Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-26-2012, 08:15 PM   #76
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 418
QuoteOriginally posted by selar Quote
It means its a device that satisfies a need that doesn't exist (anymore).
I think a better answer is it's legacy because it supports old technology, but not new. It's a kludge that makes a body that checks off the box for 'mirrorless' while delivering few of it's advantages.
QuoteOriginally posted by allknowingeye Quote
I'm confused what is the need that doesn't exist anymore? What I need is a camera that mount all my Pentax lens, takes high quality video with manual control and external audio input. That's doesn't seem like a legacyt need to me.
As Canon demonstrates, it would have been possible to completely support Pentax lenses in a smaller format, which gains non-current Pentax users the huge advantage of being able to adapt any existing glass, and thus makes the system more marketable.

07-26-2012, 09:31 PM   #77
Veteran Member
selar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,042
QuoteOriginally posted by junyo Quote
I think a better answer is it's legacy because it supports old technology, but not new.
Actually, I think a better answer is that its legacy, because its going to end up here soon, if not already: Museum of failed inventions opens | Orange UK
07-27-2012, 09:30 PM   #78
Banned




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,055
QuoteOriginally posted by allknowingeye Quote
I'm confused what is the need that doesn't exist anymore? What I need is a camera that mount all my Pentax lens, takes high quality video with manual control and external audio input. That's doesn't seem like a legacyt need to me.
That is because you are a legacy customer!

It is legacy because it supports a legacy mount. And because no company would design a camera that looked like that if legacy concerns were absent.


QuoteOriginally posted by selar Quote
Actually, I think a better answer is that its legacy, because its going to end up here soon, if not already: Museum of failed inventions opens | Orange UK
And that would be a notable achievement, but unfortunately, there is no invention at work in the K-01.
08-03-2012, 11:15 PM   #79
Veteran Member
sunny16's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Maryland, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 309
QuoteOriginally posted by junyo Quote
I think a better answer is it's legacy because it supports old technology, but not new. It's a kludge that makes a body that checks off the box for 'mirrorless' while delivering few of it's advantages.
As Canon demonstrates, it would have been possible to completely support Pentax lenses in a smaller format, which gains non-current Pentax users the huge advantage of being able to adapt any existing glass, and thus makes the system more marketable.
It is fine if size is your number one concern, but is size the only thing that should matter to every person?

Even though I don't personally mind the look of the K-01, I will concede that going for a 1980's retro look vs the classic retro look of the Fuji & Olympus was probably not the most mass-appeal based decision they could have made. It certainly got them attention, but very well might have limited appeal. But the look can be changed if that's what Pentax wants to do. What can't be changed (at least any time soon, if ever) and what hurts marketability more than size, is that I could go into a Best Buy here in the USA and buy a Nikon 1 tomorrow if I wanted to and I am sure it will be the same for the new Canon. Personally I don't do my camera shopping in Best Buy, Target, and so on but those are the places the average person is going to look. That same average person isn't even going to know about Pentax, even if they had the better product. Pentax will never have a chance to get close to the same sales numbers as long as that is the case and in my opinion, that plays a bigger role in why the K-01 is a "Pentaxian" camera more than its looks and size.

All things equal, If size is the number one factor for a buyer, they would pick something other than the K-01 any day. If image quality and auto focus accuracy are important, I would put the K-01 up against anything APS-C or smaller out there (including my K-5)

08-04-2012, 08:32 AM   #80
Veteran Member
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
I think its pointless to talk about the word legacy as if its a bad thing; one needs also to discuss why the legacy design is lacking in some respect.

The world is full of legacy designs that still work quite fine and reliably. Writing paper is a legacy design and requires no batteries. Graphite pencils are legacy design and more of them are sold than any other writing instrument. The claw hammer is a legacy design and still works quite well, etc.

