[nosnoop]

I think the Canon EOS-M is a stupid idea, just as the XL1s proved to be. While the K-01 is the smart and forward-thinking one.

EOS-M may be a stupid idea to you, but Canon will sell tons of it.

K-01 may be a smart idea to you, but the bottom line is that customers are not buying it. I am not sure if Pentax would continue to pursue the K-01 type camera any more as it has been such a sales failure.

[cali92rs]

Holy crap, what a bunch of clueless people here today.

You realize that this is the "Non-Pentax Camera Forum"...
There is a rumor out there that all alot of photographers actually shoot Canon lenses. Why would someone shoot Canon lenses with a K-01?

[junyo]

Keep digging, your getting deeper. BTW do you live in a group home or what ?

I see that you've stopped even attempting to respond logically and are now just flinging insults, which demonstrates the level of logic your argument contains.

Again, you're seriously arguing that Pentax is better because they have an adapter that creates compatibility with medium format lenses, while complaining about how Canon provides compatibility through an adapter? If you can't see how illogical that is, I can't really help you. The fact that you've had the adapter for a long time is immaterial to the vast majority of people on this earth who are not you, since to get that capability, they'd have to buy an adapter. It's not just a non-point, it hunts down and kills other, actually valid points. It's the polar opposite of a valid, logical argument.

[jogiba]

If the k-01 and canon m were the only options on the market I'd buy the canon + 22/2, even though I have nice k mount lenses. However I don't think either stand a chance against m43 longer term.

I agree, m4/3rds is lightyears ahead in mirrorless systems today.

[junyo]

You realize that this is the "Non-Pentax Camera Forum"...
There is a rumor out there that all alot of photographers actually shoot Canon lenses. Why would someone shoot Canon lenses with a K-01?

No one actually shoots with Canon lenses. They buy sh-tons of Canon bodies, and then adapt medium format Pentax lenses to those bodies, thus making the K-01 the only logical camera choice.


Once you buy the adapter.

[wlachan]

Show me the slightest evidence that the vast majority of the buying public give 2 sh!ts about mounting a medium format lens on a mirrorless camera. It's like saying 'Don't you understand that this is the best sound system ever installed in a canoe?' Other than two guys in the Pacific Northwest, NO ONE CARES.

Afraid so. I think the K-01 might make more sense for KAF lens owners due to the lack of choice IF Pentax discontinued all DSLRs, but this is not happening. From what I can see, Pentax didn't have the ball to produce yet another system but they knew they need mirrorless ASAP, so they created the K-01 and hoped for the best. What Pentax should do (speaking as a consumer) was not to waste R&D on the Q & K-01 to begin with. However, they have been so detached from the market trend and kept coming up with crap ideas time & again, from my consumer POV anyway. Maybe they were doing well in some part of the World and making some serious profit, who knows?

[junyo]

Are you getting your cookies talking about the 67 lens on the K-01 ? Are you that stupid that you think "the vast majority of people on this earth" even know what a MF camera is ? I posted The K-01 is still the only mirrorless that uses the full line of 25 million K-mount lenses from the mid 70's. Canon DSLRs can't even use their FD mount lenses from the mid 80's without an adapter.
How many lenses are there for the EOS M that work without a $200 adapter ? How many have IS ? BTW even my fast Pentax 67 lenses have AF and IS when I use the Pentax 1.7x TC/AF adapter.

So now you have a hard on over the 67 lens comment. Keep it up this is fun.

And I've already refuted your core premise twice in this thread, in posts #8 and 23. All MILC systems work with all those Pentax lenses, minus AF. If you qualified your statement to something like; 'The K-01 is still the only mirrorless that is fully functional with full line of 25 million K-mount lenses from the mid 70's.' that would be closer to correct (but doesn't really fully factor in that a lot of MF lens work better on other hosts than on the modern crippled k mount of the K-01). But you persist in making a fairly obvious factual mistake, that I've pointed out a couple of times.

[anthony mazzeri]

I swear I'm gonna write a script that auto-replies to every new post with "But what about FF?" just to get it out of the freaking way.

Except that I made no such request or wish for full frame so you're making a strawman post.

[junyo]

Except that I made no such request or wish for full frame so you're making a strawman post.

I would have had to address your comment and misrepresent your position for it to even vaguely be a strawman argument. In fact, I didn't reply to you, or quote you, or address you. Even if I had, I didn't state a desire for/against/indifferent to FF. So the particulars of your post are irrelevant to what I wrote, and you are in fact misrepresenting what I said. If you have a complaint, you might want to take it up with the person that quoted you. My comment was a response to Laurentiu Cristofor's (i.e. the post I actually quoted) and addressed the general forum tendency to eventually have a discussion of FF injected into it. Which indisputably did in fact occur. If you want to accuse someone of a logic fallacy you might want to bone up on how to correctly identify them.

[ihasa]

Let's get the numbers right.

Canon DSLRs can use 70 million EF lenses. If you add all FD lenses to all Pentax lenses, you still don't get as many lenses as Canon DSLRs (and the EOS M) can use.

And all EF lenses are autofocus lenses. 70 million autofocus lenses!

And all EF lenses meter on all Canon DSLRs - no crippled mounts on those DSLRs (all 50 million of them). 70 million autofocus lenses that meter on all 50 million Canon DSLRs!

