charjohncarter
Veteran
Just wondering: what is the total distance from the back of the K-01 to the front of the 40mm lens? How does that compare with other mirror less digital cameras? And I don't mean P&S.
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
^If the database at Pentax forums is to be believed, it's 68.2mm. 59mm for the body, 9.2mm for the lens.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I'll see if I can find the width of a NEX plus its kit lens width.
Jack Conrad
Well-known
It reminds me of the the Argus C-3. 
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
It looks like those toy cameras for kids to play in the bath tub.
Now this, is a serious camera:
Linked from: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/...075-pentax-mz-s-mz-s_grip_marclangille_ax.jpg
Now this, is a serious camera:
Linked from: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/...075-pentax-mz-s-mz-s_grip_marclangille_ax.jpg
gavinlg
Veteran
It looks like those toy cameras for kids to play in the bath tub.
Now this, is a serious camera:
Linked from: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/...075-pentax-mz-s-mz-s_grip_marclangille_ax.jpg
Which could have been this:
The full frame pentax - mz-d. A few prototypes were made about 10 years ago. They never went through with it.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The MZ-S was a pretty nice camera. I ran into it too late to be interested in buying another film camera.
They couldn't go through with it. Phillips didn't deliver on the sensor.
Contax had the same problem ... they were basing their DSLR on the Phillips sensor: it never performed to spec, it couldn't be delivered in quantity, and Kyocera decided they'd put out enough money and were done with the camera business as a result.
Pentax nearly bought the farm on it too. They got lucky - produced the *ist D, which didn't sell very well, then the *ist DS, which sold well enough to put them into a better position.
... The full frame pentax - mz-d. A few prototypes were made about 10 years ago. They never went through with it.
They couldn't go through with it. Phillips didn't deliver on the sensor.
Contax had the same problem ... they were basing their DSLR on the Phillips sensor: it never performed to spec, it couldn't be delivered in quantity, and Kyocera decided they'd put out enough money and were done with the camera business as a result.
Pentax nearly bought the farm on it too. They got lucky - produced the *ist D, which didn't sell very well, then the *ist DS, which sold well enough to put them into a better position.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Here is a reason why the SLR depth mirrorless might not be so bad:
The background to this is that on any M-mount digital camera, you have a fundamental optical problem. On any digital camera you have to have an IR (infra red) filter to prevent color shifts due to IR contamination - all modern sensors are very sensitive to IR. However, because the M-mount has such a short lens to sensor distance, the light has to be at a considerable angle to reach the corners of the sensor. In turn that means that light that goes to the corners of the sensor passes through the IR filter at a sharp angle. That means that it passes through "more" of the filter, and reds get cut, resulting in cyan drift - blue corners. The M8 and M9 compensate for this by coding lenses, allowing the camera to boost reds (and greens, slightly) to compensate for the impact of the IR filter on visible light. CornerFix does the same thing, but as a post processor.
What's happening with the red edges above is that the cyan drift is somehow being over-compensated, red being boosted too much, and as a result you get red edges.
There are a few questions here - why exactly is this happening, what can be done about it, and most puzzling - why does this seem to happen on the left edge of images only?
from:
http://chromasoft.blogspot.com/2009/10/vignetting-correction-issues-on-leica.html
The background to this is that on any M-mount digital camera, you have a fundamental optical problem. On any digital camera you have to have an IR (infra red) filter to prevent color shifts due to IR contamination - all modern sensors are very sensitive to IR. However, because the M-mount has such a short lens to sensor distance, the light has to be at a considerable angle to reach the corners of the sensor. In turn that means that light that goes to the corners of the sensor passes through the IR filter at a sharp angle. That means that it passes through "more" of the filter, and reds get cut, resulting in cyan drift - blue corners. The M8 and M9 compensate for this by coding lenses, allowing the camera to boost reds (and greens, slightly) to compensate for the impact of the IR filter on visible light. CornerFix does the same thing, but as a post processor.
What's happening with the red edges above is that the cyan drift is somehow being over-compensated, red being boosted too much, and as a result you get red edges.
There are a few questions here - why exactly is this happening, what can be done about it, and most puzzling - why does this seem to happen on the left edge of images only?
from:
http://chromasoft.blogspot.com/2009/10/vignetting-correction-issues-on-leica.html
santino
FSU gear head
peterm1
Veteran
In Australia we have some great sayings. For example someone who is really ugly might be referred to as "Having a head like a robbers dog." This camera is the photographic equivalent. Woof!
But if you look at some of Leicas very early digital offerings they were no beauty pageant winners either. brrrrrr. Makes me want to shive jsut thinking about them.
But if you look at some of Leicas very early digital offerings they were no beauty pageant winners either. brrrrrr. Makes me want to shive jsut thinking about them.
Dirk
Privatier
You think that's ugly? You should see the Nikon 1.
hxpham
Established
Looks like a plastic Leica S2 or R9It looks like those toy cameras for kids to play in the bath tub.
Now this, is a serious camera:
Linked from: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/...075-pentax-mz-s-mz-s_grip_marclangille_ax.jpg
bhargav
Member
Did anyone actually buy it from here? Some samples would be good.
I've only seen one of these out in the wild (NYC)... doesn't appear to be a popular camera.
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
It would have plenty of defenders here were there a red dot on it.
Chris
Chris
gavinlg
Veteran
Lol.. I don't think so. Everything about it is crappy. It's far too big, has slow AF, is ugly, and doesn't have a viewfinder. You may as well just use a pentax k5 - it's just not that much smaller at all.
Shade
Well-known
Well yeah I wouldnt say its good looking, but kinda looks like what a kid would use.. But as mentioned, good thing cameras are not fashion statements and as long as it take great pictures..
dct
perpetual amateur
Aside from the design aspects I really don't get it why they didn't include a VF into this bulky body. Something like the OM-D(EM-5) instead of the prism. The target customers might be the one with a lot of K-mount glass looking for a backup digital body. Any other imaginable customers
zuikologist
.........................
Ugliness aside, it has the best focus peaking implementation I have seen. Check out Youtube - v clever DOF style peaking.
jarski
Veteran
on RFF? quite opposite, red dot would be like red scarf for a bull.
would be interesting to know how K-01 has sold. Pentax took big risk with it, especially very unorthodox design. nothing wrong with tech specifications, but nothing outshines the competition either.