> I just watched a small portion of an interview of the designer of the > K-01. He mentioned very early on that he had never designed a camera > before. At that point, I decided that my initial suspicions had been > confirmed and watched no further. > If the K-01 was a wristwatch, it would be worn like a dog collar and > wouldn't tell time. > Anyone who thinks the Q is useless, well, at least it's small, and might > find a niche because of that. The K-01 is not only fugly, without a > viewfinder it is next to useless as a camera. > Pentax may have shot themselves in the foot with the Q, but with the > K-01 they sawed their leg off above the knee. >
> William Robb Unfortunately this appears to be a case of producing a large sensor mirror-less camera for the sake of producing a large sensor mirror-less camera. Putting a foot, any foot, down in that market segment. It was likely relatively quick, easy, and cost-efficient, and with mostly the K-5's guts, will probably have similar performance characteristics to the K-5, which is not a bad thing. I wouldn't say it's next to useless without a viewfinder... the vast majority of digital camera sold don't have a viewfinder and they capture images to the satisfaction of their users. I get your point though. Were it to have a built-in viewfinder of any kind, it would be a camera I'd consider. This doesn't attract precisely people like you, myself, and many others who already have a full featured Pentax DSLR that's closely spec'd to the K-01. It offers little to no reason buy in. If it had a higher resolution sensor and a viewfinder I'd be interested. It's not pretty but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Overall an easy way for Pentax to enter the market segment, if not inspiring. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
