If they'd fixed #2 with an EVF, then the marketing guys (#1) would have had a more compelling story, and #3 (design) would be a non-issue. I'd have considered it with an EVF -- it would have actually useful then, and I could ignore the looks. They aren't all that bad.
They paid *way* too much to put the name of that "famous designer" who nobody has ever heard of on the outside of it. Now if it was a Porsche design, or Nike, maybe that'd help somewhat. On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:32 PM, P. J. Alling <[email protected]> wrote: > Since we how have active threads about the doom of Pentax and the K-01, lets > as someone recently said, beat the dead horse from a greasy spot to a > smoking crater. > > What I see as being wrong with the K-01 were three things. > > 1. Marketing. With the K-01 Pentax once again proved that it has no ability > to market, they can't identify a target and can't hit it either a > demographic or a competitor. Let's look at a mirrorless competitor. Let's > take something released in the same year with the same MP sensor, why look > there's the Panasonic Lumix GH3! If you read the specifications it's well > not a bad match. Sure the Lumix has a bigger buffer, and has a EVF, but > hell, it's huge man. By comparison the K-01 is almost svelte. The selling > point of M43 cameras are their small size but, (and maybe I just haven't > paid attention), no one complains about how big the GH3 is. However the > K-01 it needs two things to really work compare to the G3 which is an EVF > and a greater burst depth. > > 2.) Lack of an EVF. True it's buffer is a bit lacking and Pentax cheeped > out there, but in most other ways the K-01 specification isn't bad at all. > Now look at the Sony NEX-7 is there any reason that Pentax couldn't have > tucked a high resolution EVF into the top left corner of the back of the > K-01? Except for the wish to use exactly the same stainless frame and > external display as the K30 that is. Of course not. Pentax cheeped out > again. Sony was able to put the EVF in the Nex7 by changing the aspect > ratio of the screen to exactly match the sensor. Pentax could have done > that, but they chose to cripple the K01 from the start. Sure it might have > cost a bit more in design and tooling, but if they'd sold a bunch more units > it would have been worth it. > > 3.) Industrial design. I don't know how much Pentax paid, but it was too > much. It's not that it's ugly, but it's self conscious. The K01 demands > that you love it because it looks different. Maybe if Pentax had spent a > bit on packaging to get a decent EFV to fit into the same form factor and > gone with a more classic camera look, rather than a "Lomo" look, (which > their in house designers were more than competent to execute). They could > have always tarted it up a bit with high gloss cherry metal flake paint on > some of the exposed plastic panels and different colored plastics, it's not > like they haven't done that before. The money saved on industrial design > could have been used to offset the costs of making it a useful camera and > marketing it as such instead as a collectors item. > > -- > Don't lose heart, they might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a > lengthly search. > > > -- > 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. -- -bmw -- 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.
