Originally posted by Vylen Fact: A few months after the K-01 was discontinued, they re-released it in Japan in a blue and white motif due to demand and its visual appeal.
In other-words the camera, while it was largely considered unattractive ( which is bad in a global market space when you're in the business to sell stuff), was still liked by people regardless. Why is this so hard to get across? To claim something as ugly as fact is just plain wrong. Which is what your original quoted statement said - quite clearly. Popular thought/opinion does not make a truth/fact. Whilst it is true to say that popular opinion considered the K-01 ugly, it is not true to say that everyone considered it ugly.
Well, when you've got shipping containers full of K-01's, REJECTED from across the globe. They unpacked those K-01's and set about rebodying them. I guess someone had a bright idea of turning it into the Smurf model, and selling and marketing it to the Anime hipsters in Japan. The Japanese market is a very unique market.
You can argue and go on and on and on about your point, but the camera is ugly .....you either accept this or you don't. I nearly bought one and maybe if I could get one for next to nothing, I might give it a try. Yes its ugly, but I would buy one. Like I said before, I have a Fujifilm camera, and its ugly too, but actually has super-dooper high ISO performance.
Within the concept of the K-01 series, someone had a bright idea to make the K-01. The design brief was to make the camera shoot whilst standing up, and also standing on its side with the 40mm 2.8 XS lens. So the design brief is for a brick shaped camera with K-30 internals. How do you make a brick look attractive .......get in an outside designer with a big name, and let him turn a brick into something attractive. It did not work.
Even if it had have been a beautiful camera, people would have complained about the lack of EVF, new short filangee lens mount, auto focus speed, lack of tilty swivel screen etc etc etc.
When a manufacturer does a half-a**ed job on a camera, they get PUNISHED in the market place. Pentax probably suffered greatly for this camera, however Pentax has now learned that the market is fickle, buyers are more intelligent, prudent and sophisticated than what the manufacturers give us credit for. When the cost of the camera is as much as the cost of a good washing machine, they want to know that they're going to be getting something of value.
Now there was also the Sony NEX camera that came out earlier and was a huge hit with its super compact size, silver metal stylish finish and Pentax was trying to emulate that effort. A thin and slender metallic NEX versus the fat, boxey, plasticy Marc Newson 1920's mirrorless.
Lets stop kidding ourselves, the K-01 failed in the market place ...which is a fact ......and that fact had something to do with the way it looked.
---------- Post added 12-18-16 at 08:53 PM ----------
Originally posted by surfar The City hes in resembles the 1950s, they dont need machines....
Its all horses and carts where I'm from !
---------- Post added 12-18-16 at 08:59 PM ----------
Originally posted by RobA_Oz As to whether or not the K-01 failed in the marketplace because the majority of potential buyers deemed it to be ugly, what we have here is opinion. What we lack is specific survey data that validates that opinion. Sales data only tells us it failed, not why.
Yes, a total mystery why the K-01 failed in the marketplace .........and the mystery shall continue on Pentaxforums !
All these bright minds, and nearly everybody an engineer on Pentaxforums and we still can't crack the problem of why the K-01 failed ....
---------- Post added 12-18-16 at 09:12 PM ----------
Originally posted by monochrome Originally posted by zoolander
Yes yes everybody is an "engineer" on Pentax forums. I will "Thank" about it for zero seconds ...... chuckling !
Dude.
He actually is.
If you do MATLAB and programming, syntax is everything .......... then autocorrect should be easy.