Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[Anthony Farr]

Thank you for your encouragement, Boris.  It all counts :-)

regards, Anthony

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[John Sessoms]

From: Boris Liberman

John, Gerrit, Anthony - I am very sorry to hear about your troubles...
Here hoping that all of them are behind you and your recovery is fast
and complete!


Thanks.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: What's wrong with the K-01

[Gerrit Visser]

Thank you Boris
Life is good, a few dribbles now and then but nothing is stopping us from
going on a 90 day cruise in Jan!

PSA level undetectable is the best news you can get for this, we celebrated
with champagne.

Gerrit
http://travels.psgv.ca 

-Original Message-
From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Boris Liberman
Sent: December 15, 2012 11:34 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: What's wrong with the K-01

John, Gerrit, Anthony - I am very sorry to hear about your troubles... 
Here hoping that all of them are behind you and your recovery is fast and
complete!

On 12/14/2012 7:49 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
> Two years since my surgery; year and a half since radiation.
>
> Got a follow-up appointment with the oncologist next week. Last time 
> my PSA was "below the threshold of meaningful detection" [0.05] 
> whatever that means.
>
> The doctor at the VA comes over from Duke Hospital, and said the VA 
> uses a test that shows levels of PSA that the test Duke uses can't 
> detect [below 0.1].
>
> The doctors said that with the treatment I received there's a 61% 
> chance the cancer wouldn't come back within 5 years, and 50% chance it 
> won't come back within 10 years.
>
> From: "Gerrit Visser"
>> Cancer sucks, I spent most of this year with prostate surgery, then 
>> radiation treatments. PSA is now undetectable so I guess I am 
>> fortunate that it got dealt with in less than a year.
>>
>> Gerrit
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Anthony Farr
>> Sent: December 14, 2012 8:58 AM
>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> Subject: Re: What's wrong with the K-01
>>
>> Thanks Stan.  No longer a problem, there is no old film stock at my 
>> house.
>> I do carry a letter from my oncologist to explain any oddities about, 
>> for instance, airport security scans and how vital it is that my 
>> sieve and my small lead flask are not taken away from me.
>>
>> regards, Anthony
>>
>>
>>
>> On 15 December 2012 00:43, Stan Halpin 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Dec 14, 2012, at 12:28 AM, Anthony Farr wrote:
>>>
>>>> ... we know how you feel about optical frame 'finders and wire 
>>>> frame 'finders and live-view-on-the LCD 'finders and no 'finders.  
>>>> Just don't buy them and see if I care.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, pardon my grumpiness.  I have prostate cancer, and last 
>>>> week underwent a brachytherapy implant after a year of hormone
blockers.
>>>> I still hurt (a cough or sneeze is unbearable), have no endurance, 
>>>> scant tolerance, and I have to carry a sieve and a lead container 
>>>> everywhere in case a radioactive pellet gets loose when I pee.  
>>>> Have a
>> nice day.
>>>>
>>>> regards, Anthony
>>>
>>> Sorry to hear about your medical travails Anthony! But, to try and 
>>> see
>> this from the lighter side, does this mean that you have to be 
>> careful not to sit too close to any of your old film stock?
>>>
>>> stan
>>>
>


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[Boris Liberman]

John, Gerrit, Anthony - I am very sorry to hear about your troubles... 
Here hoping that all of them are behind you and your recovery is fast 
and complete!


On 12/14/2012 7:49 PM, John Sessoms wrote:

Two years since my surgery; year and a half since radiation.

Got a follow-up appointment with the oncologist next week. Last time my
PSA was "below the threshold of meaningful detection" [0.05] whatever
that means.

The doctor at the VA comes over from Duke Hospital, and said the VA uses
a test that shows levels of PSA that the test Duke uses can't detect
[below 0.1].

The doctors said that with the treatment I received there's a 61% chance
the cancer wouldn't come back within 5 years, and 50% chance it won't come
back within 10 years.

From: "Gerrit Visser"

Cancer sucks, I spent most of this year with prostate surgery, then
radiation treatments. PSA is now undetectable so I guess I am
fortunate that
it got dealt with in less than a year.

Gerrit

-Original Message-
From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Anthony Farr
Sent: December 14, 2012 8:58 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: What's wrong with the K-01

Thanks Stan.  No longer a problem, there is no old film stock at my
house.
I do carry a letter from my oncologist to explain any oddities about, for
instance, airport security scans and how vital it is that my sieve and my
small lead flask are not taken away from me.

regards, Anthony



On 15 December 2012 00:43, Stan Halpin 
wrote:


On Dec 14, 2012, at 12:28 AM, Anthony Farr wrote:


... we know how you feel about optical frame 'finders and wire frame
'finders and live-view-on-the LCD 'finders and no 'finders.  Just
don't buy them and see if I care.

Finally, pardon my grumpiness.  I have prostate cancer, and last week
underwent a brachytherapy implant after a year of hormone blockers.
I still hurt (a cough or sneeze is unbearable), have no endurance,
scant tolerance, and I have to carry a sieve and a lead container
everywhere in case a radioactive pellet gets loose when I pee.  Have a

nice day.


regards, Anthony


Sorry to hear about your medical travails Anthony! But, to try and see

this from the lighter side, does this mean that you have to be careful
not
to sit too close to any of your old film stock?


stan






--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[Anthony Farr]

On 16 December 2012 11:37, John Sessoms  wrote:
> Would it be possible for Ricoh-Pentax to offer an auxiliary electronic
> viewfinder that would mount on the hotshoe?

I'm sure they could, but it would cannibalise sales from Ricoh's GXR.
They need to integrate these similar products, not diversify the
ranges even more.

regards, Anthony

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[P. J. Alling]

On 12/15/2012 7:37 PM, John Sessoms wrote:

From: Mark Roberts

Brian Walters wrote:


That's pretty much how I feel about the K-01.

The looks don't particularly bother me - in fact, it looks better in
real life that in photos - and if it had come with a viewfinder, I
probably would have owned one by now.


Same here. I was almost tempted to buy one with the recent price
reductions, but the lack of viewfinder was a deal-killer at any price.
The thing is, we're all a bunch of old fogies here ;-) Seriously,
there a lot of young people who have no interest in having a proper
viewfinder at all - one K-01 review I read said one of the *best*
things about it was that it had no viewfinder! I've had some students
who own DSLRs and have never looked through the viewfinder: they shoot
exclusively with live view. Baffling to me but it's probably the wave
of the future (at least until they get old enough to need reading
glasses!) But what killed the K-01 for them was the price, at least
the price when the camera first became available.

That's probably the bottom line (literally): The K-01 was too
expensive for the "I hate viewfinders" young people who would have
liked it.


Would it be possible for Ricoh-Pentax to offer an auxiliary electronic
viewfinder that would mount on the hotshoe?

They would have had to design it for one to start with.  If there was to 
be a K-02 that might have made the feature cut, or maybe not.  With 
Pentax you never know.


I still think that the most hopeful place to see a future mirrorless K 
mount is a module for the Ricoh GXR, it wouldn't need a built in screw 
drive auto focus motor to be viable, and while there's been some 
speculation that you couldn't fit a drive motor into such a module micro 
motor drives can be made to fit a lot o places. Powering it would 
probably be a bigger problem than packaging.


Sure it would be bulky, on the other hand have you seen the Alpha lens 
adapters for the Sony Nex series?


--
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
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[Anthony Farr]

On 16 December 2012 10:49, Brian Walters  wrote:
> What I find a bit baffling is why it is taking so long for Pentax to produce
> another mirrorless APS-C camera.
> They've obviously got the 'guts' of a good camera in the K-01.  Would it be
> that difficult to produce a new version with a viewfinder (with or
> preferably without Newson)?
>>

Isn't the problem that the K-01 is Hoya's idea, not Ricoh's?  Hoya
didn't have to integrate its products with a stablemate brand.  Ricoh
has a closely competitive product, the GXR with the Mount A12 unit
which is currently priced in the low $US800s for a body plus lens
mount module (without lens). An EVF adds another $US200 and a bit.
The K-01 body can be bought in the low $US300s at present, which makes
it excellent value by comparison if you can live without an EVF, or if
an EVF was never in your budget.

My feeling is that the new Pentax-Ricoh entity should fold these two
cameras into a single product line with two distinct bodies like
Nikon's V1 and J1 for customers who either do or don't want an EVF.  A
camera with integrated EVF will always be cheaper than a
viewfinderless body plus an external EVF.  Pentax simply cannot afford
to put cameras on shelves at a higher price than a competitors
solution.  Ricoh can because it has developed more of that indefinable
boutique cachet that Pentax wishes it had.  Some Pentax lenses might
have it, but no camera since the MZ-S has been anything that a
competitor wishes was their own.  Class leading performance doesn't
cut it when the competion is already trading in a higher class.

>
> Maybe the problem is developing a new range of lenses to suit the shorter
> register distance.
>

I spoke of this before.  A short register would mean abandoning
compatibility with screwdriver AF.  How many of Pentax's customer base
will live with that?

regards, Anthony

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[John Sessoms]

From: Mark Roberts

Brian Walters wrote:


That's pretty much how I feel about the K-01.

The looks don't particularly bother me - in fact, it looks better in
real life that in photos - and if it had come with a viewfinder, I
probably would have owned one by now.


Same here. I was almost tempted to buy one with the recent price
reductions, but the lack of viewfinder was a deal-killer at any price.
The thing is, we're all a bunch of old fogies here ;-) Seriously,
there a lot of young people who have no interest in having a proper
viewfinder at all - one K-01 review I read said one of the *best*
things about it was that it had no viewfinder! I've had some students
who own DSLRs and have never looked through the viewfinder: they shoot
exclusively with live view. Baffling to me but it's probably the wave
of the future (at least until they get old enough to need reading
glasses!) But what killed the K-01 for them was the price, at least
the price when the camera first became available.

That's probably the bottom line (literally): The K-01 was too
expensive for the "I hate viewfinders" young people who would have
liked it.


Would it be possible for Ricoh-Pentax to offer an auxiliary electronic
viewfinder that would mount on the hotshoe?

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[Brian Walters]

What I find a bit baffling is why it is taking so long for Pentax to  
produce another mirrorless APS-C camera.


They've obviously got the 'guts' of a good camera in the K-01.  Would  
it be that difficult to produce a new version with a viewfinder (with  
or preferably without Newson)?


Maybe the problem is developing a new range of lenses to suit the  
shorter register distance.




Cheers

Brian

++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney Australia
http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/





Quoting Mark Roberts :


Brian Walters wrote:


That's pretty much how I feel about the K-01.

The looks don't particularly bother me - in fact, it looks better in
real life that in photos - and if it had come with a viewfinder, I
probably would have owned one by now.


Same here. I was almost tempted to buy one with the recent price
reductions, but the lack of viewfinder was a deal-killer at any price.
The thing is, we're all a bunch of old fogies here ;-) Seriously,
there a lot of young people who have no interest in having a proper
viewfinder at all - one K-01 review I read said one of the *best*
things about it was that it had no viewfinder! I've had some students
who own DSLRs and have never looked through the viewfinder: they shoot
exclusively with live view. Baffling to me but it's probably the wave
of the future (at least until they get old enough to need reading
glasses!) But what killed the K-01 for them was the price, at least
the price when the camera first became available.

That's probably the bottom line (literally): The K-01 was too
expensive for the "I hate viewfinders" young people who would have
liked it.

--
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com






--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[P. J. Alling]

No we're not a bunch of old fogies, holding a camera out at arms leingth 
to focus and shoot with anything longer than a short telephoto is just 
bad, in fact horribly bad, ergonomics.  Placing a minicam, (now calling 
it that makes me an old fogie), a tripod while staring at it's back 
panel as if it were a miniature view camera is just silly.


On 12/15/2012 3:28 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:

Brian Walters wrote:


That's pretty much how I feel about the K-01.

The looks don't particularly bother me - in fact, it looks better in
real life that in photos - and if it had come with a viewfinder, I
probably would have owned one by now.

Same here. I was almost tempted to buy one with the recent price
reductions, but the lack of viewfinder was a deal-killer at any price.
The thing is, we're all a bunch of old fogies here ;-) Seriously,
there a lot of young people who have no interest in having a proper
viewfinder at all - one K-01 review I read said one of the *best*
things about it was that it had no viewfinder! I've had some students
who own DSLRs and have never looked through the viewfinder: they shoot
exclusively with live view. Baffling to me but it's probably the wave
of the future (at least until they get old enough to need reading
glasses!) But what killed the K-01 for them was the price, at least
the price when the camera first became available.

That's probably the bottom line (literally): The K-01 was too
expensive for the "I hate viewfinders" young people who would have
liked it.
  



--
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
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[Mark Roberts]

Brian Walters wrote:

>That's pretty much how I feel about the K-01.
>
>The looks don't particularly bother me - in fact, it looks better in  
>real life that in photos - and if it had come with a viewfinder, I  
>probably would have owned one by now.

Same here. I was almost tempted to buy one with the recent price
reductions, but the lack of viewfinder was a deal-killer at any price.
The thing is, we're all a bunch of old fogies here ;-) Seriously,
there a lot of young people who have no interest in having a proper
viewfinder at all - one K-01 review I read said one of the *best*
things about it was that it had no viewfinder! I've had some students
who own DSLRs and have never looked through the viewfinder: they shoot
exclusively with live view. Baffling to me but it's probably the wave
of the future (at least until they get old enough to need reading
glasses!) But what killed the K-01 for them was the price, at least
the price when the camera first became available.