So what is it about the K-mount that makes it unsuitable for MILC? On a K5, those lenses, with SMC still take fine pictures. I think the 3 negatives are (and i'm guessing pretty much):

Cons for K-mount in MILC
a. They aren't physically compact, and thats what MILC is sort of about.

b. They aren't as suitable for video, e.g. not as silent if screw driven,

c. Don't AF as quickly as some more modern designs (i'm thinking some of the m4/3 which are reported to AF quickly)
However, photozone.de says this about Fuji's compact lenses for the xpro1:

QuoteQuote:
The AF speed is Okay but, frankly, light-years behind modern SLR or Micro-Four-Thirds lenses. AF object tracking isn't really possible - that's at least based on the X-Pro1. The AF accuracy is very good though. Noise-wise AF operations are noticeable albeit not really disturbing. Manual focusing works "by wire" thus by triggering the AF motor
Pro for legacy K-mount in MILC
a. There is a lot of them out there, and with contrast peaking - can be manual focused quite easily

b. There is seemingly less barrel distortion in the older lens designs, e.g. the new Fuji XPro1 18mm lens has 4.8% barrel distortion and auto corrects it in the camera and in the RAW converter. The Pentax DA 21mm lens has about 2% and that used to be considered a high amount.

c. There is seemingly a lot more field curvature in the modern compact lenses for MILC than the legacy lenses. One would expect the field curvature for a macro lens to be pretty flat. The DA 35mm f2.8 shows a much flatter focus field than the XPro1 60mm macro (the only one they have at this point). (this according to information at photozone.de)

d. Modern compact lens designs from Sony and Fuji, i assume m4/3 are similar, are manual focus by wire, i.e. manual adjustments are sent down a wire to the focus motor. Experienced photographers say that the focusing feel of the legacy designs is superior to the focus by wire designs. (i think its a trade-off in compact and flexibility in design, however. Legacy designs may have a better feel, but focus by wire allows more compact and possibly quieter designs-i think)

Conclusion:
I suspect that Image Quality in the modern compact lens systems is not going to be as good as the legacy lenses as discussed above. With the modern ability to correct barrel distortion via firmware - that issue doesn't matter much to me. However, the resolution in the corners and borders is not as good as the legacy lenses are capable of, and that cannot be restored via firmware. If all one is going to use their images for is to show on facebook or on the WEB, then that loss of resolution hardly matters. The appeal of the Sony Nex adapters, which are widely available, is that one can use legacy lenses on the Nex cameras if one really wants a flat field curvature for top of the line IQ.

I've arrived at a conclusion that the use of legacy lenses in the K01 is not just a convenience to Pentax, but an advantage to the customer in optical quality, at the expense of size. (except for the xs lenses). The K01 is truly in a niche of its own, IMO.
08-04-2012, 07:39 PM   #81
Banned




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,055
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
So what is it about the K-mount that makes it unsuitable for MILC?
Just one thing: mount flange focal distance.

Software correction and focusing by-wire have nothing to do with this - they are just implementation choices and they are found in any type of cameras, including DSLRs.
08-05-2012, 12:11 AM   #82
Veteran Member
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
Just one thing: mount flange focal distance.

Software correction and focusing by-wire have nothing to do with this - they are just implementation choices and they are found in any type of cameras, including DSLRs.
The question i was essentially asking was: How do these modern short registration distance lenses for the MILC aps cameras stack up? If legacy lenses are bad, then it follows that modern compact lens systems should be good, right?

I didn't do any comprehensive lens check but kept bumping into this characteristic of OEM lenses for compact aps cameras:

photozone.de review of the Sony E30mm f3.5:

QuoteQuote:
Macro lenses tend to be very good performers straight from the max. aperture but the Sony lens breaks this rule. The center quality is, undoubtedly, excellent if not outstanding but the border and corner quality falls totally apart especially at large aperture settings. Stopping down to f/5.6 boost the borders into good territory whereas the corners remain soft.
A Amazon reviewer of the Fuji xpro1 18/2 lens (Nathan Jedinak) said essentially the same thing about this Fuji lens:

