Originally posted by surfar I'm not sure how "not successful" can be defined.....Perhaps, "in your minds"
I did see some facts recently and the Canon M series was amongst the leaders for sales(milc), I wish I knew where I saw it and I would provide a link.
The K-01 sold well when the price was adjusted and many are still in operation. for a not successful camera its a wonder it received those awards?
Two years ago, when I was a Canon user, I heard other Canon users talk about MILC exactly the same way I hear Pentax users talk today - a few thought the EOS-M was wonderful, and everyone else bemoaned the lack of an MILC with EVF. Every time there was rumor of a Canon announcement, top on the list of guesses was "EOS-M + EVF"
---------- Post added 12-22-16 at 08:45 PM ----------
Originally posted by monochrome That K-01 was 'not successful' has become accepted wisdom, whether it is true or not. Pentax sold 150,000 K-01's including Smurfs in Japan, and who knows how many related K-30/K-50 (essentially the same camera).
I bought a K-01 pre-order instead of a K-30 because I liked the design and I've managed to use it in all conditions. The main fault I find is the 1st-Gen CDAF, which requires a sharp contrast edge to lock focus.
I often wonder how many nay-sayers have an informed opinion
If you include me in the ranks of "nay-sayers", I will say I was informed. I had owned my Q-7 for five months when my Canon Rebel died. I loved the Q-7
except for its lack of an EVF (*), and that evaluation is why I decided to get the K-30.
(*) Using the Q-7 in sunlight was just as difficult as I expected it to be. I now own several Hoodmans, but I didn't view that as a genuine solution. I tolerate that situation with my secondary camera, but I was not willing to work around it on my primary camera.