That's probably the bottom line (literally): The K-01 was too
expensive for the "I hate viewfinders" young people who would have
liked it.
 
-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: What's wrong with the K-01

[Gerrit Visser]

I found the effects of the biopsy (severe infection, shakes and 104 fever)
much worse than the 4 hour surgery. The infection was scary, 911 call 2
nights in a row. Very little pain from the surgery. 33 days of radiation
were done 4 months later. Very tiring, due in part to changing schedule
every day plus the usual lovely construction delays on West bound 401!
I had no symptoms at all, just happened to get a PSA test. Cancer was
aggressive and had gone slightly outside of the prostate which we wouldn't
have known if I hadn't gone for surgery.
The care at NYGH and Sunnybrook was stellar. And so much moral support from
our friends, as you say that is so uplifting.
It all makes you appreciate life in subtle ways that I couldn't have thought
of before. We will enjoy our upcoming cruise even more than usual!

If you are over 55, get a yearly PSA test; early detection means less
invasive and more treatment options.


Gerrit

-Original Message-
From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Anthony Farr
Sent: December 14, 2012 9:23 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: What's wrong with the K-01


Thanks, John, Christine, Brian.

The annoying aspect is that I had no symptoms UNTIL the treatment started,
and the second month is expected to be worse as the radiation takes effect.
My family history meant that my PSA level was being watched closely, and at
the first sign of acceleration the biopsies began and eventually found the
very earliest traces of cancer.  I'm told that noticeable symptoms indicate
a serious tumour, and treatment at that stage is necessarily more radical.
In that case I'm glad to have traded a few biopsies and a brachytherapy
procedure for what is a very nasty piece of surgery backed up by a gruelling
course of external radiation.  I'm sure I'll feel lucky after the dust has
settled.

regards, Anthony

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[Brian Walters]

Quoting Bob Sullivan :


The K-01 doesn't appeal to me.
I've handled the LX recently and it is a jewel.
The extra width and weight of K-01 isn't good.
And I have no use for Industrial Designers.
Put them on the panet with the Marketing people.



That's pretty much how I feel about the K-01.

The looks don't particularly bother me - in fact, it looks better in  
real life that in photos - and if it had come with a viewfinder, I  
probably would have owned one by now.  The silver lining is that by  
holding off buying I got a K-5 instead...



Cheers

Brian

++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney Australia
http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/


Regards,



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[Anthony Farr]

On 15 December 2012 15:12, Bob Sullivan  wrote:
> And I have no use for Industrial Designers.
> Put them on the panet with the Marketing people.

And the telephone sanitizers?

I hope your sons are keeping well, chemotherapy is brutal.  Thanks for
your moral support, even small amounts are surprisingly uplifting.
Today has been good.

Thanks for your
regards, Anthony

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[Bob Sullivan]

Anthony,

Sounds like the worst is nearly over.
In the scheme of your whole life, this won't be long.
(I've had both sons go thru testicular cancer, in their early 20's.
The chemo protocol involves trying to kill them, as near as possible.)
Get well soon.

The K-01 doesn't appeal to me.
I've handled the LX recently and it is a jewel.
The extra width and weight of K-01 isn't good.
And I have no use for Industrial Designers.
Put them on the panet with the Marketing people.

Regards,  Bob S.

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Anthony Farr  wrote:
> Answering my own message because I'm addressing a raft of issues from
> various correspondents in this thread and reaching back through the
> life of the K-01.  I don't want to single out anyone, it's a
> collective thang.
>
> A Google image search for  "toilet suite" will find a lot of square
> and rectangular toilets.  I've been seeing them (and using them) for
> years now, if people got out more they'd be less amazed by the
> concept.  Or was it an opportunity to infer that Marc Newson is a
> shithouse designer because he designed a toilet?  In fact he designed
> an entire bathroom range, it'd be a serious omission if a toilet suite
> wasn't a part of it.
>
> I think the attitude to the K-01 is one of "Get your stinking paws off
> Pentax, you damn dirty foreign designer".  How many times does it need
> to be said that the form factor and the feature list of the K-01 were
> Pentax's decisions, not Marc Newson's.  Once again, the form factor
> and the feature list of the K-01 were Pentax's decisions, not Marc
> Newson's.  For the hard of hearing I'll repeat it, the form factor and
> the feature list of the K-01 were Pentax's decisions, not Marc
> Newson's.  And for the visually impaired,   T H E   F O R M   F A C T
> O R   A N D   T H E   F E A T U R E   L I S T   O F   T H E   K - 0 1
>  W E R E   P E N T A X ' S   D E C I S I O N S ,   N O T   M A R C   N
> E W S O N ' S  .
>
> Is the K-01 any squarer than an LX?  You'd think it was a cinderblock
> from the gripes I've read.  For the record it's 22.5mm narrower,
> 11.5mm shorter, 8mm thicker and 4g lighter than a gripless LX.  And
> the LX was praised for it's feel in the hand.  And, by the way, the
> next time anyone complains of the K-01's thickness, consider that it
> will do screwdriver AF with any K-AF lens since Pentax made AF lenses.
>  An mount adapter won't give that, the body needed screwdriver AF to
> ensure backwards AF compatibility.  A short mount would only have been
> AF-adaptable to SDM lenses, and AFAIK no-one has ever produced a mount
> adapter with an integrated AF motor.
>
> If Pentax had taken the short mount plus adapter route we'd still be
> hearing the squealing and whining and moaning today, even from people
> who wouldn't buy a K-01 anyway.
>
> There's the rub, the biggest complaints appear to be coming from
> people who were the most unlikely to ever buy one.  OTOH I've read
> some reports from people who bought a K-01 and seem to be OK with
> their choice.
>
> Over the years I've observed that single-lens-reflex purists are the
> most uncompromising group of photographers around, with respect to
> their acceptance of any other type of viewfinder (or no viewfinder).
> For them I suggest a future PUG theme, "No Viewfinders Allowed - A
> Gallery of From-the-Hip and Overhead Shooting".  I'd also suggest that
> enough is enough, we know how you feel about optical frame 'finders
> and wire frame 'finders and live-view-on-the LCD 'finders and no
> 'finders.  Just don't buy them and see if I care.
>
> Finally, pardon my grumpiness.  I have prostate cancer, and last week
> underwent a brachytherapy implant after a year of hormone blockers.  I
> still hurt (a cough or sneeze is unbearable), have no endurance, scant
> tolerance, and I have to carry a sieve and a lead container everywhere
> in case a radioactive pellet gets loose when I pee.  Have a nice day.
>
> regards, Anthony
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[Anthony Farr]

On 15 December 2012 03:56, John Sessoms  wrote:
> Hope things get better for you


On 15 December 2012 04:13, Christine Aguila  wrote:
>
> Sorry to hear, but wishing you speedy recovery, Anthony!  Cheers, Christine


On 15 December 2012 08:03, Brian Walters  wrote:
> Anthony - really sorry to hear that.  As one who has been down a similar
> path (now over 20 years ago), cancer is no fun whatever the prognosis (and,
> from your subsequent posts I see yours is good).
>
> You're entitled to some grumpiness, so go for it!


