Pentax K-01, Ugliest Camera Ever

Ronald_H said:
To be honest, if it had a fully supported Nikon F mount, I'd most certainly would buy it.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Indeed I'd buy any Nikon mount EVIL with D90 capabilities, but half its size.

But a native K-AF mount isn't really as attractive - the number of lenses sold to Pentax AF SLRs or DSLRs must be relatively modest by comparison. Pentax had its periods of fame (and serious recognition) much earlier on, the Pentax lovers I know generally hoard K2's or or MX/LX age cameras and lenses, where it is irrelevant whether the adapter supports AF or not - even for them, that thing will have a tough time competing with any shorter flange depth system with a K adapter.
 
Paul T. said:
"I don't like it so it must be bad."

next it will be "modern art is rubbish."
Click to expand...

modern art can be rubbish, just like it can be great. there is a logic to design and ignoring it completely can result in just that, rubbish.

i know what Fred is talking about is the logic part and in doing so he raises interesting points. the core to design is the continuing progression of the thing. sometimes these cameras seem to ignore the progression part and leap straight into some sort of future that invariably doesn't quite hold with the consumers.
 
Shocking as it may seem IMO this camera isn't intended to win over you Leica, Canon and Nikon lovers.
It is instead made for Pentax users, and owners of the millions of Pentax-K and M42 lenses out there.

Chris
 
ChrisPlatt said:
Shocking as it may seem IMO this camera isn't intended to win over you Leica, Canon and Nikon lovers.
It is instead made for Pentax users, and owners of the millions of Pentax-K and M42 lenses out there.

Chris
Click to expand...

Right but as sevo pointed out, Pentax was an also-ran in autofocus SLRs. Owners of MF lenses have no reason to pick this over another camera plus adapter, except for the brand logo.

It would have been a better move IMO to keep the K-01 body smaller and offer a "smart" adapter for those who want it.
 
I looked closely at the camera and I do believe that it is not ugly. There was a predefined set of constrains like the longer flange for the K mount, but other than that I think it is trying to break through new design idea that provide a unique look.

While it is true that in the end the camera is just a tool, and that cosmetics aspect are very secondary to the image creation, I think it is legitimate for a vendor to try to distinguish itself and call on a designer like Marc Newson, to really do something different.

This is in fact a recurring aspect of the electronics industry (and not only). Sometime people hate, sometime people love. And I think that this time it goes a bit against the trend set by companies like Apple.

We'll see.

(and no, I'm not judging the quality of the camera based on this)
 
A friend forwarded me a blog post on this camera. She called it "purty."

I think we at RFF have a certain aesthetic (you can have it in any color you like as long as it's black), and the K-01 goes against this general aesthetic. Ask some non-enthusiasts about this camera, and you'll probably get a more favorable response.

What kinda bugs me is Newson's condescending quote (though not out of place for a big-name designer):

“I don’t recall seeing that many cameras on the market that have been designed by professional designers,” says Newson. “Most of them are designed by engineers.”

Give me the most functional, aesthetically unpleasing camera any day--I'm here to shoot, not to strut.
 
Looks -- well yes the M2 etc are great, likewise Pentax Spotmatic and Nikon F and Fuji X10 (X1 misses) or Fuji Natura (not in pink) but although this Pentax is far from perfect in design or spec, it's far less ugly than the current mass of bulbous Canon and Nikon dslrs, surely? I think a development of this with viewfinder (as NEX7 developed from the perfectly fine Nex5) may be really quite good and even become some kind of classic.
And as for complaining about the look of the pancake lens - do you really prefer the monsters from Canikon? - their primes are nearly always more than twice the size of 1970s lenses of the same spec. (and not pretty)
thoughts?
 
"Designer cameras" -- generally not a success,

eg Giugiaro with the ugliest Nikon (EM) pre-autofocus, or the English designer behind the Minolta 7000 (various names for this first AF) - somewhat better Porsche design and the Contax (Yashica) cameras.

In that context, this pentax isn't too bad, but generally a camera is best left to engineers with a good design sense (few and far between)
 
The design reminds me of childhood holidays with my parents in their caravan.

The toilet looked a lot like this, and we used it every day.

Time will tell.
 
This will turn out like Olympus's "dedication" to 4/3 a few years ago. Wait for the "mirror box-less" version. And then I can put my RF glass on there. Oh, and where the heck is my EVF?? You put a darn hump on the thing and no EVF???

If it were ugly, which I'm not sure it is, I can live with ugly. I can learn to love ugly. I can't live with stupid.
 
You may be right about nothing being uglier than a Fed 5. I had one, and it was impossible to sell, even though it was in perfect shape and everything worked. Even the shutter and rangefinder were accurate. I finally sold the lens, and stuffed the camera into the box as a freebie. Otherwise, I'd still be looking at that thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom