Pentax K-01

Here Here.

Ergonomics very important, for me anway.

I will reserve judgement until I have held one but from what I have seen thus far it doesnt look promising... ho hum, I'm waiting for my K20D.

Maybe the aim was to produce a video focused K-5 as opposed to a m4/3s competitor and truth be told that is what I wanted, a GX1 sized K-mount APS-C Pentax, shame Pentax didn't ask me what I wanted . If I didn't have a K-5 and the K-01 was a couple hundred pounds cheaper I could definitely see the appeal assuming you can get on with the ergonomics and the eccentric looks.

I wanted a camera to take mountain biking and hiking which means it has to be small fast to AF and weather sealed or at least fairly tough. Not sure it meets the requirements really. For a similar amount I could get an EP-3 with the 14mm from Panasonic which is much smaller, well built and very fast to AF.

Then again I already have the 21mm which I like quite a lot and I guess it would still be a bit smaller and a bit lighter paired with the K01 than with the K-5 and the straight lines could mean it is easier to store.

I will decide when the OM-D comes out I think but I was not blown away.

I just meant that for me the lens roadmap is far more interesting than the camera, particularly as the lens roadmap has been missing for a long while

After the initial shock of it, I am beginning to warm to it. Forget the 40mm XS, it just looks ugly with it. with a proper prime it has a purposeful look to it. You could even say techno-industrial design.
Just looks wrong in Yellow, that makes it look like it has just come off the set of Space 1999 or UFO, or other such 60's/70's sci-fi show.
The white? No thanks. The Black? Yes and I have seen a silver one (or was it white under-exposed) But if there is a silver one, that is the best looker.

Would I have one? Well, I already have a K-5 so, probably not as it is barely smaller than the K-5. But...... If it was the right price, and I could get used to using just a screen, then possibly, as for Theatre work it might be a good backup, and might be better for landscape work.

In the meantime, the bonus (when I get it) will probably go on more pressing kit, such as a fast standard zoom to replace my 16-45 and a decent high performing pocketable compact (toss up between the Fuji X10, Pano LX-5, Olympus XZ-1 or - if I can get my mind over the sensor size - the Q)

people keep calling the odd looks of the k-01 and 40mm focal length into question..
Pentax currently has three 31-35 mm lenses in its line up.. including a compact, lightweight 35 2.4 da, 31 1.8 ltd, 35 2.8 macro... plus 21 and 40-43 mm on top of the new 40mm.... so I'm at a loss why people think the 40mm was a mistake? the odd looks and new lens will get pentax two things it is lacking.... Media attention for the brand... and ridiculous high scores in lab test shoot outs compared to other mirrorless cameras..

as for me..my k-01 is gonna have my 501.4 m attached to it on a fairly permanent basis, with a rode video mic, led litepanel, hoodman loupe all attached with a bracket 80-90 % of the time..

that 40 is going on my kr...

"and ridiculous high scores in lab test shoot outs compared to other mirrorless cameras"

I have to agree Don.

One small point that may be worth considering. Most of Joe public walking into a shop to buy a camera do not look at accurate reviews of camera equipment. Most won't even understand what with a mirror and without a mirror means nor even understand what the mirror does.

Forum discussions can make valid points based on a better understanding of the equipment.

The salesman at the point of sale has more influence with Joe public than some technical jargon in a magazine.

If performance results made a difference, everyone who shoots APS-C would or should be shooting with a K5. But they are not.

For the enthusiast, a new model in their brand of choice is a like it or lump it situation.

Time will tell as it did with the Q and 645D if we see this camera in everyday use by the people who buy the most cameras i.e. Joe public and not we who maybe take photography a step further.

Best regards

reports on the other forum state future slim lenses to be released later will be K01 only

The fact that Pentax already has 5 primes covering 31 to 43mm doesn't make the new XS lens make any more sense to me!

the other lenses aren't getting media coverage for being "The smallest/thinest" or any other "est" ever made... and where else you gonna find a kit lens capable of competing with the optics of the 40 pancake?

It was definitely a marketing trick so you can get the smallest lens on the header and maybe detract a bit from the fact that the camera itself is twice as big as plenty m4/3.

Could you not get the 20mm 1.7 as a kit? Cause the quality of that lens is pretty great too given the size and the aperture.

BTW if XS lenses are only for the K0whatever series then Pentax lost the advantage of having a single lens line for all its cameras and that is a shame cause if I need to start buying XS lenses cause they are small and light and I cannot use them on the K-5 then the K-01 is out. Might as well hedge my bets with some cash thrown on a decent m4/3s body.

It would be very possible to design lenses that protuded further into the camera as there is no mirror to get in the way. This could mean more compact lenses, but taken too far there would be Leica's problem of oblique light rays striking the sensor. Of course, with new designs of sensor that may not be a problem in the future.

Oh my that is one very ugly object ... it does indeed, as someone else said, look like it's been made from duplo lego ....... by a four year old.

Add an EVF and it would tempt me. Without... not so much.

Also I can't fathom why they couldn't have given it a larger (and hence more comfortable and secure) grip. Given how far the lens mount protrudes a considerably larger grip would not make the camera bulkier in any way that could possibly inconvenience anybody.

I don't get why people think it's ugly, though. It is really quite a nice looking camera. It's just different.

I might just start saving up for the next model up featuring a decent EVF... if it never transpires I'm sure I'll find something else to spend the money on.

link and two rubber bands...

Just took a look at the specs and seeing it only offers Exposure Compensation up to +/-2 is a bit off-putting. I very frequently use more than this and forcing you to switch to full manual mode every time you need more is just a downright unnecessary inconvenience.

I mean, having the same sensor as the K-5, this is presumably a camera that will have exceptional low light performance, right? Well if you shoot in very low light as much as I do more than +/-2 is simply a necessity to prevent the camera from overcompensating and trying to turn night into day all the time (and overexposing any small, bright light sources in the process - a city at night time is full of these!). Why make a camera with great low light performance and then subtract one of the features you need to make proper use of it?

The only reason I can think of to reduce the range of exposure compensation available is to stop idiots from setting it on some ridiculous value by accident and then wondering why all their shots are horribly under/over exposed... which I would have thought to be an extremely minor consideration.

Maybe it says something about the intended target market for this camera... people who think they need supreme image quality but don't have the chops to make use of it?

Still, don't get me wrong. I think this camera will do well. Now I'm holding out for a version with an EVF *AND* +/-5 Exposure Comp.

A second e-dial would be nice too. Funnily enough I have the 'spare' one on the K-5 permanently set up to adjust exposure comp when in Av or Tv modes. (Who'd have guessed?)