Thanks, John, Christine, Brian.

The annoying aspect is that I had no symptoms UNTIL the treatment
started, and the second month is expected to be worse as the radiation
takes effect.  My family history meant that my PSA level was being
watched closely, and at the first sign of acceleration the biopsies
began and eventually found the very earliest traces of cancer.  I'm
told that noticeable symptoms indicate a serious tumour, and treatment
at that stage is necessarily more radical.  In that case I'm glad to
have traded a few biopsies and a brachytherapy procedure for what is a
very nasty piece of surgery backed up by a gruelling course of
external radiation.  I'm sure I'll feel lucky after the dust has
settled.

regards, Anthony

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[Anthony Farr]

It's Art.  What can I say?

"Lockheed Lounges" have topped $US 2 million, when the greenback was
still riding high.  The example I've seen was in a glass case,
probably so the kiddies wouldn't climb all over it.  There's only
fifteen of them, so the world isn't being denied any meaningful amount
of sitting space.

If you do a Google image search for "art furniture" you'll find a lot
of stuff meant for looking rather than using, and I guarantee there
will be something in the search results for everyone to hate.  I
suspect that an unspoken but essential quality of all art is that
somebody, somewhere, must hate it.

regards, Anthony



On 15 December 2012 03:46, John Sessoms  wrote:
> It's a chair you're not supposed to sit on? That really is complete &
> utter nonsense.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[Brian Walters]

Quoting Anthony Farr :


Finally, pardon my grumpiness.  I have prostate cancer, and last week
underwent a brachytherapy implant after a year of hormone blockers.  I
still hurt (a cough or sneeze is unbearable), have no endurance, scant
tolerance, and I have to carry a sieve and a lead container everywhere
in case a radioactive pellet gets loose when I pee.  Have a nice day.



Anthony - really sorry to hear that.  As one who has been down a  
similar path (now over 20 years ago), cancer is no fun whatever the  
prognosis (and, from your subsequent posts I see yours is good).


You're entitled to some grumpiness, so go for it!


Best wishes

Brian

++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney Australia
http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[steve harley]

on 2012-12-14 1:51 Anthony Farr wrote

On 14 December 2012 18:17, steve harley  wrote:

regarding the K-01, the appearance is not awful, but i'd feel awkward with
it in public because it is too attention-getting; i think much of Newson's
aesthetic is like that; i also have non-Newson concerns: manual focus, grip
ergonomics


It sounds like it's not the camera for you.  It's a good thing that
nobody's forced to own one.


no of course not, i was just differentiating my own response to the K-01 from 
the inference you made


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: What's wrong with the K-01

[John Sessoms]

Two years since my surgery; year and a half since radiation.

Got a follow-up appointment with the oncologist next week. Last time my
PSA was "below the threshold of meaningful detection" [0.05] whatever
that means.

The doctor at the VA comes over from Duke Hospital, and said the VA uses
a test that shows levels of PSA that the test Duke uses can't detect
[below 0.1].

The doctors said that with the treatment I received there's a 61% chance
the cancer wouldn't come back within 5 years, and 50% chance it won't come
back within 10 years.

From: "Gerrit Visser"

Cancer sucks, I spent most of this year with prostate surgery, then
radiation treatments. PSA is now undetectable so I guess I am fortunate that
it got dealt with in less than a year.

Gerrit

-Original Message-
From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Anthony Farr
Sent: December 14, 2012 8:58 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: What's wrong with the K-01

Thanks Stan.  No longer a problem, there is no old film stock at my house.
I do carry a letter from my oncologist to explain any oddities about, for
instance, airport security scans and how vital it is that my sieve and my
small lead flask are not taken away from me.

regards, Anthony



On 15 December 2012 00:43, Stan Halpin  wrote:


On Dec 14, 2012, at 12:28 AM, Anthony Farr wrote:


... we know how you feel about optical frame 'finders and wire frame
'finders and live-view-on-the LCD 'finders and no 'finders.  Just
don't buy them and see if I care.

Finally, pardon my grumpiness.  I have prostate cancer, and last week
underwent a brachytherapy implant after a year of hormone blockers.
I still hurt (a cough or sneeze is unbearable), have no endurance,
scant tolerance, and I have to carry a sieve and a lead container
everywhere in case a radioactive pellet gets loose when I pee.  Have a

nice day.


regards, Anthony


Sorry to hear about your medical travails Anthony! But, to try and see

this from the lighter side, does this mean that you have to be careful not
to sit too close to any of your old film stock?


stan



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[Christine Aguila]

On Dec 14, 2012, at 8:30 AM, Anthony Farr  wrote:

> Good result, congratulations but it sounds like you had a rough time.
> I'm lucky to be a suitable candidate for brachytherapy, so all going
> well I should be cancer free after several months.  The pellets have a
> half life of two months so they'll be down to 1/64th energy in a year
> and pretty much spent.  After that I'll learn how successful the
> treatment is.  Right now I have to keep close contact (less than a
> metre) with under 18 year olds and pregnant women to brief periods.
> My twelve year old son is giving me a wide berth, the whole idea
> creeps him out I fear.


Sorry to hear, but wishing you speedy recovery, Anthony!  Cheers, Christine

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[John Sessoms]

From: Anthony Farr


Finally, pardon my grumpiness.  I have prostate cancer, and last week
underwent a brachytherapy implant after a year of hormone blockers.  I
still hurt (a cough or sneeze is unbearable), have no endurance, scant
tolerance, and I have to carry a sieve and a lead container everywhere
in case a radioactive pellet gets loose when I pee.  Have a nice day.

regards, Anthony


Hope things get better for you.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[John Sessoms]

From: Anthony Farr

On 13 December 2012 14:24, John Sessoms  wrote:

None of his chairs looked like they'd be comfortable to sit in.


And if you did sit on one, I'm certain you'd be shown the door and
asked not to return.  They're for looking at, not using.

regards, Anthony


It's a chair you're not supposed to sit on? That really is complete &
utter nonsense.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[Anthony Farr]

Good result, congratulations but it sounds like you had a rough time.
I'm lucky to be a suitable candidate for brachytherapy, so all going
well I should be cancer free after several months.  The pellets have a
half life of two months so they'll be down to 1/64th energy in a year
and pretty much spent.  After that I'll learn how successful the
treatment is.  Right now I have to keep close contact (less than a
metre) with under 18 year olds and pregnant women to brief periods.
My twelve year old son is giving me a wide berth, the whole idea
creeps him out I fear.

regards, Anthony



On 15 December 2012 01:13, Gerrit Visser  wrote:
> Cancer sucks, I spent most of this year with prostate surgery, then
> radiation treatments. PSA is now undetectable so I guess I am fortunate that
> it got dealt with in less than a year.
>
> Gerrit
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: What's wrong with the K-01

[Gerrit Visser]

Cancer sucks, I spent most of this year with prostate surgery, then
radiation treatments. PSA is now undetectable so I guess I am fortunate that
it got dealt with in less than a year.

Gerrit

-Original Message-
From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Anthony Farr
Sent: December 14, 2012 8:58 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: What's wrong with the K-01

Thanks Stan.  No longer a problem, there is no old film stock at my house.
I do carry a letter from my oncologist to explain any oddities about, for
instance, airport security scans and how vital it is that my sieve and my
small lead flask are not taken away from me.

regards, Anthony



On 15 December 2012 00:43, Stan Halpin  wrote:
>
> On Dec 14, 2012, at 12:28 AM, Anthony Farr wrote:
>
>> ... we know how you feel about optical frame 'finders and wire frame 
>> 'finders and live-view-on-the LCD 'finders and no 'finders.  Just 
>> don't buy them and see if I care.
>>
>> Finally, pardon my grumpiness.  I have prostate cancer, and last week 
>> underwent a brachytherapy implant after a year of hormone blockers.  
>> I still hurt (a cough or sneeze is unbearable), have no endurance, 
>> scant tolerance, and I have to carry a sieve and a lead container 
>> everywhere in case a radioactive pellet gets loose when I pee.  Have a
nice day.
>>
>> regards, Anthony
>
> Sorry to hear about your medical travails Anthony! But, to try and see
this from the lighter side, does this mean that you have to be careful not
to sit too close to any of your old film stock?
>
> stan
>

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[Anthony Farr]

Thanks Stan.  No longer a problem, there is no old film stock at my
house.  I do carry a letter from my oncologist to explain any oddities
about, for instance, airport security scans and how vital it is that
my sieve and my small lead flask are not taken away from me.

regards, Anthony



On 15 December 2012 00:43, Stan Halpin  wrote:
>
> On Dec 14, 2012, at 12:28 AM, Anthony Farr wrote:
>
>> ... we know how you feel about optical frame 'finders
>> and wire frame 'finders and live-view-on-the LCD 'finders and no
>> 'finders.  Just don't buy them and see if I care.
>>
>> Finally, pardon my grumpiness.  I have prostate cancer, and last week
>> underwent a brachytherapy implant after a year of hormone blockers.  I
>> still hurt (a cough or sneeze is unbearable), have no endurance, scant
>> tolerance, and I have to carry a sieve and a lead container everywhere
>> in case a radioactive pellet gets loose when I pee.  Have a nice day.
>>
>> regards, Anthony
>
> Sorry to hear about your medical travails Anthony! But, to try and see this 
> from the lighter side, does this mean that you have to be careful not to sit 
> too close to any of your old film stock?
>
> stan
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[Stan Halpin]

On Dec 14, 2012, at 12:28 AM, Anthony Farr wrote:

> ... we know how you feel about optical frame 'finders
> and wire frame 'finders and live-view-on-the LCD 'finders and no
> 'finders.  Just don't buy them and see if I care.
> 
> Finally, pardon my grumpiness.  I have prostate cancer, and last week
> underwent a brachytherapy implant after a year of hormone blockers.  I
> still hurt (a cough or sneeze is unbearable), have no endurance, scant
> tolerance, and I have to carry a sieve and a lead container everywhere
> in case a radioactive pellet gets loose when I pee.  Have a nice day.
> 
> regards, Anthony

Sorry to hear about your medical travails Anthony! But, to try and see this 
from the lighter side, does this mean that you have to be careful not to sit 
too close to any of your old film stock?

stan


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[Anthony Farr]

On 14 December 2012 18:17, steve harley  wrote:
> regarding the K-01, the appearance is not awful, but i'd feel awkward with
> it in public because it is too attention-getting; i think much of Newson's
> aesthetic is like that; i also have non-Newson concerns: manual focus, grip
> ergonomics

It sounds like it's not the camera for you.  It's a good thing that
nobody's forced to own one.

regards, Anthony

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[Anthony Farr]

On 14 December 2012 18:17, steve harley  wrote:
> you yourself pointed out "chairs not meant for sitting", then flipped to
> defending square toilets

Different messages answering different issues.  If I'd meant them to
be part of the same sentiment they would have been posted together.
The "chairs not meant for sitting" are art pieces commanding
astronomical prices and now mainly found in museums.  Don't you think
an artist can create art on one day and fulfil a commercial commission
for a mass market product on another?  I'm certain there's no law
prohibiting that.

> the tone of your message deteriorated after what i've quoted, so i didn't 
> read the rest of your it

Really?  Being a bit sensitive aren't you?  Shame, you missed the best bits.

regards, Anthony

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[steve harley]

on 2012-12-13 22:28 Anthony Farr wrote

Or was it an opportunity to infer that Marc Newson is a
shithouse designer because he designed a toilet?  In fact he designed
an entire bathroom range, it'd be a serious omission if a toilet suite
wasn't a part of it.


don't infer that; i picked it out because it was an easy target and would 
probably engender some puns, that's all; you yourself pointed out "chairs not 
meant for sitting", then flipped to defending square toilets; i think you are 
taking the butt of the joke too seriously; i'm sure they (probably Caroma, not 
Newson) sorted out the seat …


when i looked at Newson's various designs, his bath suite was among the few i 
found attractive; much of the rest seems anti-practical, a real turn-off for 
me; there is so much good practical design these days, who needs flashy useless 
stuff? what i felt most strongly was puzzlement at how this guy would be 
considered a top industrial designer


regarding the K-01, the appearance is not awful, but i'd feel awkward with it 
in public because it is too attention-getting; i think much of Newson's 
aesthetic is like that; i also have non-Newson concerns: manual focus, grip 
ergonomics


the tone of your message deteriorated after what i've quoted, so i didn't read 
the rest of your it



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[Anthony Farr]

All good points, Peter, no disagreement here.  Personally it was a
letdown to see the camera hit the shelves without an EVF option, but
there it is.  I'm not going to get all twisted up about it after the
event.  Pentax (or any brand) will sell what they want to sell, and if
it doesn't suit me it really doesn't matter.  There will be other
cameras, there always is.

Who does Pentax think they are?  I suspect that Pentax sees itself as
a style leader and a mold breaker.  Didn't they once have a motto like
"Pentax is enough" or something to that effect, suggesting that they
had the good sense to stop piling on features for features' sake.

Sometimes I get more pleasure from using a stripped down camera than a
specced up one.  In that respect I "get" Pentax.

Thanks for your thoughts.

regards, Anthony



On 14 December 2012 17:19, P. J. Alling  wrote:
> Anthony let me start out by saying I'm sorry to hear about your health
> issue.
>
> Now I started this thread, and let me say my problem with Newson being hired
> as a designer has nothing to do with his external package per se, but with
> the fact that Pentax thought that it meant that they could simply repackage
> a K-30 DSLR, without the SLR portion, if they just made it a collectors item
> instead of an actual new product.  Maybe if they had invested some of his
> fee into actually having a camera designer and electronics engineer do a
> repackaging they could have put a decent EVF into roughly the same location
> that  Sony has on their  Nex 7, (and Nex 6) cameras.  It looks to me as if
> there would be plenty of room there given a proper review of current design.
> I never said that the K-01 was too big in any dimension, in fact I compared
> the K-01 to another mirrorless camera from Panasonic which was released
> about same time which is actually larger the K-01 and pointed out that no
> one has complained about it's size, at least that I know of. I don't mind so
> much that the camera looks like a camera envisioned by the manufacture of
> LEGOs just that it cost so much to do it for so little return.   As I said
> repeatedly in my original post.  Pentax cheeped out, (and I thought that I
> strongly implied), and tried to make up for it with style.  Who do they
> think they are to get away with that Hasselblad or Leica?
>
>
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[P. J. Alling]

Anthony let me start out by saying I'm sorry to hear about your health 
issue.


Now I started this thread, and let me say my problem with Newson being 
hired as a designer has nothing to do with his external package per se, 
but with the fact that Pentax thought that it meant that they could 
simply repackage a K-30 DSLR, without the SLR portion, if they just made 
it a collectors item instead of an actual new product.  Maybe if they 
had invested some of his fee into actually having a camera designer and 
electronics engineer do a repackaging they could have put a decent EVF 
into roughly the same location that  Sony has on their  Nex 7, (and Nex 
6) cameras.  It looks to me as if there would be plenty of room there 
given a proper review of current design.  I never said that the K-01 was 
too big in any dimension, in fact I compared the K-01 to another 
mirrorless camera from Panasonic which was released about same time 
which is actually larger the K-01 and pointed out that no one has 
complained about it's size, at least that I know of. I don't mind so 
much that the camera looks like a camera envisioned by the manufacture 
of LEGOs just that it cost so much to do it for so little return.   As I 
said repeatedly in my original post.  Pentax cheeped out, (and I thought 
that I strongly implied), and tried to make up for it with style.  Who 
do they think they are to get away with that Hasselblad or Leica?



On 12/14/2012 12:28 AM, Anthony Farr wrote:

Answering my own message because I'm addressing a raft of issues from
various correspondents in this thread and reaching back through the
life of the K-01.  I don't want to single out anyone, it's a
collective thang.

A Google image search for  "toilet suite" will find a lot of square
and rectangular toilets.  I've been seeing them (and using them) for
years now, if people got out more they'd be less amazed by the
concept.  Or was it an opportunity to infer that Marc Newson is a
shithouse designer because he designed a toilet?  In fact he designed
an entire bathroom range, it'd be a serious omission if a toilet suite
wasn't a part of it.

I think the attitude to the K-01 is one of "Get your stinking paws off
Pentax, you damn dirty foreign designer".  How many times does it need
to be said that the form factor and the feature list of the K-01 were
Pentax's decisions, not Marc Newson's.  Once again, the form factor
and the feature list of the K-01 were Pentax's decisions, not Marc
Newson's.  For the hard of hearing I'll repeat it, the form factor and
the feature list of the K-01 were Pentax's decisions, not Marc
Newson's.  And for the visually impaired,   T H E   F O R M   F A C T
O R   A N D   T H E   F E A T U R E   L I S T   O F   T H E   K - 0 1
  W E R E   P E N T A X ' S   D E C I S I O N S ,   N O T   M A R C   N
E W S O N ' S  .

Is the K-01 any squarer than an LX?  You'd think it was a cinderblock
from the gripes I've read.  For the record it's 22.5mm narrower,
11.5mm shorter, 8mm thicker and 4g lighter than a gripless LX.  And
the LX was praised for it's feel in the hand.  And, by the way, the
next time anyone complains of the K-01's thickness, consider that it
will do screwdriver AF with any K-AF lens since Pentax made AF lenses.
  An mount adapter won't give that, the body needed screwdriver AF to
ensure backwards AF compatibility.  A short mount would only have been
AF-adaptable to SDM lenses, and AFAIK no-one has ever produced a mount
adapter with an integrated AF motor.

If Pentax had taken the short mount plus adapter route we'd still be
hearing the squealing and whining and moaning today, even from people
who wouldn't buy a K-01 anyway.

There's the rub, the biggest complaints appear to be coming from
people who were the most unlikely to ever buy one.  OTOH I've read
some reports from people who bought a K-01 and seem to be OK with
their choice.

Over the years I've observed that single-lens-reflex purists are the
most uncompromising group of photographers around, with respect to
their acceptance of any other type of viewfinder (or no viewfinder).
For them I suggest a future PUG theme, "No Viewfinders Allowed - A
Gallery of From-the-Hip and Overhead Shooting".  I'd also suggest that
enough is enough, we know how you feel about optical frame 'finders
and wire frame 'finders and live-view-on-the LCD 'finders and no
'finders.  Just don't buy them and see if I care.

Finally, pardon my grumpiness.  I have prostate cancer, and last week
underwent a brachytherapy implant after a year of hormone blockers.  I
still hurt (a cough or sneeze is unbearable), have no endurance, scant
tolerance, and I have to carry a sieve and a lead container everywhere
in case a radioactive pellet gets loose when I pee.  Have a nice day.

regards, Anthony




--
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
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE fro

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[Anthony Farr]

Thanks, Paul.  Sympathy is a good soother, yours is appreciated.

regards, Anthony



On 14 December 2012 17:02, Paul Sorenson  wrote:
> Sorry to hear about your condition, Anthony.  Here's hoping the pellets do
> their job...
>
> -p
>
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[Paul Sorenson]

Sorry to hear about your condition, Anthony.  Here's hoping the pellets 
do their job...


-p

On 12/13/2012 11:28 PM, Anthony Farr wrote:

Answering my own message because I'm addressing a raft of issues from
various correspondents in this thread and reaching back through the
life of the K-01.  I don't want to single out anyone, it's a
collective thang.

