Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-04-2012, 10:01 PM   #31
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NewYork
Posts: 899
I know I might be beating a dead horse here but I wasn't really referring to making a new mount with a new series of lenses. I was referring to a mount that is fully setup to support k mount lenses as its native lens, with a shorter registration distance. A tube is included that has no glass or mirrors or functional parts, it just has the levers and contacts to pass everything through. Its basically a macro tube or a teleconverter minus the glass. The camera is not designed to use a lens mounted directly to the camera as its primary form of use, but rather is designed to be used with the tube and k mount lenses. A limited number of compact lenses (k mount design in very way except the shorter registration distance to allow direct mount to the body) might be an option but I was thinking along the lines of the tube being included with the camera and with regular k mount kit lenses. Such a tube is very much existing technology so there is not much to engineer. That expensive sony adapter appears to be much more than a simple cheap tube that passes contacts and such through.

Of course doing so would open a whole other can of worms. The only purpose for doing so would be to allow adaptation to other brands of lenses, and you would think they would rather push their own glass. They would have to design adapters for other lenses, or leave it up to after market companies, and have every one question why pentax won't make any adapters. Of course, if this camera had been released with such an adapter tube standard and factory installed on every camera, and was sold with a k mount kit lens, and the answer to why the tube was, to allow for future upgrades, would anyone really have an issue with it? You know if they did, it would not take long for aftermarket companies to come up with adapter tubes for every common lens out there. It would leave them open to a compact lens but not necessarily commit them to it (k mount design in every way but a shorter registration distance to be used with out the tube).

I do understand the possible implications and impracticality of this from pentax's point of view, but is it wrong to discuss that it would be cool to have such a camera? I'm not trying to detract from the camera as it is because it does have merits. It will appeal to some and I thing it is a good alternative to the point and shoot crowd that are used to using the lcd. It is defanatlly a top of the line point and shoot (and like others have said, I don't think mirrorless will mean anything to many that buy it).

That doesn't change the fact that with k mount it has compatibility with 25,000,000 lenses, but with such a mount, it would have full compatibility with 25,000,000 lenses and the easy potential for limited compatibility (manual operation at least) with how many canon and minolta and nikon and olympus lenses? Canon already has that advantage (can use k mount and other lenses though not by canons design), so why not level the playing field a bit? I would say native and full support for all k mount lenses and manual capability with other manufactures lenses would trump canons current compatibility? Canon didn't get that compatibility by design (after market companies exploited the ability to make other lenses work with adapters), so why not have a camera that could be similarly exploited while maintaining full native k mount compatibility?

I'm not saying it could realistically happen or that the k-01 is a bad camera without it, but would you like the idea if it did happen?

02-04-2012, 10:22 PM   #32
Veteran Member
sterretje's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Roodepoort, South Africa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,534
QuoteOriginally posted by ripit Quote
but is it wrong to discuss that it would be cool to have such a camera?
Not at all; I had a slight hope that it would be like that as I want to revive my old Minolta MD glass and donated Olympus OM glass.

But I understand that adding a 120 Euro adapter to a 500 or 600 Euro camera makes no sense for a camera manufacturer nor for the consumer. So to say it again, it would mean that they have to go back to the design board and develop new lenses which is also not quite feasible. Not to mention the production capacity issues that might occur.

My conclusion:
although they might have lost a sale on me, I think that both existing and future Pentax users will benefit from the approach that Pentax has chosen.
02-05-2012, 12:02 AM   #33
Site Supporter
Vylen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,250
Apart from the whole lenses thing. They probably didn't make it thinner based on balance and ergonomics....

We've seen that it can sit flat on its base, both sides and even upside down with the XS lens on it - most like on purpose and part of the design of the camera. If the body were entirely thinner while maintaining the overall shape, it would probably no longer have any room on top for the dials and switches. It could also be a little difficult to hold. Of course, it could have been possible to go the Sony NEX route and thin the mount section and keep a thicker grip area, but then you lose out the ability to balance the camera anywhere.
02-05-2012, 01:09 AM   #34
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,690
Ripit, this tube adapter you're asking for won't autofocus my lenses. I own Pentax 18-55, 16-45, 18-250, 55-300, DA 15mm Ltd, DA 40mm Ltd, D FA 100mm, FA 35mm, FA 50mmm, all of which are screw drive. None of these lenses contain an auto-focus motor, they are driven by the motor in the body. I want a MILC that supports AF with my existing lenses.

The $400 Sony adapter is bulky and expensive because it contains a motor that auto-focusses A lenses. The Pentax MILC has an AF motor in the body. That shows that Pentax cares about its user base.


