Talk:Pentax K-01

NPOV

An NPOV banner has been placed on the section titled "Reception". I propose removing the banner as the material in this section is not opinion but documented fact, supported by several reliable sources. The section summarizes some of the criticism leveled at the camera, but it is no less neutral in its treatment of this criticism than any other summary of criticism, whether of a movie, book or tv show. Also, a reference to the discontinuation of the model was deleted with the statement that the camera is still sold in Japan. The fact is that the camera was discontinued early in 2013, but then returned to market in Japan several months later with a slightly different color variation. The K-01 remains on the "discontinued" list on Pentax' web site to this day.--Jburlinson (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You need to be more careful with how you convert your personal experience into article prose. You may have been checking the Pentax website every day to see whether at any time the camera was not listed as discontinued, but you need to stick with what's published in reliable sources. Your "reception" section remains unbalanced as it does not reflect the fact that the design also had positive reception, winning several awards. I therefore believe that your edit did not qualify as giving "due weight" to both sides. You are also unduly singling out the fact that the camera was initially discontinued after a year, which is not at all unusual. Samsara 23:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not my "personal experience" the camera is listed as discontinued on the web site -- its discontinuation was documented at the time by a number of published reliable sources, four of which are provided in the article. If you check the Pentax web site now, it will also be your personal experience that the model is still listed as discontinued; but, again, my prose does not state this in the article, only in the edit summary. As to "due weight", the article does mention that reviewers praised the K-01's image quality, etc. If you find other reliable sources that praise the camera in other ways, please feel free to add them. Regardless, the claim that the K-01 was controversial is not my judgment alone, but, again, has been made my a number of commentators, which are cited.--Jburlinson (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Now that the section has been revised, I again propose deleting the banner. Any objections?--Jburlinson (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

As I had indicated in this edit summary, I remain unconvinced that the price drop is a noteworthy piece of information. Prices for digital cameras always drop shortly after initial release (to what is then sometimes referred to as the "street price"), and thereafter continue to decline. Samsara 06:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

That may or may not be true; I can think of a number of cameras that maintained their original retail price for a pretty considerable period of time. (Consider the Olympos OMD line. Nonetheless, a 50% price drop in a single year is very unusual and certainly noteworthy. Regardless, there's nothing "non-neutral" about referencing the fact of a significant price drop -- it was documented at the time and afterwards. I don't see how including this factoid jeopardizes the NPOV of the article.--Jburlinson (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Personal User experience/opinion

I think the article as it stands is fair. I did a much research before buying this camera new and quite cheaply. It has met my particular expectations. I bought it mainly in order to be compatible with older K-mount lenses (Pentax made them since 1975 and there may be 25 million still in existence). The colour quality is great and the camera has an array of features. For some users, like me, it is an advantage that it is big and heavy. It lacks a proper viewfinder, but that is obvious (one can add a hood to compensate, making it quite bulky). However, the camera is awkward and uncomfortable in use. It's best used on a tripod or in a studio. Earlier Pentax film cameras such as the MZ-5n, are more easily handled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.156.152 (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)