A Google image search for  "toilet suite" will find a lot of square
and rectangular toilets.  I've been seeing them (and using them) for
years now, if people got out more they'd be less amazed by the
concept.  Or was it an opportunity to infer that Marc Newson is a
shithouse designer because he designed a toilet?  In fact he designed
an entire bathroom range, it'd be a serious omission if a toilet suite
wasn't a part of it.

I think the attitude to the K-01 is one of "Get your stinking paws off
Pentax, you damn dirty foreign designer".  How many times does it need
to be said that the form factor and the feature list of the K-01 were
Pentax's decisions, not Marc Newson's.  Once again, the form factor
and the feature list of the K-01 were Pentax's decisions, not Marc
Newson's.  For the hard of hearing I'll repeat it, the form factor and
the feature list of the K-01 were Pentax's decisions, not Marc
Newson's.  And for the visually impaired,   T H E   F O R M   F A C T
O R   A N D   T H E   F E A T U R E   L I S T   O F   T H E   K - 0 1
  W E R E   P E N T A X ' S   D E C I S I O N S ,   N O T   M A R C   N
E W S O N ' S  .

Is the K-01 any squarer than an LX?  You'd think it was a cinderblock
from the gripes I've read.  For the record it's 22.5mm narrower,
11.5mm shorter, 8mm thicker and 4g lighter than a gripless LX.  And
the LX was praised for it's feel in the hand.  And, by the way, the
next time anyone complains of the K-01's thickness, consider that it
will do screwdriver AF with any K-AF lens since Pentax made AF lenses.
  An mount adapter won't give that, the body needed screwdriver AF to
ensure backwards AF compatibility.  A short mount would only have been
AF-adaptable to SDM lenses, and AFAIK no-one has ever produced a mount
adapter with an integrated AF motor.

If Pentax had taken the short mount plus adapter route we'd still be
hearing the squealing and whining and moaning today, even from people
who wouldn't buy a K-01 anyway.

There's the rub, the biggest complaints appear to be coming from
people who were the most unlikely to ever buy one.  OTOH I've read
some reports from people who bought a K-01 and seem to be OK with
their choice.

Over the years I've observed that single-lens-reflex purists are the
most uncompromising group of photographers around, with respect to
their acceptance of any other type of viewfinder (or no viewfinder).
For them I suggest a future PUG theme, "No Viewfinders Allowed - A
Gallery of From-the-Hip and Overhead Shooting".  I'd also suggest that
enough is enough, we know how you feel about optical frame 'finders
and wire frame 'finders and live-view-on-the LCD 'finders and no
'finders.  Just don't buy them and see if I care.

Finally, pardon my grumpiness.  I have prostate cancer, and last week
underwent a brachytherapy implant after a year of hormone blockers.  I
still hurt (a cough or sneeze is unbearable), have no endurance, scant
tolerance, and I have to carry a sieve and a lead container everywhere
in case a radioactive pellet gets loose when I pee.  Have a nice day.

regards, Anthony



--
Being old doesn't seem so old now that I'm old.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[Anthony Farr]

Answering my own message because I'm addressing a raft of issues from
various correspondents in this thread and reaching back through the
life of the K-01.  I don't want to single out anyone, it's a
collective thang.

A Google image search for  "toilet suite" will find a lot of square
and rectangular toilets.  I've been seeing them (and using them) for
years now, if people got out more they'd be less amazed by the
concept.  Or was it an opportunity to infer that Marc Newson is a
shithouse designer because he designed a toilet?  In fact he designed
an entire bathroom range, it'd be a serious omission if a toilet suite
wasn't a part of it.

I think the attitude to the K-01 is one of "Get your stinking paws off
Pentax, you damn dirty foreign designer".  How many times does it need
to be said that the form factor and the feature list of the K-01 were
Pentax's decisions, not Marc Newson's.  Once again, the form factor
and the feature list of the K-01 were Pentax's decisions, not Marc
Newson's.  For the hard of hearing I'll repeat it, the form factor and
the feature list of the K-01 were Pentax's decisions, not Marc
Newson's.  And for the visually impaired,   T H E   F O R M   F A C T
O R   A N D   T H E   F E A T U R E   L I S T   O F   T H E   K - 0 1
 W E R E   P E N T A X ' S   D E C I S I O N S ,   N O T   M A R C   N
E W S O N ' S  .

Is the K-01 any squarer than an LX?  You'd think it was a cinderblock
from the gripes I've read.  For the record it's 22.5mm narrower,
11.5mm shorter, 8mm thicker and 4g lighter than a gripless LX.  And
the LX was praised for it's feel in the hand.  And, by the way, the
next time anyone complains of the K-01's thickness, consider that it
will do screwdriver AF with any K-AF lens since Pentax made AF lenses.
 An mount adapter won't give that, the body needed screwdriver AF to
ensure backwards AF compatibility.  A short mount would only have been
AF-adaptable to SDM lenses, and AFAIK no-one has ever produced a mount
adapter with an integrated AF motor.

If Pentax had taken the short mount plus adapter route we'd still be
hearing the squealing and whining and moaning today, even from people
who wouldn't buy a K-01 anyway.

There's the rub, the biggest complaints appear to be coming from
people who were the most unlikely to ever buy one.  OTOH I've read
some reports from people who bought a K-01 and seem to be OK with
their choice.

Over the years I've observed that single-lens-reflex purists are the
most uncompromising group of photographers around, with respect to
their acceptance of any other type of viewfinder (or no viewfinder).
For them I suggest a future PUG theme, "No Viewfinders Allowed - A
Gallery of From-the-Hip and Overhead Shooting".  I'd also suggest that
enough is enough, we know how you feel about optical frame 'finders
and wire frame 'finders and live-view-on-the LCD 'finders and no
'finders.  Just don't buy them and see if I care.

Finally, pardon my grumpiness.  I have prostate cancer, and last week
underwent a brachytherapy implant after a year of hormone blockers.  I
still hurt (a cough or sneeze is unbearable), have no endurance, scant
tolerance, and I have to carry a sieve and a lead container everywhere
in case a radioactive pellet gets loose when I pee.  Have a nice day.

regards, Anthony

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[Anthony Farr]

On 13 December 2012 14:24, John Sessoms  wrote:
> None of his chairs looked like they'd be comfortable to sit in.

And if you did sit on one, I'm certain you'd be shown the door and
asked not to return.  They're for looking at, not using.

regards, Anthony

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[Steve Cottrell]

On 13/12/12, steve harley, discombobulated, unleashed:

>

Half-arsed Pez dispenser!


-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__Broadcast, Corporate,
||  (O)  |Web Video Producion
--
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[Paul Sorenson]

Designed for "square shooters".  Do you suppose the design carries 
through to the opening in the inner seat?  Would sure shorten one's time 
in the "reading room".