QuoteQuote:
Tack sharp in a wide central sweet spot wide open, excellent macro and microcontrast, fantastic color reproduction, small and light, with a wonderful manner of drawing... Every bit as good as some of the Leicas I own. What's the negative? Reviews are right about one thing--the corners are never as superlative as the center. The lens is clearly optimized for shooting people, not landscape. I imagine the forthcoming 14mm will suffice for the latter, and have edge to edge sharpness and a perfectly flat field

Flatness of field, really, is the bugaboo of this lens. If you use center point AF and shoot wide open using a focus-and-recompose technique, I guarantee you will be disappointed. The XF 18/2 exhibits fairly pronounced field curvature, so much so that your subject will now be well out of focus. It's critical when shooting the 18 wide open to choose the focus point manually or use the "multi AF" mode which chooses the focus point for you.
It seems odd to me that both Fuji and Sony are choosing to build"portrait" lenses for these compact cameras vice "landscape" lenses - to use the Amazon reviewer's description. And the Fuji lens is $650, a not altogether cheap lens.

08-05-2012, 05:28 PM   #83
Banned




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,055
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
The question i was essentially asking was: How do these modern short registration distance lenses for the MILC aps cameras stack up?
Very well. Leica lens sales are on the rise.
08-06-2012, 10:47 AM   #84
Banned




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Charleston & Pittsburgh
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,668
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
They aren't as suitable for video, e.g. not as silent if screw driven
Agreed, but... Most camera companies figure that using a built in micropone is about the same as using the built in fill flash; wth about the same results in quality.

Those that never use a flash hotshoe (or the external mic option) will never know true photography; and probably should have got a p&s

Last edited by Medium FormatPro; 08-15-2012 at 08:30 AM.
08-15-2012, 06:40 AM   #85
Srg
New Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1
The fact is that most (> 60%) of the owners of interchangeable lens cameras never change their only lens.

Interchangeable lens is a selling point but a rarely used feature. EVF, OVF or without, with adapter or not, great lens line up, or just 5 of them, it doesn't really matter for most of the buyers. They want a better camera which takes good photos. A reasonably good default lens, a good sensor, quick and precise AF, smart AE. The smaller is the package, the better. Nikon 1 may be good enough for them. Most of MFT cameras look attractive too. Non-interchangeable lens design could compete successfully. K-01 is not targeting this crowd, Q is. These people buy only once and switch systems easily. It makes sense to sell high margin products to these people or sell really a lot. Again, Q is a good offer.

Then there is a vocal minority of lens-buyers.

Some of them are professionals and are not giving up OVF and better ergonomics. They are not changing systems easily. Few are using K mount. Are they buying K-01? Few are.

Then there are amateurs which own glass. They are a minority, but a minority which spends several times more on photo equipment than an average customer. And as they spend their spare money, many of them cannot afford switching systems quickly. This group is very price sensitive, but they do spend regularly. K-01 targets such loyal customers. I am sure, there is money in this niche. K-01 might not be the most versatile product by itself, but it increased the value of Pentax as an amateur system.

Finally, there are amateurs using other systems. Now, if the K-01 is really good, they may consider buying also K-mount glass. If K-01 had a smaller mount, they would buy their own adapters and use their own glass. Even the good Pentax camera could have sucked the blood out of the Pentax ecosystem. To prevent that Pentax would need to sell at higher margin and somehow make adapters more expensive or impractical, but Pentax is not a red dot brand.

Canon chose to target one-time buyers. It has the muscle to sell enough Canon M. This is a valid strategy for the market leader. It would not work well for Pentax unless it closes DSLR development and bets everything on MILCs. I hope it does not.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-01
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Would I be crazy to go from a K5 to a Canon 5D? crossover37 Pentax DSLR Discussion 54 07-18-2011 11:56 PM
Night Crazy Lightning krp Post Your Photos! 12 06-09-2011 08:36 PM
Am I crazy? Intric8 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 05-22-2011 05:00 PM
Crazy or Cunning? PNTXFTW12 Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 7 09-02-2010 03:39 PM
Call me crazy deltoidjohn Video Recording and Processing 5 08-28-2010 10:51 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:06 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top