Last edited by audiobomber; 02-05-2012 at 02:12 AM.
02-05-2012, 01:37 AM   #35
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Var, South of France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,071
ripit : I'm with you on this one!
Audiobomber: yes it would! This hypothetical micro-K mount could easily have a screwdrive... This mK mount could have been nothing more than a shorter K mount, with slightly differents bayonets so as to forbid direct use of K lenses. The adapter would cost next to nothing to produce, and you will appeal to a lot more users, while still promoting your own lenses line as being natively supported.
02-05-2012, 03:48 AM   #36
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Athens
Posts: 11
Shorter registering distance is the key for using Leica M39 lenses , but not only . A simple (and cheap ) makro K to K tube of about 14 mm should be ok as an adapter for SLR lenses , and furthermore , a shift-tilt adapter instead of the makro tube ( made possible by these 14 mm of freespace left ) with 24 or 20 mm SMC's in front should make for wonders .
02-05-2012, 06:16 AM   #37
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NewYork
Posts: 899
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
Ripit, this tube adapter you're asking for won't autofocus my lenses. I own Pentax 18-55, 16-45, 18-250, 55-300, DA 15mm Ltd, DA 40mm Ltd, D FA 100mm, FA 35mm, FA 50mmm, all of which are screw drive. None of these lenses contain an auto-focus motor, they are driven by the motor in the body. I want a MILC that supports AF with my existing lenses.

The $400 Sony adapter is bulky and expensive because it contains a motor that auto-focusses A lenses. The Pentax MILC has an AF motor in the body. That shows that Pentax cares about its user base.
Yes it would. Screw drive is just as easy to pass through as anything else. I have 2 quantaray 2x teleconverters that pass the screw drive through just fine along with all the contacts and the aperture lever and the the full suggested retail on those was about 70$ (now possibly discontinued). Luckily due to wolf cameras bankruptcy I got mine for about 10$ ea. It couldn't be that complex to make one if full retail on one was 70$ including the cost of glass (this one wouldn't require glass). I would be more concerned about sdm lenses working, but if I am not mistaken, there is a tamron teleconverter that is sought after because it works with sdm lenses (not 100% sure on that as I don't have the tamron or any sdm lenses).

I didn't even think about tilt shift but it does open up possibilities being able to have an interchangeable glassless adapter before the lens. It also allows for adapters to be cheap as they do not require high quality glass.

Thinking more along the line of expensive adapters but one pentax already has the technology for, how about an auto focus adapter that makes all your manual focus lenses auto focus? Pentax already has the technology because they have already made one. Its a 1.7x teleconverter that auto focuses manual focus lenses. If it could be made glassless (no idea if that is possible but a shorter registration distance might help with that), I would think it would lower the cost and so far as I know, they sold for a couple of hundred dollars with glass (now double that due to availability).
02-05-2012, 11:43 AM   #38
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,690
Sorry guys, I'm wrong. I would like to blame it on being smashed after partying last night, but I was on the wrong track even before my last post. I actually own a Kenko PZ convertor that supports screw drive. But surely a built-in screw drive would add bulk to the body, so it would not be Nex sized, and we all want SR, which adds depth also. The K-01 is still smaller than the smallest DSLR, and
- Pentax doesn't have another series of lenses to support
- K-mount owners don't have to spend money on, or carry an adapter
- Pentax continues to show its loyalty to K-mount, which is frequently cited as an advantage by Pentax users
- Another K-mount body helps sell Pentax lenses instead of other manufacturers (contributes to Pentax profit and longevity)
- A mirrorless mount would be a me-too product. Pentax is different
- Ricoh has the GXR with M-mount, which does what you think the K-01 should do, accomodates other makers' lenses.

02-05-2012, 11:57 AM   #39
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
Part of what makes this an interesting question/suggestion is that Pentax is now, with the XS, creating a new lens line to maintain. I also wondered why Pentax would create a new, semi-KA mount lens that does not fit any other camera, without offering a bit more advantage than making an already-short pancake lens even shorter.
02-05-2012, 12:18 PM   #40
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,690
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
Part of what makes this an interesting question/suggestion is that Pentax is now, with the XS, creating a new lens line to maintain. I also wondered why Pentax would create a new, semi-KA mount lens that does not fit any other camera, without offering a bit more advantage than making an already-short pancake lens even shorter.
The 40mm XS mounts on any Pentax DSLR.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/1810702-post248.html
02-05-2012, 01:54 PM   #41
Veteran Member
ytterbium's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,076
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
- A mirrorless mount would be a me-too product. Pentax is different
Actually this is exactly what they have done - removed the mirror to bear the title others do, except without gaining most pronounced advantages of mirror-less cameras.
It has combined most of the SLR and compact camera downsides:

*Its big,
*Heavy,
*Expensive,
*Needs big, heavy and expensive wide-normal FL's (16, 18, 24, 28mm) lenses,
*Has big, heavy long zooms (compared to 4/3, also - no indication that collapsible or otherwise compact designs might come),
*No viewfinder (not even accessory ones - e.g. optical for the new 40mm XS),
*No wired remote release,
*Reduced battery life,
*Intrusive, 'professional' appearance (bad for events where SLRs are forbidden or required to pay, candids, discrete street shooting),
*Slow flash sync,
*Noisy AF and aperture system (related to video),
*Flimsy rubber port covers,
*Changed button/function layout,
*No support as a compact system in general and the list goes on...

