to the competition, and plowing more capital into developing a new lens range (Tamron doesn't make MF lenses that can be rebadged) as well as a new body. All of that makes for a tricky business case to convince the hard nuts in Ricoh's senior management, but it's not totally out of contention if the numbers can stack up appropriately.

But if they don't and do nothing, then sales will drift down and eventually tank because Pentax will be offering an increasingly old-fashioned and cumbersome platform in a market which has changed.

I don't think it's hard at all. They're in cameras to deliver products that make a profit, unlike Hoya, who were there to asset-strip, and unlike Canon and Nikon, who think it's a two-make game. Then there's Sony, who acts like a bespoke tailor trying to compete in a prêt-à-porter market...

Saying Ricoh are in business to make money is only stating the obvious. So is a butcher or a greengrocer. The late great Michael Reichmann often tried to discern some kind of plan behind Ricoh/Pentax and always came up empty. More recently Thom Hogan has tried and failed himself. I have never read any convincing explanation of what Ricoh/Pentax are trying to do and where they are going. Has anyone?

The one common thread in many of these discussions is lenses. Without those any plan is stuffed and often the lenses have to be specially designed for the purpose and the platform. A platform based primarily on CDAF has different requirements from one based on PDAF, e.g. But lenses cost money to develop. At this point someone usually arrives and says that of course Ricoh simply have no intention of spending that kind of money. I'm just saying that if you have no modern custom-designed lenses, no mirrorless body as yet anyway and no intention of spending "that kind of money" then you have nothing to sell. It's not about one body but at least if not more about the lenses.

[Kunzite]

But if they don't and do nothing, then sales will drift down and eventually tank because Pentax will be offering an increasingly old-fashioned and cumbersome platform in a market which has changed.

I don't believe that's an accurate description.
First, are they drifting down or not? My impression was that they're growing (which is not difficult to do, since they reached the bottom in 2011).
Second, the DSLR:MILC ratio is about 2.8:1 (according to CIPA). People are reluctant to drop their tried&true DSLRs in order to join the mirrorless craze.

As for guessing Pentax' plan, what time period are we talking about? If one is looking for a coherent strategy from 2003 to 2016 and beyond - bad luck, "Pentax" changed owners twice. In truth, we're dealing with Ricoh Imaging, a company founded by the end of 2011 from "Pentax" and Ricoh's own camera division. And I bet it took them few years to have something resembling a strategy.

[mecrox]

I don't believe that's an accurate description.
First, are they drifting down or not? My impression was that they're growing (which is not difficult to do, since they reached the bottom in 2011).
Second, the DSLR:MILC ratio is about 2.8:1 (according to CIPA). People are reluctant to drop their tried&true DSLRs in order to join the mirrorless craze.

I was referring only to 645 MF in that bit of the post, Pentax crown jewel territory. With Fuji and Hasselblad now in there with modern new systems, and let's not forget Leica too, leaving the 645 line as is looks a bit risky because that big mirrorbox design will date. That's why I speculated about any mirrorless plan being top down - start with 645 end, not with K70 end. No real argument about the alleged mirrorless craze elsewhere being not as straightforward as it appears. Surely the money in years to come will be in FF and above it, not below it, so it makes sense to start at the high end. The low end may go anyway for all the camera companies. Selling it off before it is worthless may not be as daft as it sounds.

[Kunzite]

My bad, I thought you were generalizing.
I don't know what to say... the 645 format should benefit the most from a non-SLR design; but could they keep the users? A mount change (from 70.87mm, I see no point in removing the mirror while keeping such a large registration distance) could push the users in Fujifilm's hands.
But, you might be right.

[zoolander]

overestimation. The K-01 is not a bad camera design, it is a different design. It is not on Marc Newson that it failed. It wouldn't have mattered how it looked. The Idea of a mirrorless with DSLR flange distance is half baked. That was a Pentax/Hoya decision. Look at the Sigma SD Quatro. That is a real monstrosity.

Dude, face facts the Marc Newson design was disgusting. He was trying to blend it with 1920's art deco design.

But lets not forget that the design brief was that the camera had to be able to stand up on its base and on its side with the little 40mm 2.8 attached.

Leica by Marc Newson and Jony Ive:

There's Marc doing art deco on a leica .......looks like a toaster crossed between a washing machine ........or thats the love child of a 1920's art deco toaster and washing machine.

overestimation. The K-01 is not a bad camera design, it is a different design. It is not on Marc Newson that it failed. It wouldn't have mattered how it looked. The Idea of a mirrorless with DSLR flange distance is half baked. That was a Pentax/Hoya decision. Look at the Sigma SD Quatro. That is a real monstrosity.

The SD Quattro looks like a camera, it has presence, it looks cool and it looks purposeful. Yes its an OVERSIZED camera, where mirrorless is supposed to be small. The lack of a new mount shows that Sigma is not interested in pursuing 8mm filangee lenses ....... they have a few of them. But the camera has been reviewed and its crap and another Sigma orphan ....nobody is gonna touch it, its useless.

If you said that you wanted a motorbike, and your wife surprises you by buying one ........ how would you feel if she surprised you with a little Vespa scooter. You're dreaming of a Yamasuzukasaki that does 350kph, and not a retro designed 1920's art deco Vespa. Vespa's aren't motor bikes (No offence to the Vespa biker gangs of London).

K3 is a camera. K01 is a Scooter.

K02 should be a camera.

[monochrome]

RE: 645D/Z

It has been my supposition that a (potentially) substantial inventory of FA645 lenses not only drove the business decision, pricing model and profitability of Pentax digital MF, it probably also prevents doing anything other than a traditional MF dSLR until the inventory is liquidated.

[Zygonyx]

The less Ricoh issues new 645 dSLR lenses, the more your supposition is valid...
Actually, i should already sell any of my 645 lenses...

[RobA_Oz]

Dude, face facts the Marc Newson design was disgusting. He was trying to blend it with 1920's art deco design.

Yeah, art deco buildings are cool. For smaller objects, I'm more of an Art Nouveau type...

... mirrorless is supposed to be small.

Now, there's a thing. Who said they have to be small? A lot of people here seem to like larger cameras (you know what they say - large hands...) but the consensus seems to be that we wouldn't mind them being lighter; I know my back would appreciate it, for starters.