You can easily get vibrant images out of any camera. The trick is usually the opposite: to get good untouched baseline images that stand up to processing later. But unless Pentax really screwed up I doubt that will be a problem either. No-one should be doubting the abilities of the K-5 sensor at this point.

I would only add that RAW is not that hard to get your head around. It adds a step before getting your image into your editor. This is a workflow issue only. Changing settings in your RAW file is no different than changing them in your JPG, except that you have much more latitude. Learn as you go and have fun!

Enjoy the K-5. Good choice. The ergonomics are unsurpassed.

(Good choice on SRS, too. Not that there is much choice!)

But we like buying more lenses!

By the way, each adapter for my Olympus PEN cost me 20 bucks. I am now using MFT, PEN F, Leica, and Pentax lenses on the same (small) camera. Sure they're manual focus -- I prefer it that way. Besides, I get a better LCD and useful focus assist. Easy.

The exposure is spot on (better than any Pentax) and the mount is not crippled (no green button; instead, instant metering). On a newer model I'd also get much better AF on native lenses, a tilt screen, etc. etc. Image quality is indistinguishable in real world shots, though I can pixel peep and see a small difference in favour of my Pentax body.

Pentax had various strategies to pursue.

A small CSC with an optional K-mount adapter would have worked.

Buying into the Micro Four Thirds consortium and issuing compact Pentax lenses for the new mount would have worked.

A depth-oriented body design with integrated K-mount might have worked (though it gives up much).

The yellow brick might work too.

[Over and Out.]

Where have you been.

Every time a new Pentax camera comes out people write endlessly about its size: too big, too small, just right. One of the main advantages of the K-5 is the compact size related to its excellent image quality, something other brands can't deliver.

The only significant reason to buy a CSC is for the "C". Compact.

Now Pentax have not only missed that boat, but they've forsaken their own legacy and competitive advantage. Any true fans of the brand should be up in arms, but instead we see people willing to rationalise anything that says "Pentax" on the tin.

But the general market won't. Even the BJP could scarcely hide their disdain in the mini-article they published.

I've been waiting for the "real" Pentax mirrorless offering after the toy Q. Now it's plain the best option is more MFT gear.

A lens mount will be stressed most when there are larger masses on both sides of the mount, like with a DSLR. With a lighter CSC camera this concern is minimal.

Gordy Camera Strap. Every camera I use has one.

Just to be clear on that point.

1. I do not hate HDR.

2. I think any competitive camera needs an HDR mode in today's market.

3. However, these modes are crippled and essentially wrong-headed. HDR is best achieved on the computer, when all possible parameters can be tweaked at leisure.

4. HDR is not an exposure mode and does not belong on a mode dial. Especially if this means dropping useful and distinctive modes that Pentax is known for!

5. HDR is essentially a combination of drive mode and bracketing and should therefore be grouped with drive mode functions.

There's truth to what you say, John, but you're writing as a DSLR owner.

Consider things from the perspective of the target market for the K-01 and things look a whole lot different. Compare to the iPhone, any other phone, any point'n'shoot, all other mirrorless cameras (without viewfinders), etc. All of a sudden the K-01 is the large heavy beast. All the same criticisms of the D700 you make then apply.

Anyway, we'll see how things shape up in the market. In the meantime the last person who asked me for a camera recommendation just bought a PEN while in NYC. A nice, tiny, full-featured camera with the optional viewfinder to make a complete package. Purely anecdotal evidence, but I have a feeling my days of "selling" Pentax are over.

The K-01 is definitely designed as "a product for a different market". It is not designed for photographers. Those who slag Pentax over this unit are justified, since the company seems to have abandoning photographers in their pursuit of gimmicks and toys. First the Q and now this. But no more lenses for the 645D, which needs several to compete. No new lenses at all, in fact (thin DA40 XS notwithstanding). No new entry-level DSLR.

Unfortunately the situation is worse, in that the K-01 was designed by people who apparently don't have a clue what other markets want.

Small. Thin. Fashionable. Trendy.

This camera is none of those things. Let's see how well it does!

(I've said everything I need to, so see you in another six months.)