Pentax K-01, Ugliest Camera Ever

Of course design and appearance matters. Do you dress up for an interview? Do you shave before a date? Would the Marines be taken as seriously if they walked around with dull swords and old flannel shirts sticking out of their flies?

So I'll state for the record that one of the considerations I have in buying a camera is the design and appearance. I spend a lot of time with this thing in my hand and yes, it's part of my persona like my boots, watch, and favorite wool coat. When I'm on a paying job, I want my appearance and the appearance of my equipment to look serious, professional, and like it was designed by somebody who had an idea or two rolling around in their heads. And yeah, I want it to work well as a tool. They're both essential to a good camera, in my opinion. To say otherwise is to discount the important role of the industrial designer.

If there are any Danes on the forum, I'd love for you to speak up on this matter. In my time in Denmark I rarely saw anything for sale that didn't have some thoughtful design behind it.
 
Johann Espiritu said:
digilux1-01.jpg
Click to expand...

You know, this reminds me of Destro.

And not much reminds me of Destro. But I think that's my deep-seeded hostility towards cameras that mix silver and black metal together.
 
chris00nj said:
As a result, the camera is just as big as an SLR, which erases the primary advantage of going mirror-less.
Click to expand...

That's the main reason I thought the concept of making such a camera (EVIL, but to take SLR lenses) a bit odd and in fact doubted the veracity of the early rumors about such a beast.
 
dreilly said:
Of course design and appearance matters. Do you dress up for an interview? Do you shave before a date? Would the Marines be taken as seriously if they walked around with dull swords and old flannel shirts sticking out of their flies?
Click to expand...

I have No Idea what Field you work in, But In the years I spent as a AV pro NOBODY gave a rats ass about what the Equipment looked like.
 
I've figured it out. That thing sticking up between the lens mount and the grip is an oil filler cap. I hope it uses 100% synthetic.
I'm glad Ricoh bought Pentax. If this body proves unpopular, at least there are significant financial resources to mitigate any blips in revenue.
There are some really ugly cameras out there that have excellent IQ.
 
Maybe it's designed like that so that they can put a mechanism in the moves the sensor relative to the lens mount. You can then put any lens on it. . . . . Doubt it though
 
Corto said:
I have No Idea what Field you work in, But In the years I spent as a AV pro NOBODY gave a rats ass about what the Equipment looked like.
Click to expand...

Thing is, this isn't an Equalizer you can stick into a 1u rack space and forget about. I'm like the Dane. Anything i have to live with, wear, and/or use on a daily basis has to be designed to a certain standard.

While i certainly 'get' that some people feel tools are tools and pants are pants and cars are cars... i'm not one of those people. I don't want to be the type who is proud of a stunted aesthetic sensibility. Frankly, i'm always a bit surprised when someone who is supposedly involved in aesthetic pursuits (photography) somehow limits their aesthetic interests when it comes to industrial design.

My "field," at present, is graphic design. In the years i've spent in my field, EVERYONE gives a rats ass what the equipment looks like. It's probably why Macs are the industry standard. Conversely, i would never think to ask an AV Pro for design/fashion/decor advice. 🙂
 
Nice one! The Baroness always had Klasse. Too bad about the company she kept. Though there was the good Baroness in the alternative dimension. In that dimension right now, people on fora are decrying the ugliness of the X-1 Pro and lauding the new Pentax as the best camera design since the M3.
 
CK Dexter Haven said:
Thing is, this isn't an Equalizer you can stick into a 1u rack space and forget about. I'm like the Dane. Anything i have to live with, wear, and/or use on a daily basis has to be designed to a certain standard.

While i certainly 'get' that some people feel tools are tools and pants are pants and cars are cars... i'm not one of those people. I don't want to be the type who is proud of a stunted aesthetic sensibility. Frankly, i'm always a bit surprised when someone who is supposedly involved in aesthetic pursuits (photography) somehow limits their aesthetic interests when it comes to industrial design.

My "field," at present, is graphic design. In the years i've spent in my field, EVERYONE gives a rats ass what the equipment looks like. It's probably why Macs are the industry standard. Conversely, i would never think to ask an AV Pro for design/fashion/decor advice. 🙂
Click to expand...

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


True, but looks can run a close second many times. As a previous poster said, it sometimes literally pays to look professional.

I was recently hired to shoot a wedding reception in a documentary/candid style, all black and white, nothing posed and was contacted because the client loved my street photography and found me through Flickr. When I met the client for a coffee to discuss the terms, I had my Nex 3 with me. After talking for a while, she said "Oh, I see you brought a little point and shoot with you, do you always carry a camera? What would you be shooting the wedding with?" When I told her at least part of my shooting would be done with the Nex, she gave me a very confused and worried look... I had to re-talk a customer into my services who had originally talked herself into hiring me. It was actually very difficult to explain that a tiny camera like the NEX is capable of professional results, in fact most of the photos she loved from my Flickr were taken with it.

If mirror-less is the way of the future , Fuji's the only camera manufacturer that's realized that if they want serious pros to even consider replacing their DSLR's with mirrorless cameras, they're going to have to make professional looking cameras. Clients have a to varying degree an abstract idea of what a "professional" camera should look like... anything that doesn't fit that mental picture is going to make you look less professional than the next guy.
 
Sure man, But in your case it has nothing to do how well it was designed, Your client obviously wanted to see a BIG, Complicated looking thing.
 
Darthfeeble said:
How about the quality of the picture that it takes? Does anyone care about that? S
Click to expand...


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.
 
charjohncarter said:
Ugly: who cares, what is the image quality? Can we use any of the 10 million lenses made for it? Is that penta hump for a future EVF or does it have one?

Size: K-01-12.1cm wide x 7.9cm high x 5.9 cm deep; K-5-131 x 97 x 73 mm, so smaller. Sony NEX-7-119.9 x 66.9 x 42.8 mm. Surprisingly, it isn't too much deeper than the NEX-7.
Click to expand...

Same sensor as the K5 and Pentax rendering - meaning awesome image quality. Compatible with all K mount lenses. I am just hoping for an EVF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom