Pentax K-01, Ugliest Camera Ever

Compare this ugly dog to the elegant LX. Too bad that Pentax has slipped into a pit.
 
rbelyell said:
no vf=no buy

just my opinion, but at this stage of mirrorless cam development, lack of vf means manufacturer is just not 'serious'. ugly is ok, but impractical is not.
Click to expand...
Don't these manufacturers know by now that we want a built in EVF. At least Nikon got that right.
 
kshapero said:
Don't these manufacturers know by now that we want a built in EVF.
Click to expand...

Nope, because the snapshot consumers seem to actually like LCDs... you can always tell when camera companies aren't putting out a serious product made for photographers.... by the lack of VF.
 
d55470759077ccb6dbd04465d098784d.gif


yeah, its ugly. ;)
 
I'm usually quite open-minded about new designs but this is really ridiculous. It's just awful and I'd be seriously surprised if it had even modest success.

What's funny is that they seem to be targeting the "fashion and design market": http://www.bjp-online.com/british-j...1/pentax-unveils-compact-01-mirrorless-camera

What the guy is saying is basically, yes, they know it's got no advantages over a DSLR and that it's design is the main selling point. Good luck with that.
 
Another take:

"Designed by Marc Newson, the K-01 from Pentax is the most photogenic camera I've seen in awhile. Until now, the design-driven segment of mid to high-end cameras has been dominated by vintage-inspired units like the gorgeous Fuji X Series. Newson's signature style distinguishes the K-01 from the rest with a design that's simultaneously modern, classic and timeless...."

http://www.coolhunting.com/tech/pentax-k-01.php
 
It's ugly as sin, but looks are tertiary to ability. I don't get the point of a mirrorless that's not designed to take full advantage of what mirrorless can offer - smaller bodies, smaller lenses, usability with third-party lenses, etc..
 
Realized that it makes me think of Fisher-Price. Looks just like a camera for kids.

Regarding the Coolhunting praise...I have to ask, if this had been designed in-house by Pentax and, therefore, didn't have a prestigious designer's name attached to it, would Coolhunting (and the like) think it so great?
 
Corto said:
Interesting, I took a degree from NYU in graphic design after I was Injured on the Job.

And maybe you Should ask a Staging/Lighting/A/V pro for Advice on interior design, After all they do manage to turn a pigs ear in to a silk purse on a daily basis.

This was in the day when you could still get Apple clones, (Umax etc...)

Trust me, there where a lot of them in use in NYC at the time before Apple pulled the plug. Apparently the Easy Access cases of these clones appealed to a large crowd of Mac OS users.

I Honestly dont know where you get it from that Designers need their tools to look as good as their end product.

And that goes for any Field. Functionality comes first.
Click to expand...

I would never ask a grip or AV Pro for advice on interior design. Never. I'm pretty sure there's a huge divide between knowing how to light or mic something versus design something. Grips are not Set Designers. And vice versa. I used to be involved in music production - i know some people. I've been around those people. I'm in advertising now, and know some people. They are the last people i'd want to have anything to do with design. We are generalizing here, of course.

I didn't say designers NEED their products to look as good as their end product. The word is WANT.

And, i will dispute your claim that "functionality comes first" in any field. Simply not true. That's why there is a Fashion Industry. It's how they can sell jeans for $300 and suits for $3000. It's why there's an auto industry that can sell a Ferrari/Maybach/Bentley when a Hyundai can get you there in exactly the same amount of time, and probably with more reliability. It's why there's an Art World, when art serves no practical function.

You're going to have to face some facts. Chief among them is that THE EXPERIENCE is a critical factor with a great number of consumers. And the experience encompasses aesthetics and design. The next fact is that this camera is butt-ugly. I'm sorry.

Does it matter? Depends on who you ask. I used to shoot fashion when the Pentax 67 was The Camera. I hated the design of that beast. The "II" came along and fixed some of the issues. But, i still had an older model dedicated to a Polaroid back, and every time i had to pick it up, there was a 'shock to the system.' I exaggerate. A little. I am sensitive to sensual and aesthetic matters, sure. But, i'm not that unique.
 
No one has mentioned battery life or hot shoe on lens axis - just grinding and grinding on how it looks. For lovers of beauty there are iphones and other istuff. Give chance to damn thing, don't bury it before someone has got hands on it. And why everyone is obsessed with idea mirror-less camera should be tiny?
 
chris00nj said:
I'm sure the quality of the images will be rather competitive with other mirror-less offerings or the K-5.

When deciding on a camera, other variables like size and ergonomics come into play.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
Does anyone believe that if the Leica M series looked like this, it would still have the same number of devotees and level of fanaticism? Granted, this is 'digital,' and no one expects these 'devices' to be similarly 'classic' and longlasting....

Someone here or elsewhere opined that 'real photographers' don't care what the cameras they use look like. But, i can't think of any real photographers who used/were dedicated to significantly ugly gear during/throughout their careers. The ugliest super popular camera i can think of is the Pentax 67, and it isn't even that bad. It's just sorta 'primitive' and inelegant. I think, when there were fewer cameras/camera companies putting out pro-level stuff, there was a higher standard. Rollei, Contax, Leica, Nikon, and later, Canon.... They all had their stinkers, but the stinkers never defined a trend or became the launching point for a series.
 
btgc said:
Give chance to damn thing, don't bury it before someone has got hands on it. And why everyone is obsessed with idea mirror-less camera should be tiny?
Click to expand...

The whole point of mirrorless cameras was to make them smaller so you'll be more likely to carry it with you... they were made in reaction to DSLRs and their huge size (mostly).
 
f6andBthere said:
The top view is interesting ... to say the least! (I'm biting my tongue here!)

K01_S_B_b0%20%5B1600x1200-2%5D.jpg


Gulp ... there appears to be an HDR setting! :eek:
Click to expand...

Oh wow..

Pentax remember your spotmatics? And the MX? And the beautiful LX?
This camera just doesn't fit. It looks like something GE or some obscure chinese electronics company would build. What happened to ergonomic design?
I'd hate to be a pentax rep at an imaging show trying to sell one of these things. At least with the (slightly less hideous) Pentax Q you can show how tiny it is. With this - I can't really see any advantages.
 
Pentax do a great line in bad taste, but then again whats the old saying - "No one ever went broke by under estimating the taste of the public."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom