1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. REMINDER

    Any content, information, or advice found on social media platforms and the wider Internet, including forums such as AP, should NOT be acted upon unless checked against a reliable, authoritative source, and re-checked, particularly where personal health is at stake. Seek professional advice/confirmation before acting on such at all times.

New Pentax csc Ugly?

Discussion in 'Pentax Chat' started by rjbell, Jan 25, 2012.

  1. Alex1994

    Alex1994 Well-Known Member

    I imagine most potential buyers would not have heard of him (and neither had I!).

    He's based in London, and has an impressive CV (if you're into industrial design):
    http://www.marc-newson.com/AboutBiography.aspx?GroupSelected=2&Category=Biography

    I suppose there are some people who will find the camera attractive if they're told it's been designed by a leading designer. :)
     
  2. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    It's not a D3100. That's point enough for many. The D3100 may be a very capable camera, but it's not nice in the hand and feels cheap and plasticky. It also has no histogram in live view, which is a really stupid oversight. I tried one (hoping to like it) but found the handling poor, the viewfinder dim and tiny (so why have a viewfinder?) and it's just plain ugly. Tongue not in cheek, irony detector to overdrive, I mean that. :p
     
  3. rjbell

    rjbell Well-Known Member

    d3100 was an example take any entry level slr. If you took the viewfinder off any of them it would be the size of this. As for placticy It's a lot less plasticy than sony and canons entry level offering which feel very cheap.
     
  4. johnriley1uk

    johnriley1uk Well-Known Member

    The insults seem to be flying, but not so much in non-traditional areas compared to the traditional photographic sites. Also not so much with the younger end of the market.

    It doesn't really matter to me what it looks like if ergonomically and functionally it delivers, and indications are that it will. If I needed one I would happily buy one and enjoy the use of all my Pentax lenses on it, without the need for adapters and without any compromise on quality.

    I prefer the black version, but then I always liked black cameras.

    I actually like the design of the K-01. Refreshingly different and obviously already causing quite a stir. In terms of marketing that's probably a very good thing.

    I look at new cameras and weigh up how I can take advantage of them in my own photography. Using a rear screen to compose can be useful for macro photography and it is acceptable for most general shooting. A proper glass pentaprism finder is best, but I have a K20D and a K-5 for that.

    I don't begrudge or ridicule any other marque or design if it suits the individual photographer. There's choice out there for all styles.
     
  5. Old git

    Old git In the Stop Bath

    Amen to that!
     
  6. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Yeah, I'm sure Fisher Price are concerned that they might lose market share in the 2-5 year old market. :)


    John, if Pentax released an actual turd, you would be on here (and elsewhere) straight away telling everyone how much you liked the fragrant aroma. :D
    Thing is that you are an excellent source of knowledge and wisdom on all things Pentax, but you don't do yourself or Pentax any favours by never, ever criticising them for anything. This thread isn't about how good a camera this thing is, or how well it integrates into the Pentax system, merely about the fact that it looks silly. There's no harm in being honest about that - it's just patently absurd when many Pentax owners join the thread and say "I actually quite like it" when nobody else does, it simply looks sad, and in your case, potentially damages your credibility - which does neither you nor Pentax any good at all. I think Pentax are a strong enough brand to be able to stand a little ribbing, even from their own ownership base. I've no doubt that Zou, say, actually DOES quite like it - his taste is nothing but eclectic - but be honest, this just isn't the sort of thing that is likely to appeal visually to you, is it? That doesn't mean it's not a perfectly sensible camera for you, merely that it's, well, ugly. Personally, I wouldn't buy it for that reason, but if I were seriously lensed up Pentaxwise (and isn't that phrase at least as ugly as the camera! ;)), I would seriously consider it despite the ugliness. And as I've said in Damien's poll, I think Pentax are doing a great job at getting all the bases covered - this for me is an entirely sensible addition to the range but for the looks.
     
