A great concept gone.

[fmw]

On occasion I buy cameras that I think I can sell for a profit. My last purchase was a Pentax K-01 mirrorless.

The idea of this camera was to provide a mirrorless camera with an APS-C sensor and the ability to use the manufacturer's full line of DSLR lenses. It arrived with an 18-55 Pentax K mount kit lens. The camera is heavier than the typical mirrorless and certainly fatter to provide for the ability to mount Pentax K lenses. But it is really a super camera with outstanding image quality. But it died and has been replaced with the Pentax Q cameras with a smaller sensor and without the K mount.

The kit lens is well made and optically excellent. I wish Nikon made kit lenses this good.

I wonder why people didn't take to it. Was it ignorance of the value of the larger sensor and DSLR lens mount? Was it just a little larger than other mirrorless cameras? Did people not like the cosmetics? I'm baffled. This great little camera should have been a success.

 

[usayit]

A mirrorless camera that shares its lenses with a DSLR system still has the same size (and weight) lenses with the same focal plane distance. A small body on a large set of lenses, feels unbalanced. With non-EVF mirrorless cameras, the unbalanced feel becomes worse when you are shooting at arms length.. Low end, entry level bodies of the same system, often are not much bigger than the mirrorless version AND you get a optical viewfinder.

Specifically to the Pentax , they really do not have the market presence... They made a lot of bad decisions in early 00's. A frustation for me as I was a long time Pentax shooter in the film days. It wasn't just the K-01 that wasn't selling well... the entire camera line was struggling.

 

[fmw]

A mirrorless camera that shares its lenses with a DSLR system still has the same size (and weight) lenses with the same focal plane distance. A small body on a large set of lenses, feels unbalanced. With non-EVF mirrorless cameras, the unbalanced feel becomes worse when you are shooting at arms length.. Low end, entry level bodies of the same system, often are not much bigger than the mirrorless version AND you get a optical viewfinder.

Specifically to the Pentax , they really do not have the market presence... They made a lot of bad decisions in early 00's. A frustation for me as I was a long time Pentax shooter in the film days. It wasn't just the K-01 that wasn't selling well... the entire camera line was struggling.

Thanks for the knowledgeable response. I agree. It also may have been a price issue since it wasn't an inexpensive camera when it was introduced. Too bad. It is a good camera with great image quality.

 

[Solarflare]

One of the prime reasons why I like the idea of having a mirrorless camera is that wide angle lenses on a mirrorless camera, without the constraint to leave space for the mirror box between lens and sensor, do not have to be retrofocus, or do have to be less retrofocus and even that only at wider angles.

This means wide angle lenses can be more compact, cheaper, and of higher quality.

Obviously if I dont change the mount this wont happen.

Another obstacle is of course that digital sensors tend to prefer getting the light frontally, without an angle.

Ultimately, I fail to see the point of leaving the mirror box out if there was already space for it. A mirror box has many advantages, after all. Such as higher performance autofocus and an optical viewfinder with zero current requirement.

 

[robbins.photo]

I think they pretty much shot themselves in the foot here from the get go with the lack of a viewfinder. I think for a lot of folks, such as myself, that's a deal breaker in and of itself. As mentioned mounting a heavy lens on a light camera body makes the balance difficult enough to deal with, but then adding to that problem by requiring the photographer to hold the camera body away so they can see the view screen just makes the balance problem even worse.

The AF system apparently left a lot to be desired as well, so I'd have to agree with Solar here that concept wise they kind of missed the mark here.

 

[fmw]

One of the prime reasons why I like the idea of having a mirrorless camera is that wide angle lenses on a mirrorless camera, without the constraint to leave space for the mirror box between lens and sensor, do not have to be retrofocus, or do have to be less retrofocus and even that only at wider angles.

This means wide angle lenses can be more compact, cheaper, and of higher quality.

Obviously if I dont change the mount this wont happen.

Another obstacle is of course that digital sensors tend to prefer getting the light frontally, without an angle.

Ultimately, I fail to see the point of leaving the mirror box out if there was already space for it. A mirror box has many advantages, after all. Such as higher performance autofocus and an optical viewfinder with zero current requirement.

That's a good point. Getting rid of retrofocus wide angle designs is certainly a benefit. The Leica rangefinders were famous for their wide angle lenses and for good reason. I view this camera as a good backup or second body for a Pentax DSLR shooter. I have only tested this camera with the kit lens and I find it a pleasure to use.

I have no idea what you mean by sensors working best with frontal lighting. Most of the light on any digital camera hits the sensor at an angle. The sensor, after all, is larger than the aperture.

 

[beagle100]

One of the prime reasons why I like the idea of having a mirrorless camera is that wide angle lenses on a mirrorless camera, without the constraint to leave space for the mirror box between lens and sensor, do not have to be retrofocus, or do have to be less retrofocus and even that only at wider angles.
This means wide angle lenses can be more compact, cheaper, and of higher quality.

yes, it seems that wide angles on a mirrorless can be much smaller
I have a 22mm f/2 pancake lens on a mirrorless that can easily fit in a shirt pocket
(another model that didn't sell too well but still very enjoyable)
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[Solarflare]

I have no idea what you mean by sensors working best with frontal lighting. Most of the light on any digital camera hits the sensor at an angle. The sensor, after all, is larger than the aperture.

Yes, to a certain amount they tolerate that, but only to a certain amount.

With DSLRs its never a problem, but with mirrorless the angle can be too steep and then the light hitting the photo diodes have passed through the wrong color filter of the Bayer color filter array and/or they have been darkened and lost color (red light penetrates silicium much better than blue light) because they had to pass a longer way through the silicium.

The final results of that are then not too pretty.

 

[The Barbarian]

I still find myself grabbing the K-01 when I don't need a long telephoto or rapid focusing. The lack of rapid focus and no digital viewfinder were the two big flaws in that camera. But where that isn't an issue, it's a great camera. Ugly as sin, though.

 

[The Barbarian]