Pentax K-01 poll: love it or hate it?

Just curious to find out your opinion on the new Pentax K-01 mirrorless camera in this poll:

This entry was posted in Pentax and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • John

    Pentax made a good move by designing a mirrorless camera that has the same lens mount as their SLR line of cameras. Other manufacturers are missing the boat…

    • Ken Elliott

      I agree. A Pentax user can buy just the body and maintains his investment in the system. I hope Nikon does the same. I’d love to have a small camera that can also serve as a backup body.

      I hated the style at first, but I’m starting to like it the more I look at it. It’s almost like a serious camera in disguise. I think they’d let me in to events where my SLR get’s security’s attention.

      • I’m with you, it’s a great concept and am waiting for Nikon to do the same. Extra points to Pentax for getting it out now and having those limited lenses ready. What I hope from Nikon is some of the features from the V1- the high quality EVF (perhaps with higher resolution, even), the on-sensor PDAF which could be lightening-fast.

        It seems this creation is missing these, though it may still be quite usable and has the massive advantage of using existing lenses without an adapter, which in terms of range only M4/3 can hope to compete with now, or in the higher end the various Leica-mounts. With a large Nikon collection, there’s only one route that makes sense for me and I suppose other brand’s users are thinking the same thing. It’s another step in evolution similar to the one we made moving to digital in the first place.

    • Not Surprised

      I’m not so sure about that — it may be that they don’t have the scale necessary to produce smaller lenses, which is what is really desired by consumers. However, the benefit is choice and being able to use a huge line of lenses available. That is nice, but doesn’t really save space.. so it is a contradiction of sorts (why the need for mirrorless then).

      However, I might be interested in a full-frame mirrorless Nikon, if I could put the body in a pocket without issue and just carry around my lenses. So I do see the appeal. This Pentax is cropped body, of course, which is also good.

    • Harold Ellis

      they can make nice small body and only flank extension for $30, but nooooo
      they wanna have camera as deep as DSLR is, more expensive and less features.

      • Alex

        Compared to the K-5, it has the same or potentially better IQ, better image processor, much more video capabilities, and it is technically still smaller than the K-5.

        As of now the K-01 body will be sold at $750, which is around $200 cheaper than the K-5’s current market price of around $950.

        For $850, you can get the K-01 with DA 40mm XS kit lens, which is essentially the same as the $400 DA 40mm Limited but in a smaller package. Compare $850 to a $950 + $400, and you will see a significant price difference.

        • Harold Ellis

          what about this:
          D3100 with 35/f1.8

          na ja, it is ok though. more people throwing moneys on poor cameras is good for economy

          • illdefined

            what about that size difference?

            must be a huge jacket pocket to carry that Nikon camera with DX lens attached. meanwhile you can carry the K-01 with the 40mm attached in one jacket pocket and a bunch of other (available) Limiteds in the other.

            everybody loves the look of the Fuji X-Pro, but nobody’s discussed the size of it’s monstrous lenses. just compare the Fuji 60mm 2.4 lens with the Pentax Limited 70mm 2.4 and you’ll understand just how small these Limited Lenses are.

          • Alex

            I’m not here to bag on Nikon, but you picked a bad example of a camera because the D3100 is not on the same level IQ wise as the K-01 will be (if the sensor performs like it should wise).

            Glass wise, I know the 35mm f1.8 is a spectacular lens especially for $200, and it can definitely bring out IQ close to the DA Limiteds. However, if we are talking about size convenience the Nikon 35mm f1.8G is still 52mm long.

            That’s 2x longer than the DA 70mm Limited f2.8.

            … 2x longer than the DA 21mm Limited f3.2

            … 1.3x longer than the DA 15mm Limited F4

            … the same size as the DA 35mm f2.8 Macro (and 1:1 macros tend to be larger)

            … 3x longer than the original DA 40mm Limited f2.8.

            … and 5x longer than the new DA 40mm XS.

            The Nikon is also 7mm wider in diameter than all of the normal primes.

          • Harold Ellis


            if it is not pocketable, you need a bag anyway. then you can as well carry photobag, which looks much better then man purse many metro’ carrying

          • illdefined

            if you’re carrying a “photobag”, why stop there? why not take a D4 with 24-70 2.8 lens?

