[ElJamoquio]

Four different mounts seems to be too many. But we'll see. Maybe they'll phase out K.

[easyreeder]

Everyone hated the k1, but I still have fun with mine. It's a little bigger than other mirrorless cameras, but it does have shake reduction, and you can snap on any K mount lens, no adapter no nothing. I feel like you guys were a little hard on it, haha. At its current price point, it's a steal.

I'm having a great time with my k3, totally agree that it's a phenom for a APS-C, and am completely with you all on building the ff lens lineup, but there are plenty of FA lenses around. Check em. I have the 28, the 35 and the 50 1.4. They work perfectly on the K3; maybe a few brand new lenses too, but Pentax could just update a few of those FAs to fill things out.

[ElJamoquio]

At its current price point, it's a steal.

Looks like it's $400-$550 on Amazon new. The Pentax k-5 is $650 and K-5 IIs is $717.

I wouldn't trade the viewfinder, ergonomics, and A/F for $250.

[Kunzite]

That would take several years. You know very well Pentax doesn't have that luxury.

Secondly, that has about as much logic as demanding that APS-C lenses, and 645 lenses fit on the Q to support the off chance that a user might want to upgrade the format later on. Users aren't missing it there either. You said it right: we're talking about different systems here. There's no shame in them having different mounts.

No, I don't "know" that.

K-mount APS-C users were buying "full frame" lenses since the *istD; Canon and Nikon APS-C users, likewise. Some Canon and Nikon APS-C users are going "full frame", and it's IMHO easier to keep them by offering an upgrade path, than to convince them to jump ship from another brand or system.
I am talking about the same mount: K-mount "full frame" lenses shared with K-mount APS-C users, or new-mount "full frame" lenses shared with new-mount APS-C users.

---

Last edited by Kunzite; 06-04-2014 at 07:38 AM.

[Winder]

Everyone hated the k1, but I still have fun with mine. It's a little bigger than other mirrorless cameras, but it does have shake reduction, and you can snap on any K mount lens, no adapter no nothing. I feel like you guys were a little hard on it, haha. At its current price point, it's a steal.

I thought they were selling for $200 at one point? The K-1 was an awful design around a great sensor and image processor. It was the worst of MILC and DSLRs all rolled into one. If Pentax is going to produce a mirrorless body they need a new mount and a clean slate. I would love for Pentax to announce a FF mirrorless with a new mount.

[normhead]

I thought they were selling for $200 at one point? The K-1 was an awful design around a great sensor and image processor. It was the worst of MILC and DSLRs all rolled into one. If Pentax is going to produce a mirrorless body they need a new mount and a clean slate. I would love for Pentax to announce a FF mirrorless with a new mount.

And I'd love a mirrorless that will use my 35 2.4, Sigma 70 macro, Tamron 90, and FA 50. Why would I want a mirrorless that uses all new glass, when I have so much FF glass already.

Is there a K-01 in this picture? Given that it's the worst of MILC and DSLR I wonder what it's doing there, instead ofa K-5, which is home on the shelf. With a 21 ltd on it, it isn't the "worst of " anything.

[Rondec]

I thought they were selling for $200 at one point? The K-1 was an awful design around a great sensor and image processor. It was the worst of MILC and DSLRs all rolled into one. If Pentax is going to produce a mirrorless body they need a new mount and a clean slate. I would love for Pentax to announce a FF mirrorless with a new mount.

It really wasn't that bad, particularly not as a first start. If they had put PDAF on the sensor in a second gen camera, as seems to be the norm now, they would have had auto focus performance that was equivalent to K5/K30, which would have been fine. Only issue was not having an optional EVF.

(K-01 with FA 77 photo).

---

Last edited by Rondec; 06-04-2014 at 10:21 AM.

[Na Horuk]

At this point, the FF question is just a "why not"? FF is no longer even a premium product. So many brands offer it, even multiple models with it, from lower end to pro tier, even fixed lens "compacts". Pentax used to make many FF lenses and even many of the current lineup cover the FF image circle (and the camera could allow crop mode for those that dont). Its not really about practicality, its not really a market gamble, its not really about the cost of the sensor, its not about the lens lineup.. so what is it? The only problem is the FF market is getting saturated, and fast, so Pentax better hurry!

Edit: Oh, and the K-01 certainly has some flaws, but its still a great camera. Fixing those flaws would be easy, I hope Pentax goes for it. I would like an improved mirrorless K-mount

[jsherman999]

At this point, the FF question is just a "why not"? FF is no longer even a premium product.