If they just dumbed down a DSLR, they could at least go all the way and make it really simple, cheap and light - plastic mount, no flash socket, no additional ports, no IR receiver, no dials - just buttons, digital SR, all plastic body, no screw drive (few DC motor kit lenses), older sensor (e.g. 12mpix) etc. Then it might work as a cheap backup, video camera for those with older DSLR's or something...

If one needs a versatile camera (s)he will get a DSLR. If i need compact, light or cheaper camera, ill get a true compact (m4/3, or some 2/3" or 1/1.8" sensor advanced P&S). Where does the K-01 fits in? If i want to use my existing lenses, this doesn't get me much smaller than current DSLR's. If i need to get new lenses as well (e.g. small primes), why not go for a truly compact system?

Last edited by ytterbium; 02-05-2012 at 02:24 PM.
02-05-2012, 02:05 PM   #42
Banned




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Millstone,NJ
Posts: 6,491
QuoteOriginally posted by ytterbium Quote
Actually this is exactly what they have done - removed the mirror to bear the title others do, except without gaining most pronounced advantages of mirror-less cameras.
It has combined most of the SLR and compact camera downsides:

*Its big,
*Heavy,
*Expensive,
*Needs big, heavy and expensive wide-normal FL's (16, 18, 24, 28mm) lenses,
*Has big, heavy long zooms (compared to 4/3, also - no indication that collapsible or otherwise compact designs might come),
*No viewfinder (not even accessory ones - it has no support as a compact system in general),
*No wired remote release,
*Reduced battery life,
*Intrusive, 'professional' appearance (bad for events where SLRs are forbidden or required to pay, candids, discrete street shooting),
*Slow flash sync,
*Noisy AF and aperture system (related to video),
*Flimsy rubber port covers,
and the list goes on...

If they just dumbed down a DSLR, they could at least go all the way and make it really simple, cheap and light - plastic mount, no flash socket, no additional ports, no IR receiver, no dials - just buttons, digital SR, all plastic body, no screw drive (few DC motor kit lenses), older sensor (e.g. 12mpix) etc. Then it might work as a cheap backup, video camera for those with older DSLR's or something...

If one needs a versatile camera (s)he will get a DSLR. If i need compact, light or cheaper camera, ill get a true compact (m4/3, or some 2/3" or 1/1.8" sensor advanced P&S). Where does the K-01 fits in? If i want to use my existing lenses, this doesn't get me much smaller than current DSLR's.
I guess the K-01 will be one persons trash and another persons treasure. Show me a link to another camera that does 1080p30,25,24 720p60 HD video and has SR built in for the 25 million K-mount lenses out there.
02-05-2012, 02:12 PM   #43
Veteran Member
ytterbium's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,076
QuoteOriginally posted by jogiba Quote
I guess the K-01 will be one persons trash and another persons treasure. Show me a link to another camera that does 1080p30,25,24 720p60 HD video and has SR built in for the 25 million K-mount lenses out there.
Good point. Certainly, i'm just putting up my perspective, since i'm looking for a more pocketable companion to my k200d, this largely influences my opinion.
Still, i don't understand this camera, given the features you mention, why not just make another DSLR with required electronics upgrades. E.g. the same K-5 body, similarly to what they did with K-x to K-r.
02-05-2012, 02:52 PM   #44
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,748
QuoteOriginally posted by ytterbium Quote
Good point. Certainly, i'm just putting up my perspective, since i'm looking for a more pocketable companion to my k200d, this largely influences my opinion.
Still, i don't understand this camera, given the features you mention, why not just make another DSLR with required electronics upgrades. E.g. the same K-5 body, similarly to what they did with K-x to K-r.
My guess is that next Pentax DSLR will have same video features as K-01.
I just can't see any reason why they should not include it.
02-05-2012, 04:54 PM   #45
Banned




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Millstone,NJ
Posts: 6,491
The K-01 is $749 and the K-5 is $1,199 so for people who shoot in video mode more this is a no brainer. It's now 2012 do you think video is a fad ?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
adapter, advantages, benefit, body, design, k-01, k01, lenses, mirrorless, pentax, pentax k-01, size
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to get AF-adapter to work with 645 adapter angus Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 5 04-01-2011 05:53 AM
Give up SR and get a thinner camera? Andi Lo Pentax DSLR Discussion 25 01-24-2011 11:35 AM
MYO (Make Your Own) 645 to K Adapter bodhi08 Pentax Medium Format 5 07-20-2010 01:27 PM
Will the 67 to 645 adapter make a comeback? mikebob Pentax Medium Format 27 06-27-2010 08:59 AM
Why can't they make something like this... regor Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 22 03-20-2010 01:16 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:45 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top