[doc_taz_nj]

Kind of wish Pentax would launch a modern DSLR without the crippled mount, maybe a special edition k-1 that costs 100 bucks more or something.

I'd definitely spend the money on that version of the K-1. There's plenty of older, pre KA glass that's still worth using digitally. It would be great to use them all without having to stop them down (or sit around collecting dust for nothing :/ ), and letting the aperture rings of the older lenses do their work.

[normhead]

Kind of wish Pentax would launch a modern DSLR without the crippled mount, maybe a special edition k-1 that costs 100 bucks more or something.

It would probably cost 100 bucks just to have the engineers think about it, plus modifying a production line for very few users, if it can even be physically done. It would require a complete redesign of the interior of the camera. Let's say a minimum $500 = $1000 as a more reasonable estimate given that the R&D is going to be spread over very few bodies. Still interested?

[ZombieArmy]

It would probably cost 100 bucks just to have the engineers think about it, plus modifying a production line for very few users, if it can even be physically done. Let's say a minimum $500 = $1000 as a more reasonable estimate given that the R&D is going to be spread over very few bodies. Still interested?

I don't think this is some ancient lost technology that they have to rediscover. R&D typically exists for technology that's cutting edge, not for tech that you used for decades.

I could see them charging a few hundred more for a low production run though. Maybe it should just become the standard instead moving forward to really stick it to Canon and Nikon.


Edit: honestly though, even at 500 more it'd become the quintessential K-1 being able to flawlessly work with the entire K mount line-up. Yes I'd still be interested and I'm sure plenty of others would be too.
There's something to be said about your lenses "just working".

[normhead]

The issue isn't whether the tech is lost, the issue is can they fit it into the camera with everything else that's in there. Just looking into my K-1 I'm not even sure you can put both systems into the same camera body. Having two separate stop down systems in one camera, has it ever been done by anyone anywhere? I think you're underestimating the complexity of the issue.

This would require a total redesign of the electronics and parts placement. You can't just stick something in with crazy glue.

[ZombieArmy]

Having two separate stop down systems in one camera, has it ever been done by anyone anywhere?

The original KAF/KAF2 mount was non-crippled.

Pentax MZ-7 / ZX-7 - Pentax Autofocus Film SLRs - Pentax Camera Reviews and Specifications

There's a handy dandy compatibility chart here:

The Pentax Camera Lens Compatibility Chart


Also Nikon has done similar stuff with their cameras, I believe some of their higher end DSLRs are not crippled for their legacy lenses.

[normhead]

The original KAF/KAF2 mount was non-crippled.

Pentax MZ-7 / ZX-7 - Pentax Autofocus Film SLRs - Pentax Camera Reviews and Specifications

There's a handy dandy compatibility chart here:

The Pentax Camera Lens Compatibility Chart


Also Nikon has done similar stuff with their cameras, I believe some of their higher end DSLRs are not crippled for their legacy lenses.

You're talking about a camera that worked with two aperture mounts, since then we've gone from KAF to KAF4. A total redesign would be needed. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand.

A quick glance at the Nikon website suggest that there is no compatibility with lenses made before 1977 in terms of stop down metering. It sure sounds like a "crippled" mount to me. Again, from a quick glance, it looks to me like you have to do all kinds of menu stuff with a Nikon, while I just set my camera to AV mode, set my lenses manually and shoot away for my screw mount lenses. We need some Nikon using dude to clear that up. And many Nikon cameras don't even have screw drive motors. Hardly the company to hold up as an example of maintaining backwards compatibility.

How does a modern company make money catering to people who want to use 50 year old lenses?
To me, Pentax backwards compatibility is top notch compared to all other camera companies. Maybe that's because they still have screw drive lenses in their catalogue, but still, credit where credit is due.

[ZombieArmy]

You're talking about a camera that worked with two aperture mounts, since then we've gone from KAF to KAF4. A total redesign would be needed. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand.

And I'm telling you there's KAF2 mount cameras that are extremely compatible with modern and legacy lenses like the MZ-S. All cameras have KAF2 mounts to this day, otherwise you couldn't use screwdrive lenses.
The only differences that KAF3 and 4 introduced were that KAF 3 was SDM/DC only and that KAF 4 introduced the electromagnetic aperture diaphragm.

The only reason cameras like the MZ-S aren't fully compatible with basically every lens (except the 55-300 PLM) is because they lack the SDM/DC contacts. That's it. There's no inherent reason modern cameras couldn't be "un-crippled".

[edom31]

Mamiya 35/2.8

+1 on this one...

Ohh - the Soligor 105/2.8 early T-mount = that is another one.

[normhead]

And I'm telling you there's KAF2 mount cameras that are extremely compatible with modern and legacy lenses like the MZ-S. All cameras have KAF2 mounts to this day, otherwise you couldn't use screwdrive lenses.
The only differences that KAF3 and 4 introduced were that KAF 3 was SDM/DC only and that KAF 4 introduced the electromagnetic aperture diaphragm.