            I was talking about common jacket pockets, no bag needed. as skinny as the NEX is, try carrying it with the new 24mm attached in a coat pocket, not going to happen. Meanwhile this K-01 with a variety of Limited Lenses would.


      Lens compatibility – deserve a praise.
      Design – Was the designer drunk when they came up with that design?

      Unbelievable, they can come up with better design.

    • This is one of the most uninformed comments I’ve heard in a while.

      Both Sony and Nikon mirrorless bodies fully support their SLR lenses through adapters.

      SLR lenses, mostly around below ~55mm, need to be made with extra elements to provide space for the reflex mirror. One of the benefits of the (other) MILC cameras is this distance is reduced to allow for simpler and smaller lens designs.

    • L.Coen

      So let’s hope that all camera makers take out the mirrorbox and give the user no ovf but just a back lcd and charge the same price as the dslr…than charge like maybe 300 if they want an external evf. LOl. Are you guys serious? Thank god Canon or nikon aren’t dumb enough to do something like that yet. And the benefit of taking out the mirror just to have the body thickness the same is what? that’s like taking out a key component is a car and having the car be the same size..minus the key component. I think Pentax is going senile.

  • Not Surprised

    I always love new cameras; they just help everyone and give more choices. Using an image of the Yellow one really isn’t fair, although the color is a bit weird on all of them (black body has white cap, white body has black cap). They look a bit sporty.

    Whether or not Ricoh is on the mark with Pentax is not clear, but Pentax tends to have reliable products.

  • Jberardi

    So it’s the size of a Pentax SLR, but it doesn’t have a mirror… because mirrorless cameras are cool and everyone has to make one, I guess. This just seems like bandwagon-jumping without any consideration of WHY anyone would want a mirrorless camera. Also, it’s ugly as sin, and not just because of the puke-yellow color shown here.

    I mean, it’s like, after ten years of failing to gain traction in the digital market with K-Mount SLRS, Pentax decided what this camera really needed to succeed is an un-altered K-mount so it could be big and bulky compared to everything it’s competing with. Bang up job, guys.

  • broxibear

    I agree with some of the other comments about showing the camera in yellow and then asking whether you love or hate it…any camera would look somewhat ugly if it were yellow ?
    I don’t mind the overall look and design, if they all cameras looked the same it would get pretty boring pretty quickly.

  • S S

    I think this poll is a little misleading. Not just because the ugly yellow version is shown, but also because “love it or hate it” is too vague!

    I love the design, but I voted “hate it” because the concept of making a camera without a viewfinder is so idiotic to me. If you had said Pentax K-01 design: Love it or Hate it? — that would have made sense.

    • dr

      My thoughts exactly. Design looks interesting, although I’m unsure about the button layout ergonomically. But no EVF, and it’s barely smaller than a proper SLR? Hate it.

  • nodody

    They’ve got the name wrong. Should be called the toys-are-us-01 🙂

  • last

    I heard it from a famous designer, now I’m sure this famous designer know noting about photography….

  • illdefined

    keeping the K-mount for their mirrorless was a perfect move.

    K-mount already has a very thorough lineup of small pancake primes, unlike any other modern SLR mount. Not to mention their vast zoom range of APS-C zoom lenses that are also smaller than Canon or Nikon’s.

    once the true semi-pro GXR-K mount unit is released, the K-01’s design will make a lot of sense as a powerful but simple and welcoming “first camera” for schools and parents.

    • traveller

      Funny, but I think that keepig the K-mount is the K-01’s greatest weakness. By doing this, Pentax have doomed themselves to larger lenses and a thicker body than would otherwise be necessary. What is the point of this camera being mirrorless? They may as well have kept the mirror and the phase detect af system, or perhaps used a pellicle mirror like Sony.

      • Alex

        “Pentax have doomed themselves to larger lenses and a thicker body than would otherwise be necessary”

        Actually, that’s a curse that the Sony NEX system must endure since they only have one pancake lens that is native to the alpha NEX mount.

        On the other hand, Pentax has a bunch of pancake lenses from 15mm to 70mm that keeps the camera at roughly the same size to other APS-C mirrorless cameras.

      • illdefined

        they did keep the mirror and AF system. in their SLR’s. without sacrificing any crucial light for the pellicle mirror.

        the K-mount only made sense for the K-01 because of the full range of tiny Limited Lenses. just compare the number of and physical sizes of the lenses available for the NEX E-mount for example, and you’ll see the advantage of the K-01.

