K-01 - Black Version?

A digital MX would mean a smaller, leaner design. As we know the market's all about compact proportions at the moment! There is also a trend for 'classic looking design' - not just in cameras, look at the Fiat 500. In camera terms, it's also about reducing the complexity of the controls - the MX just has aperture, ISO and shutter speed controls. Sure a digital camera would need more controls, but you simplify the interface by giving prominence to the main three. Old fashioned? Some things are so beautifully designed they never look old fashioned.

Pentax already moved slightly back towards 'classic looking' camera design with the K7/K5 - one of the designer's stated aims was to create a camera that was as small as possible and looked good with Ltd lenses. The new angular prism hump was an example of the changes they made, and the more boxy angular camera shape.

I'm all for this trend. A "Super D" would suit me down to the ground.

G

Black & silver for me as I'm sick of ugly all black cameras. The black & silver reminds me of my old Spotmatics; classy.

Look at Olympus, they're going back to basics, an OM shape digital.

Where the Olympus fails is that it isn't what it pretends to be. The Pentax succeeds because we can still use our K mount lenses.

I don't think it's enough for something to look the part, it has to be the part.

You have a point John, but a Pentax digital in the shape of MX will be most wecome by all here,Its one of the most élégant design for a SLR

Regards
Oso

I have to agree with Oso.
Being a confirmed and fully paid up member of the Dinosaur club I still hanker after the tactile feel of the spotmatics, the LX , the Nikon Fm.
Just holding a spotty and operating the wind on lever always gives me a huge feel good factor.

What it "pretends" to be is a small, stabilised, weather-sealed body with two-dial ergonomics, IBIS, and optional grip... everything the K-01 isn't. The fact it's styled to look like an actual camera and not some sort of industrial accident is hardly detrimental. I'll assume from your dismissive comment that you don't realise the hump houses an EVF in exactly the right position, in line with the lens. It is a perfect example of form follows function.

If this had a label saying "Pentax" you'd be all over it.

You may well be right that the OM-D is the more functional camera (though might the larger size of the K-01 result in better handling?), but to my eye it's an ugly retro (little) beast. Aesthetically at least, the K-01 is refreshingly different from anything else out there. The more I see it the more I like it. Clearly beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

What the OM-D pretends to be is an OM camera in digital form and the advertising is pitched to appeal to that retro desire.

I am indeed aware that there is an EVF, but unfortunately I'm not a big fan of the EVF. Where they are offered I end up using the back screen anyway, even on the Sony SLT models.

As for names, I make no apology whatsoever for rather liking Pentax design ethos. In fact, I am poised at the point where the Q is becoming QI. Quite Irresistable. I can't hold out much longer....

At the end of the day, the manufacturer will have to base his product on the response of the majority and not the minority. If it sells, he has a winner, if not, its back to the drawing board.

In many cases nothing beats the view finder for a good composition, personally I will make a bee line for a MX look alike digital, I agree, beauty is to the eye of the beholder.

Leica has kept its M3 shape for the last half century and its still selling, in spite of its elevated pricing, they can hardly keep up with the demand. Before you all come out with your smoking guns, I apologise for mentioning the name of Leica in this forum.

Regards
Oso

Leica have found it difficult to design a digital camera, basically because the back focus is so short. This means lenses are very far from the ideal telecentric design that sensors have so far required. Colour problems have also required special filters, not an elegant solution.

The problem isn't present in the K-01 as there is plenty of room and lenses are easier to design. So K-01 quality should happily exceed Leica digital quality. How noticeable this is when translated into practice I haven't so far been able to compare.

Leica must miss Minolta