Sorry, but no one else can match these numbers. Pentax doesn't even come close. Nikon includes all their incompatible manual focus lenses in their count and still comes up short at 65 million - see linked articles.

Yes but there are a lot less people chasing after those 25 million Pentax lenses - lol.

I like the fact you can use quirky old MF glass quite easily on a Pentax, without adapters. However it is an irritant when you are FORCED to do so, for the lack of modern glass :angry:

[anthony mazzeri]

I would have had to address your comment and misrepresent your position for it to even vaguely be a strawman argument. In fact, I didn't reply to you, or quote you, or address you. Even if I had, I didn't state a desire for/against/indifferent to FF. So the particulars of your post are irrelevant to what I wrote, and you are in fact misrepresenting what I said. If you have a complaint, you might want to take it up with the person that quoted you. My comment was a response to Laurentiu Cristofor's (i.e. the post I actually quoted) and addressed the general forum tendency to eventually have a discussion of FF injected into it. Which indisputably did in fact occur. If you want to accuse someone of a logic fallacy you might want to bone up on how to correctly identify them.

It's quite acceptable to claim without the benefit of multiple quote levels on this forum that you weren't responding to or misrepresenting anything I wrote.

But sequenced quotes are actually possible, and they say otherwise:

Unlike the Pentax K mirrorless which is the only one which can go full frame tomorrow, the NEX, NX, EOS-M, Nikon 1 and m4/3 are all trapped and limited by their sensor size already being at the maximum they will ever be able to fit within their new mount's image circle so they will be overtaken eventually just like the compacts are now.

Looks like we hit the singularity after only two pages.

I swear I'm gonna write a script that auto-replies to every new post with "But what about FF?" just to get it out of the freaking way.

Except that I made no such request or wish for full frame so you're making a strawman post.

I would have had to address your comment and misrepresent your position for it to even vaguely be a strawman argument. In fact, I didn't reply to you, or quote you, or address you. Even if I had, I didn't state a desire for/against/indifferent to FF. So the particulars of your post are irrelevant to what I wrote, and you are in fact misrepresenting what I said. If you have a complaint, you might want to take it up with the person that quoted you. My comment was a response to Laurentiu Cristofor's (i.e. the post I actually quoted) and addressed the general forum tendency to eventually have a discussion of FF injected into it. Which indisputably did in fact occur. If you want to accuse someone of a logic fallacy you might want to bone up on how to correctly identify them.

[junyo]

It's quite acceptable to claim without the benefit of multiple quote levels on this forum that you weren't responding to or misrepresenting anything I wrote.

But sequenced quotes are actually possible, and they say otherwise:

And assembling BBcode to fuel paranoid fantasies is possible, but that's not what actually happened:

I could have nested quotes, or quoted you directly, yet the extant facts show that I did not. So please show me in my post, and not something you made up, where I said anything that you said, quoted you, or referenced you directly in any way.

If you want to insist on taking offense, knock yourself out. But I won't stand for accusations of things I didn't do.

[RyanW]

Maybe the Pentax K-01 was not so crazy, maybe it was the sign of the future that will be copied?
Well it turns out that is just the case, as Canon reportely will launch a K-01 competitor next week.
Here's the article DailyTech - Quick Note: First Picture of Canon's Mirrorless Camera Hit the Web

I think currently Pentax is in the best position to capitalize on the mirrorless APS-C sized market.

They have the nicest small lenses already built and available. Canon and Nikon if they get into the fray have huge lenses by comparison. But, Canon has shown with the 40mm pancake that they can bring it if they want to.

If Pentax can solve the AF issues (solved meaning have the K-01 successor AF as fast as the Pentax DSLR's or very nearly so) and add a viewfinder I will get one in a heartbeat.

Right now I'm shooting a Nikon V1 because of small lenses and fast AF. I just wish there were some faster primes.

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

For around $60 you can have a virtual EVF with diopter adjustment that is better than any actual EVF, and doubles as a screen shade, and triples as a screen protector:
Amazon.com: Flashpoint LCD Foldaway Viewfinder 3X magnification: Camera & Photo
Optical quality is very good, and it gives the K-01 a bit of inadvertent thumb brace that is otherwise missing. Also, in low light settings where the screen brightness can be distracting, you pretty well eliminate all distractions.

Pentax could re-badge and sell at 3x to match the loupe magnification.

[wjjstu]

The K-01 is still the only mirrorless that uses the full line of 25 million K-mount lenses from the mid 70's. Canon DSLRs can't even use their FD mount lenses from the mid 80's without an adapter.
How many lenses are there for the EOS M that work without a $200 adapter ? How many have IS ? BTW even my fast Pentax 67 lenses have AF and IS when I use the Pentax 1.7x TC/AF adapter.

As someone born at a date later than the mid-70s it means nothing to me and probably very little to anyone under 50. I had no Pentax lenses of any kind when I bought my first camera a decade ago and I'd imagine most people buying their first camera today would be in the same position and starting from a blank slate. Catering to K-mount legacy lenses is literally catering to a dying market.

The K-01 was a mistake from the get-go. Many of the cons of SLR body but without several of the major pros of going without a mirror. It was a dumb as bricks move.

If you look at sales, the market seems to be agreeing.