      • mervis

        Why does every one want smaller cameras? It’s a false issue. Are we so delicate we can’t carry a normal sized camera when we’re taking pictures?
        If you want something that can be carried in a purse or a pocket, buy a $200 point-and-shoot.

  • EnPassant

    We had TOY-cameras pretending be real cameras. No we got a real camera pretending to be a TOY-camera! I guess Pentax identified a target group for the camera just like Nikon made the J1/V1 for “soccermoms”. Only Pentax made it for the growing group of young adults who continue to behave like KIDS.

    On a more serious note ergonomics seem okay and I have no doubt it is working great as a camera. Only fail for me in that part is no viewfinder.

    But LOOKS! Oh My… This is really the opposite to the new Olympus OM-D that seem to be a refinement of new and old design giving it a desireable look of an advanced and very cool high-tech product.

    Just as their are rules for composition in a photography or a painting there are rules what make a camera attractive, at least in a classical sense.

    When it comes to colour a mainly all black camera should not have big parts in silver.
    The top-part of the camera should have mostly the same colour, not like on all versions of K-01 having the mirrorbox, Sorry! eh… viewfind…, oh, Excuse me!, Flashcompartement! in a completely different colour.
    YELLOW should never be used for a serious camera! Not even Nikon writing their letters in yellow on black does. Only exception would be for a camera made to be used under water.

    I can only assume Pentax broke the rules on purpose for customers who like fun, non-serious looking cameras.

    • david

      Actually, there are most certainly NOT “rules,” only norms. Plenty of manufacturers are playing the retro/faux-rangefinder card right now, and while I generally prefer that look, I admire pentax for making something weird and unique. I’m with you RE: the viewfinder, though.

    • illdefined
  • Viewfinder

    What marketing idiot commissioned clueless designer to produce “innovative” and potentially capable camera without the viewfinder.

    Credit to Pentax/Ricoh on novel concept to use standard SLR lenses on mirrorless body, for me external colour is irrelevant but lack of electronic viewfinder is crazy.

    • DP

      Totally agree. Yes, it’s the easiest way to make a smaller camera, but removing the viewfinder seriously limits options for photographers.

  • Lars Frederiksen

    Dudes, what’s not to love. I mean I can fit my old K-mount lenses to this and shoot it in manual, no?
    So it’s sort of like a digital version of my Pentax MX film camera, right? So what’s not to love? Sure there’s the multiplying factor, but if it were a full frame sensor the price would have been (even more) obscene. Oh, and I would rather have had dials for shutterspeed and ISO, but everything in life is a compromise I guess.

    (sorry for any spelling errors, I was in a hurry)

    • Mutton Puncher

      But Lars your MX had a viewfinder.

      • Lars

        Yeah, it does. That’s why I say that it’s “sort of like” a digital version of my Pentax MX. I would have liked the viewfinder. No doubt about that.
        I just think that Pentax is going a different way than other camera makers and I respect them for that. I’ll have to try it out before I decide whether I’ll buy it or not.

  • MB

    It is big, it is chunky, it looks like something kids made from LEGO, if may not be all that ugly but it is not pretty.
    If they only added viewfinder, but then again it would be bigger than some DSLRs and the idea behind mirrorless is small size.
    Maybe if they came up with the new line of lenses protruding inside the camera (there is no mirror inside) the overall dimension with the lens could be comparable with other mirrorless cameras on the market.

    • Lars Frederiksen

      I agree, an optional viewfinder of great quality (image-wise) would have been a big, big plus. And I also agree that it’s chunky, but for everything that includes shooting with a lense that’s NOT a pancake lens the extra depth of the body will make it a lot nicer to hold and balance (I’m thinking of longer, heavier lenses).
      I’m also hoping for more “lens inside the body” lenses in the future. I have to say that the design looks good to me, but I care more about the ergonomics (however that’s spelled) than I do looks, so I really do think we should all try it in our hands before we bash it too much.

  • grayscale

    I actually like the design.
    Don’t like the yellow.
    I do think the flange distance limits the lenses you can use.
    However, without a mirror, you might be able to have an adapter where the mount could be inset to decrease the flange distance. I might make it hard to change the aperture though.