  7. dangie

    dangie Senior Knobhead

    This is all a bit like saying ugly people should never be loved. I'm hard working and still functioning but not pretty to look at but the wife loves me and she's beautiful (so I tell her every night anyway) :D
     
  8. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    :D:D:D
     
  9. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member


    :D:D:cool::eek: You know me too well.

    I'd hazard a guess that no-one else on here would be happy to be seen out and about shooting with one of these. Had a look at one in the metal at Urban Outfitters, and have to say it's quite charming.
     
  10. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    I have to say that that is so silly I like it! Hypocrite, moi? ;)
     
  11. johnriley1uk

    johnriley1uk Well-Known Member

    In your opinion you mean? I have my opinion and I've merely stated it. Ugly or beautiful is in the eye of the beholder.
     
  12. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    Aye, about as useful as another hole in the head most of the time:rolleyes:

    (usually it's older people with failing eyesight that say liveview is good for macro, not the expert macro shooters that usually don't care whether a DSLR has liveview or not)
     
  13. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Are you being honest to yourself - and Pentax?

    No, you've merely trotted out what you think is the party line. John, remember the Emperor. The ones who did him the greatest service weren't the ones who blindly praised every thing he did, but the ones who pointed out that he was naked. Equally, if people blindly praise silly decisions by camera makers, they don't get the feedback they need to improve - you're not helping them at all by being economical with your feelings.

    Oh come on, John get real! Don't hide behind that sort of thing! Have the courage to tell it straight. We'll all think more of you, not less of you. You've already hinted at your true feelings - it doesn't take a lot of reading between the lines of your original post to see that you don't really much like the look of it, but you can't bring yourself to say so. Pentax won't collapse if you do; I suspect the image of the company as a whole on these forums would actually improve if their greatest cheerleader was seen to be a little more independent of thought. :cool:
     
  14. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    I find it very useful for still-life type macro, pretty useless for handheld field-type macro. For me, live view is great for tripod shots in general, less good for everything else.
     
  15. beejaybee

    beejaybee Marvin

    Also great for reducing battery life and increasing thermal noise in the sensor.

    Otherwise the only benefit over a field camera is that the view is the right way up. Inconveniently small but the right way up. You still need a blackout curtain to stick your head under too, unless you're imaging in the dark, in which case the bright LCD screen is going to make you very unpopular with any nearby astronomers.

    Sorry but there's no substitute for a proper optical viewfinder.
     
  16. Alex1994

    Alex1994 Well-Known Member

  17. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler


    I would somewhat agree - I don't have any difficulty using it in daylight, but most of the time when I am using a camera on a tripod outside, it's near the start or end of day, or in the woods, so it's not that surprising.
     
  18. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    The way I see it there 3 flaws with this design even without the looks which is a 4th. :)


    1. The grip is too shallow (look at other CSC etc)

    2. The control are too minimum and quirky

    3. It weighs too much for CSC.

    This last point is a real mess. Compare it to say a Samsung NX11 which has a EVF (not a great one but has one) carries a full APS sensor is around the same body size or though thinner yet comes in at 353g compared to the K01 560g. If you compare it to the NX200 which is only 276g. It leaves you wondering.

    Then look at it in terms of the Kr 598g Kx 581g which have nice OVFs to play with.

    Yes, I know it a stripped down K-5 (750g) but we know why it is that weight, the pentaprism of cause.

    So I think it needs to be alot lighter. Because most of the CSC are lighter than this offering.

    Just how bad it is the Nikon D5100 same sensor 560g same weight. Canon 600D 570g nearly the same weight.

    So me think diet club membership for it. :D
     
  19. spinno

    spinno Well-Known Member

    The "extra" weight might make it more stable for some users.
     
  20. spinno

    spinno Well-Known Member

    with it not having a viewfinder of any description.....
    (I did the post this way for effect;):D)
    (probably doesn't work though...)
     

Share This Page