|
Forum: Pentax K-01
09-26-2012, 09:37 AM
|
| |
That is seriously unattractive. A stock standard Hasselblad is functionallyelegant, like any other industrial equipment, but that is just plain ugly.Adding bling just confirms it's intended for tasteless gumbahs. They’ll sell alot in Florida.
The K-01, in contrast, is extremely stylish. Every time I take it out (allKA era MF lenses) I am asked about it by total strangers who are surprised thatsuch a modern looking camera is fully compatible with 30 year old lenses; Ricohcould spend a bit on advertising IMHO. I am yet to see a full page glossy inthe kind of magazine that caters to people who care if a camera is designed bya nameless engineer or a design guru. They could at least spend a pittance on adedicated website like the Olympus OM-D.
I put the K-01 up there with my Alessi and Bang & Olufsen products asdesign icons. Similarly, I could get better coffee, juice or audio from lessattractive hardware, but why would I want to?
The K-01 is elegant. It could have more ergonomic surfaces or buttons inmore convenient places, but it wouldn’t look as good. I patiently wait for a coupleof firmware fixes, but if they never come I will survive. Photography with theK-01 is more enjoyable because it is an attractive object.
I don’t own a $650,000 Maserati (like someone I know) but I understand thatjust driving it around town makes the owner feel good. It is arguably not themost practical or efficient motor vehicle ever made, but ultimately that is notthe point. Certain inanimate objects make human beings feel better due to the beautyof their design. Some of these are architecture. I know I get goosebumps justbeing near a LMVDR, FLW or Gehry building (which is probably why I bought allthat overpriced Alessi and B&O stuff) but if it affects my mood in apositive way it is worth it.
I love my K-01 and simply owning it encourages me to take more photographs;how can that be bad. |
|
Forum: Pentax Q
08-16-2011, 12:53 PM
|
| |
If I'm understanding the translations of the bloggers who attended the Q presentation and posted the samples that we've seen so far, the Pentax designers allowed for using a larger sensor and the camera/lens have an adequate image circle size to accommodate one, but opted to introduce the system with the 1/2.3" sensor format because it was, at least at this point , more available, more advanced, and more likely to be further developed. Pentax stated that the Q was a system waiting for a sensor, and the 12 MP 1/2.3" BSI CMOS was the first to acceptably fit into the system.
1/1.7" CCD sensors have been around for quite a while, but were not chosen. The fact that all of the cameras using this sensor use OIS, use larger bodies, and do not offer full 1080 HD video point to the possibility that heat dissipation could be a problem with the Q with one of these sensors. Add SR as another potential heat source around the sensor, and the tightly packed very compact body of the Q, and heat would be even more of a problem. Introducing a new system concept with iffy sensor performance/reliability would have been stupid. There's enough resistance to a compact sensored system (as we've seen in this forum), and iffy sensor reliability would have been a major nail in the coffin for such a project. Introduction with the smaller sensor allows upgrade paths both within the same format, and with a larger sensor format if suitable advanced sensors are offered in the future. That seems to fit better into your model of producing products that will be competitive into the future. . .
The Pentax presentation apparently mentioned that they purposefully did not label any of the Q lenses with a 35mm FL EQ, allowing for the possibility of a future sensor format size upgrade if a viable CMOS or BSI CMOS sensors were to be offered in 1/1.7" or 1/1.63".
I don't know if they sell enough larger format compact cameras to make further sensor development in this format a priority. Remember that Canon "downgraded" the sensor from 14MP to 10 MP to get IQ gains between the G10 and G11. Compare this to the availability of CMOS and BSI CMOS in 1/2.3" format, and it's pretty clear which format shows the greatest potential for future development. Note that there is already a possible sensor upgrade to the 16MP 1/2.3" Sony BSI CMOS sensor. . .
Pentax has to be practical concerning sensor choice since they neither produce their own sensors, nor sell enough units to compel the sensor mfgs to develop and produce new sensors just for them. The larger sensor might seem more desirable on paper, but maybe not in practice, at least at this time or the near future.
Scott
|