  • design fo. function

    Hay dudes.

    I think most of you do not understand what design is.
    If you look at the functionality and the reduced form its perfect, its a perfect work.
    Buttons and wheels are there where they have to be , and not any stylish stuff.
    Its simple and reduced, from the design its perfect.


    If we talk about taste maybe then you can say its ugly. But make the difference, the design job ist well done and perfect, but you dont have to like it.

    Remember about the AUDI A2, waaah what a ugly car, but it was designed perfect and the functionality was also perfect. Now I hope to retuned some of you.

    BTW this poll is stupid !!!! Remember my sentences above !

    Best regards, D.

  • chris

    this is sooooo lego …

  • D.B.

    Yellow looks ugly, white or black would be good…
    but $900 with lens, k-5 sensor and lot of lenses on main and second markets… Well, I’m in line.

  • mellow yellow

    most of the haters of this camera on here are sony nex lovers…now that camera is ugly.its a large lens with a body…this poll will be misleading cause most people will vote hate it cause they hate pentax. personally i like it.

  • Steven Blackwood

    Plus side: uses K mount lenses
    Minus: K mount necessitates a keeper camera body
    Plus: same sensor as K-5 which has among the best ratings of any APS-S sensors.
    Jury is out: Looks “ugly” but also fairly unique.

  • Greg

    I just don’t see the point to this thing (ugly or not) – nearly every dslr on the market has both a prism (or sony evf) finder AND live view – why would someone want to pay dslr money for dslr size and weight but only receive half a dslr?

  • well.. assuming they do not have anything sitting inside the ‘mirror box assembly’, it is technically possible to design the lenses to that they sit as close to the sensor as mirror-less cameras and rangefinders, but with a large portion of the lens body sitting WITHIN the camera.

    this would give more real estate on the body for better handling while reducing the depth of the camera+lens combination. if they can indeed do this then the we’ll have a great set of small lenses with a well balanced body as opposed to sony’s too-small body and huge lens combo.

    this would be akin to some of the old non-retro focus lenses that needed the mirror to be locked up to be used (nikkor 2.1cm f4) exp now there’s the benefit of live view. as a plus point, you immediately have access to a huge range of (very good) lenses.

  • reid wolf

    Your poll may be skewered by putting up the yellow color, balck would have been more neutral

  • mervis

    There is a viewfinder. On the back of the camera. It’s called an LCD.

    Open your mind.

    • Harold Ellis

      really? also in daylight?

      • mervis

        I use my Lumix LX-5 in daylight all the time. Don’t know what the problem is.

        Undersized, squinty viewfinders are worse than no viewfinder at all. Especially if one wears glasses.

  • Bjrichus

    The British Journal of Photography web site has an interview with Pentax UK’s general manager Jonathan Martin. Reading the tone and words of what he says about this camera, it is aimed at those for whom “fashion and design” are the most important things. Having a compatible mount for SLR lenses is a nice side effect, but it’s not what this little box is aimed it.

    “The K-01 is aimed at, first and foremost, the fashion and design market, which we see as a new market for us.” and “it’s traditionally a younger audience – an audience that Pentax, traditionally, hasn’t approached and hasn’t managed to get hold of.”

    So forget image quality, forget this as an enthusiasts or pro level camera. If you like yellow and silver boxes, with big knurled knobs on top, then this is the camera for you.

    • Alex

      Except the IQ will be on par with the K-5 (if not better), and the K-5 arguably has the best IQ to date for APS-C DSLRs.

      • Harold Ellis

        so it will make your photos better, right?
        miss-focused, composed on LCD, all in nice ugly stylish design, by brand with no brand power, but otherwise, amazing quality, super product, will sell like potatoes

        • illdefined

          no brand power? in what terms? Pentax currently has the best semi-professional DSLR on the market, that’s also one of the smallest. They have one the most diverse lens lineups on the planet dating back to screw mounts from 1942.

          Sounds like your reasons for hating the K-01 are all subjective. YOU think it’s ugly, and YOU don’t like Pentax. So obviously it must suck right? Take a step back, state some facts and look at the bigger picture, bigger than yourself.

  • I don’t love it or hate it… just not interested.

    The in-body stabilisation would’be been a hit had this been able to take lenses other than Pentax K.