-p

On 12/13/2012 12:29 PM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:

That is a crappy toilet.
Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola


On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:56 PM, steve harley  wrote:

on 2012-12-12 20:24 John Sessoms wrote


He's done some "transportation" stuff that LOOKED Ok - rockets & jet
planes,
although the little car is kind of ugly. I think the little car might be
drivable, but the rockets ain't never going to fly.



his $1300 toilet looks pretty cool, but i have my doubts about that square
seat



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.




--
Being old doesn't seem so old now that I'm old.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[P. J. Alling]

On 12/13/2012 12:56 PM, steve harley wrote:

on 2012-12-12 20:24 John Sessoms wrote
He's done some "transportation" stuff that LOOKED Ok - rockets & jet 
planes,

although the little car is kind of ugly. I think the little car might be
drivable, but the rockets ain't never going to fly.


his $1300 toilet looks pretty cool, but i have my doubts about that 
square seat


 



If you've got $1300 for a square toilet, you can afford to have your 
butt reshaped to fit, I guess.


--
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
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[Daniel J. Matyola]

That is a crappy toilet.
Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola


On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:56 PM, steve harley  wrote:
> on 2012-12-12 20:24 John Sessoms wrote
>>
>> He's done some "transportation" stuff that LOOKED Ok - rockets & jet
>> planes,
>> although the little car is kind of ugly. I think the little car might be
>> drivable, but the rockets ain't never going to fly.
>
>
> his $1300 toilet looks pretty cool, but i have my doubts about that square
> seat
>
> 
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[steve harley]

on 2012-12-12 20:24 John Sessoms wrote

He's done some "transportation" stuff that LOOKED Ok - rockets & jet planes,
although the little car is kind of ugly. I think the little car might be
drivable, but the rockets ain't never going to fly.


his $1300 toilet looks pretty cool, but i have my doubts about that square seat



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[John Sessoms]

From: William Robb

On 10/12/2012 3:38 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:

But he was mostly designing the outsides. I'm sure he had very little
to do with the internals. Lots of people design cars who couldn't even
tune an engine.

I think it's more critical that he was allowed to design a camera but
he probably hasn't used one professionally, else he'd have understood
the importance of a viewfinder of some sort (optical or electronic).



I read something just after the K-01 had been released, where Newson was
saying he had never used an SLR camera before designing the thing. I've
handled one briefly, and it shows that he has never handled a, SLR
camera before...
Even his chairs are ugly and pretentious.


None of his chairs looked like they'd be comfortable to sit in.

I did a Google Image search for Marc Newson, and the K-01 looks like 
it's probably the most useable & attractive item he's designed. I don't 
really care what the K-01 looks like, but even with bifocals, my arms 
just aren't long enough or steady enough to use the little TV screen on 
the back for focusing.


He's done some "transportation" stuff that LOOKED Ok - rockets & jet 
planes, although the little car is kind of ugly. I think the little car 
might be drivable, but the rockets ain't never going to fly.


I wasn't impressed with his shoes or clothes designs either, but I'm not 
a chav, so I may be missing something.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[William Robb]

On 10/12/2012 3:38 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:

But he was mostly designing the outsides. I'm sure he had very little
to do with the internals. Lots of people design cars who couldn't even
tune an engine.

I think it's more critical that he was allowed to design a camera but
he probably hasn't used one professionally, else he'd have understood
the importance of a viewfinder of some sort (optical or electronic).



I read something just after the K-01 had been released, where Newson was 
saying he had never used an SLR camera before designing the thing. I've 
handled one briefly, and it shows that he has never handled a, SLR 
camera before...

Even his chairs are ugly and pretentious.

--

William Robb

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[John Sessoms]

From: Bruce Walker

He may be a name within design circles, but he's not a household name
is all I'm sayin'. I'm sure the Queen knights lots of individuals that
most folks haven't heard of.


I thought she just knighted whoever was on the list the government gave her.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[Paul Ewins]

I seriously doubt that he was allowed any say whatsoever into the function of 
the camera, mechanical, electrical or software. Pentax would have gone to him 
with a working prototype (in terms of parts and features) and then asked him to 
repackage it in an interesting way. Let's face it, the K-01is a DSLR with 
unnecessary bits taken off and nothing new added so there was likely never any 
chance that it would get an EVF or OVF for that matter since that would add to 
the cost.  


On 11/12/2012, at 8:38 AM, Bruce Walker  wrote:

> But he was mostly designing the outsides. I'm sure he had very little
> to do with the internals. Lots of people design cars who couldn't even
> tune an engine.
> 
> I think it's more critical that he was allowed to design a camera but
> he probably hasn't used one professionally, else he'd have understood
> the importance of a viewfinder of some sort (optical or electronic).


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[Bruce Walker]

But he was mostly designing the outsides. I'm sure he had very little
to do with the internals. Lots of people design cars who couldn't even
tune an engine.

I think it's more critical that he was allowed to design a camera but
he probably hasn't used one professionally, else he'd have understood
the importance of a viewfinder of some sort (optical or electronic).


On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:58 PM, P. J. Alling
 wrote:
> But he did finagle his way into designing a camera, and AFAIK had never
> designed one before.
>
>
> On 12/10/2012 3:52 PM, David Parsons wrote:
>>
>> You don't get knighted by the Queen for being a nobody.
>>
>> Like him or not, but he isn't some kid right out of college who
>> finagled his way into designing a camera.
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Bruce Walker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>
>
>
> --
> 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
> PDML@pdml.net
> 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
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[Bruce Walker]

He may be a name within design circles, but he's not a household name
is all I'm sayin'. I'm sure the Queen knights lots of individuals that
most folks haven't heard of.


On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:52 PM, David Parsons  wrote:
> You don't get knighted by the Queen for being a nobody.
>
> Like him or not, but he isn't some kid right out of college who
> finagled his way into designing a camera.
>
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Bruce Walker  wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> 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
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[P. J. Alling]

But he did finagle his way into designing a camera, and AFAIK had never 
designed one before.


On 12/10/2012 3:52 PM, David Parsons wrote:

You don't get knighted by the Queen for being a nobody.

Like him or not, but he isn't some kid right out of college who
finagled his way into designing a camera.

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Bruce Walker  wrote:


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.



--
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
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[David Parsons]

You don't get knighted by the Queen for being a nobody.

Like him or not, but he isn't some kid right out of college who
finagled his way into designing a camera.

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Bruce Walker  wrote:

>
> 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.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: What's wrong with the K-01

[Bruce Walker]

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
 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
> PDML@pdml.net
> 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
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

What's wrong with the K-01

[P. J. Alling]

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
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.