The only reason cameras like the MZ-S aren't fully compatible with basically every lens (except the 55-300 PLM) is because they lack the SDM/DC contacts. That's it. There's no inherent reason modern cameras couldn't be "un-crippled".

And you're a Pentax engineer and can say this definitively
"The Pentax mount can be 'uncrippled' for $100 or less with little R&D cost and would sell enough to recuperate the R&D cost."

Especially since, if you're in a hurry, you don't use MF glass. If you are using screw mount lenses, you clearly have time to burn. Right tool for the job and all that.

What is your expertise in this field. Have you any practical knowledge what goes into the design of a modern camera?
Your whole theory is rampant speculation by an unqualified person in a field that requires very specialized training and experience.
Personally I'd be embarrassed to trot out such speculation. I know I'm not qualified to make such judgements. But I have worked as a plant manager in furniture making and even in the plants I've worked in, making even the most basic changes can be demanding, time consuming and costly and can require the purchase of new equipment and a redesign of the production line. I seriously doubt they'd be cheaper in the camera business.

What is with your unqualified insistence that adding screw mount functionality wouldn't mean a total redesign? They could use existing components for much of it, but that's no different than what they do now when they put out a new model.

What is it that makes you say this could be easily done? Nikon doesn't fully support lenses made before 1977 so toss that speculation. Exactly who has done this easy to do, not costly thing?

Your assumption that there would be room for everything needed in the current K-1 or KP case is just bizarre. Unsupported by any real world knowledge of such things.

Of course having said that, Pentax will come out with exactly what you want in their 100th anniversary model for and extra $50. The difference between my statements and yours being, I understand how little I know and don't make wild claims based on what I think should be true, based on next to nothing.

To me, uncripppling the mount to accommodate screw mount, would be a losing proposition. Much larger companies aren't doing it, and just by the economy of scale, if it's a losing proposition for them, it would be a disaster for Pentax. Expanding KAF4 makes a lot more sense.

Maybe buy some "modern" glass, like something made in the 80s.

[ZombieArmy]

And you're a Pentax engineer and can say this definitively
"The Pentax mount can be 'uncrippled' for $100 or less with little R&D cost and would sell enough to recuperate the R&D cost."

I'm not going to continue this "debate" since it's not going anywhere and it's not relevant to this thread. However you shouldn't hang onto some flippant statement like that. I of course have no idea how much it would cost to re-add the stop-down coupler needed for complete backwards compatibility to the K mount. Don't take that as if it was some analysis, or even as some "hopeful prediction".

It was just me thinking how much more fun the modern digital SLRs would be if the K/M lenses worked like they did when they were released. That's all.

To me, uncripppling the mount to accommodate screw mount, would be a losing proposition. Expanding KAF4 makes a lot more sense.

Screw mount?

[normhead]

It was just me thinking how much more fun the modern digital SLRs would be if the K/M lenses worked like they did when they were released. That's all.

If that was all, there'd have been no discussion. It's when you start into the "it can be cheaply done" thing that gets irritating.

I have no issue with anything anyone might want. Which would include making a camera compatible with screw drive lenses. But it's pipe dream kind of thing, that would not be practical. It's the part where you get into "it would be simple and relatively cheap" that's a problem. You make it sound like all the camera companies aren't doing this because they didn't think of it (but you did). You might want to give the camera companies some credit for the thought they put into these decisions, without assuming what you want wasn't considered and discarded for good reason.

To me, the concept of a new better way making the old way obsolete is reason enough to abandon a technology. Those old lenses still work as designed on the cameras they were designed for.

[ZombieArmy]

But it's pipe dream kind of thing, that would not be practical. It's the part where you get into "it would be simple and relatively cheap" that's a problem. You make it sound like all the camera companies aren't doing this because they didn't think of it (but you did).

You have of course given no empirical reason as to why it's impractical. The original removal of the stop down mechanism was a cost cutting measure on pentax's part, it's why you only saw full compatibility on higher end models.

Wayback Machine

I have not yet ripped apart any of my old film SLRs, but when I do I'll hopefully have an informed enough opinion on this :-)

Let's leave it at that.

[normhead]

You have of course given no empirical reason as to why it's impractical. The original removal of the stop down mechanism was a cost cutting measure on pentax's part, it's why you only saw full compatibility on higher end models.

Exactly... cutting costs keeps your prices in line with your competitors. There is nothing wrong with them per se. Some would argue that they are essential to the survival of any company. You steer your customers towards the better way. There's nothing inherently wrong with cost cutting. Sometimes it's just embracing a better way.

Sometimes you can cut costs, and make a better product. Advancements in technology or smarter use of existing technology and all that.