  • lol

    Best comment on the design I’ve seen is the guy who thought it was an underwater housing for the Q

  • Shelly

    a yellow camera is only a good idea if its a waterproof camera, but overall the design is alright

  • BP2012

    I want a pink one…with a lens hood…also in pink off course 🙂
    Sorry I couldn’t resist the look of this…camera.

    I’ll repeat what I previously said:
    We don’t need K-01.
    We need K-1 (or K3 whatever) – big, heavy, full-frame, full-featured DSLR with top speed frames/sec. We need it to utilize all those fine K-mount full-frame lenses from the film era. Sorry but my 30 years old K-1000 is still producing better photos with 28 f/2.8, 50mm f/1.2 or 135mm f2.8 primes than digital cameras with any aps-c lenses .
    Q is just ok as a mirrorless toy – with or without adapter.
    In addition to that, very small fixed lens low light high end COMPACT CAMERA with big sensor and a Pentax logo “Optio Pro” would be appreciated. Something like Canon S95.

  • MrJava

    I love this camera and if I was a Pentax shooter I would snap this up in a second! This along with all their pancake lenses would be awesome as a carry around and as a back up to my main body. But as I shoot Nikon Im not that interested in it.

    As far as the styling goes I like it. Its no Leica but it looks like some one out there has made an effort and it looks a lot better than any Canon or Nikon DSLR.

  • Ojojo

    Should there be a third option in the poll? For example “ I am completely mystified”.

  • Ojojo

    On second thoughts, it may be odd, but I’ll bet a number of Canikon users are jealous of the concept, if not the looks.

  • At the end of the day, it will all be about performance (both realised and potential performance), compactness, compatibility and price. You can always get one in black and don’t need to buy it with bits in all the colours of the rainbow.

  • J

    Rather this than a “hig end” P&S with worthless sensor and lens.

    Canikon goes for huge compact cameras with poor IQ. That new Canon X1 is a fail compared to this IMO. Probably very similar sized too.

    Pentax makes a slightly bigger APS-C “P&S” with posibility to use any Pentax glass. The ISO performance and corner to corner sharpness will be super compared to other compacts. This is no “dslr” class camera. This is the perfect “p&s” for the serious photographer. 🙂


  • the only thing that let me down when this thing was announced was the lack of an EVF, other than that I love how it looks (well say weather I love how it works only after I’ve played with it) 🙂

  • MJr

    How many times am i allowed to vote ?

  • I think it looks great but I agree that showing the yellow version, the most striking colour scheme is going to unfairly influence peoples opinion.

    It’s a very tough and sturdy looking thing and somehow manages to give a nod to days of old without being blatantly retro, I think it looks unique and more like a serious photography tool than some mirrorless cameras, it looks very purposeful and butch.

  • Mark


  • JO

    so so ugly, ugliest camera I ever seen

  • Mark

    Even if this camera were all black. It is Stupidly UGLY . Whatever designer designed it should be shot.
    I am for different styled cameras. Love the 2Fuji cameras. The designer needs to look at a Contax G 1 or a Leica M3. Those are 2 gorgeous cameras. They also have some of the best lenses ever made for 35 mm This camera is an abortion. ugly and no viewfinder. If someone gave me one for free. It would be on Craig’s list right away. I will stick to my Nikon D2X. Rolleiflex 6002 and Contax G1 They are all well designed. Built like a tank and good looking as an added benefit Ricoh. Must have something to do with this camera. I have always disliked their products

  • Giu

    The camera is the ugliest camera to be released in a while (and I include even cheap, €40 rolleis and what not). But I love the idea of it. Awesome guts and a decent lens mount. No limiting bullshit so people waste more money on more plastic. So yeah, LOVE IT!

  • Ivo

    – Its ugly;
    – spec’s are not impressive.

    So far: I love my K20D.

    alternative for this moment both Fuji and Sony

  • blackout

    this is what you’ll get when you let a furniture designer design a DSLR!
    pentax’s hardware and technology inside are good, but the outer shell is … beyond ugly. it sat a new height standard of bad design. bad enough to get only a year of life in the market!

    designer cleanly didn’t do his homework therefor he has zero understanding of what mirrorless user want. he only design this thing for serving his own egos. Big mistake for Pentax.

  • Back to top