You're right, it really isn't. Even if this (sony-rumored-$1000-full-frame-camera) isn't true (just yet,) it will probably be soon.

[Winder]

It really wasn't that bad, particularly not as a first start. If they had put PDAF on the sensor in a second gen camera, as seems to be the norm now, they would have had auto focus performance that was equivalent to K5/K30, which would have been fine. Only issue was not having an optional EVF.

No doubt its capable of great images. It has a great sensor. BUT the ergonomics are awful in my opinion. I wouldn't recommend a starter camera that didn't have the EVF/OVF and had bad ergonomics.

You Tube

You Tube

If it had better AF it would have been better. If it had better ergonomics it would have been better. If it had an EVF it would have been better. It could have been better in many ways.

[monochrome]

If it had better AF it would have been better. If it had better ergonomics it would have been better. If it had an EVF it would have been better. It could have been better in many ways.

1. AF has been much improved by Firmware updates
2. I actually like the ergonomics. The shape and mass of the camera fit my hands well and I shoot it like it is a film camera - not at arms' length
   An eye-level EVF might have been nice, but so what? The K-01 isn't my primary camera. I use it for small Limiteds, manual focus lenses and casual shooting. It is perfect for high-IQ captures in those circumstances. If I know there is high, bright sunlight I just use the K3 instead, which has its own character, and its own set of advantages and disadvantages compared to the K-01. We shouldn't expect the K-01 to be what it isn't.
3. I paid full List Price on pre-order in late March, 2012 for mine, which negate the whole 'value at deal prices' argument.

The real issue with the K-01 is not what it is not - the issue is, the K-01 is not what so many reviewers and potential buyers expected it to be - and how it compared to the other mirrorless cameras released in the 1st half or 2012. Those other cameras, and the reviews of those other cameras, materially influenced expectations is such a way that many detractors cannot get beyond their initial judgement, even today.

[Rondec]

No doubt its capable of great images. It has a great sensor. BUT the ergonomics are awful in my opinion. I wouldn't recommend a starter camera that didn't have the EVF/OVF and had bad ergonomics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IgQmVlydlk&feature=kp

If it had better AF it would have been better. If it had better ergonomics it would have been better. If it had an EVF it would have been better. It could have been better in many ways.

Have you used it, or is it based on other's reviews? I don't struggle with ergonomics on it. Shooting at arms length isn't always easy, but that is true for any camera where you use the rear LCD to frame. I would struggle more using a K3 or K5 in such a fashion. At the same time it does slip into small spaces when combined with a DA limited or FA limited prime.

[easyreeder]

I don't struggle with ergonomics on it.

I'm with Rondec. Most mirrorless cameras are even harder to handle. These domino size cameras are not ergonomically correct, and the K1 had more in the way of on body operation. I mean, kinda chunky I suppose.

[Winder]

We shouldn't expect the K-01 to be what it sin't.

No, we shouldn't. What exactly does the K-01 do better than the other K-mount cameras? It doesn't have better IQ. It doesn't have better AF. It doesn't have more flexibility. It doesn't have better battery life than the other K-mounts of its generation. Its not really any smaller because it has the wasted space of the mirror box. It doesn't have a better viewfinder or LCD. It doesn't have better build quality. The only thing that I can think of is that the K-01 did better than the K-5 was HD video.

---------- Post added 06-04-14 at 03:28 PM ----------

Have you used it, or is it based on other's reviews? I don't struggle with ergonomics on it. Shooting at arms length isn't always easy, but that is true for any camera where you use the rear LCD to frame. I would struggle more using a K3 or K5 in such a fashion. At the same time it does slip into small spaces when combined with a DA limited or FA limited prime.

Only with the 40mm pancake lens, which is so small you have nothing to cradle in you hand. I really didn't care of the ergonomics at all. I have not tried it since any firmware came out, but AF seemed painfully slow at the time.

[monochrome]

The only thing that I can think of is that the K-01 did better than the K-5 was HD video.

It was the first Pentax camera to use the Prime-M imaging engine, the first to use the new 2-axis SR magnet engineering and IIRC Focus Peaking was introduced on the K-01. And it cost less.

It should not be compared to a K-5, rather to a K-30. The K-30 was in fact a K-01 with the added inconveniences of a mirror, a viewfinder, a grip, and more mass.