Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-10-2012, 09:07 AM   #76
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,185
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I think the french fried version would be a big seller south of the Mason Dixon line.
If only I had the time oh the Photochops I would make!

02-10-2012, 09:14 AM   #77
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,270
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
If only I had the time oh the Photochops I would make!
up here there could be the poutine version (gravy and cheese curd resistant )
02-10-2012, 10:21 AM   #78
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by Paul MaudDib Quote
I don't see any other potatoes with a shake-reduction sensor.
Because no one else puts sensors in potatoes?

It strikes me now that Pentax was pretty consistent at making weird engineering decisions. Let's look back at when they moved away from M42 (1975 - a very late move). Why did they keep the same register distance? Canon FD already had a shorter register distance, so it's not like there was some technology issue that they had to solve. Why didn't they build the K mount to be wider and keep lenses closer to film? With that decision we could have now had M42 adapters that covered the mount contacts and used the lens lock mechanism instead of a stupid little flange that locks inside the mount and even allows a degree of movement when small lenses are used. What was so special about the 45.46mm distance that they needed to stick with it? In light of those past decisions, the design of the K-01 is not at all surprising.
02-10-2012, 10:27 AM   #79
Senior Member
Paul MaudDib's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 292
Because it's not physically possible to get the lens *that much* closer to the film if you still want to squeeze a mirror in there. The closest SLR I see on the chart is the Konica Autoreflex with a 40.5mm distance.

And if you keep the register distance the same you can just stick a little flange in there so the lens indexes to the K-mount flange on the body, instead of having to carefully machine an adapter that perfectly reaches infinity. I don't know if you've tried them or not, but most of the cheap adapters on eBay either focus beyond infinity or cannot reach infinity due to poor quality control.

Also at the time I doubt a serious architecture or landscape photographers at the time (the people who need movements) would be caught dead turning in work from a small format camera. The movements would be quite modest anyway.

02-10-2012, 11:26 AM   #80
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 874
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
The old FA20-35 was pretty small and light -- and it didn't extend into the mirrorbox. Let's assume that 1) deep-inset XS lenses have a tab that prevents their mounting on a standard PK mount, and 2) the K-01 has an XC (extra-crippled) mount with a slot for that tab. (Does anyone have a detailed picture of the K-01 mount? Did I miss it?) With such a system, a lens' rear elements could extend over 40mm into the camera. With the mount throat being over 40mm wide, it should be possible to build a 16-50/2.8 WITHOUT RETROFOCUS ELEMENTS to fit mostly inside the camera. That's my rough guess anyway.
I'd love to hear more about the benefits of the element being closer to the sensor. As far as having an extra tab on the XS lenses preventing mount on standard K-mount, I thought of that too but then I thought by the time you hit that tab, the damage would already be done, the back of the lens would be hitting the mirror, right? No tab necessary.
02-10-2012, 02:04 PM   #81
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by jake14mw Quote
I'd love to hear more about the benefits of the element being closer to the sensor. As far as having an extra tab on the XS lenses preventing mount on standard K-mount, I thought of that too but then I thought by the time you hit that tab, the damage would already be done, the back of the lens would be hitting the mirror, right? No tab necessary.
I'll let others more knowledgeable about optics talk about close-element benefits. I'll just note that Leica LTM and M-mount cameras (135/FF) have registers about 28mm. Sony NEX cameras (APS-C) have a register of 18mm. Those may be near the limits for lenses with neither retrofocus elements nor aberrations.

The XS-mount tab I'm thinking of would not even permit the lens to seat into a SLR's PK mount, so no damage would be possible. Hmmm, not even a tab would be necessary, just slightly greater thickness of the XS bayonet flags. Think about trying to mount an unmodified OM or C/Y lens on a PK mount -- it can't happen, their flags are just too thick to slide under the PK mount lugs. I use a Dremel to taper those flags a little, to allow a force-fit. But an uncut lens just won't mount.
02-10-2012, 02:17 PM   #82
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 896
one thing we should note about these short flange distance mirrorless *digital* cameras: they all rely heavily on file correction, even on their RAWs.
02-10-2012, 03:51 PM   #83
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
It sounds to me like people would buy a potato if there was a K-5 sensor in it and they would at the same time applaud it as innovative for being edible.
Whats wrong in buying a potato that could take pictures like K5???

Seems to me that there are some people who will complain even if Pentax made a potato take highest quality pictures. There is no pleasing them.

02-10-2012, 07:23 PM   #84
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by illdefined Quote
one thing we should note about these short flange distance mirrorless *digital* cameras: they all rely heavily on file correction, even on their RAWs.
Are you sure? From what I understand, the corrections are automatically applied in JPEG. That's how photozone can show results with and without correction. If they were applied in RAW, they would not be able to test the uncorrected images. And these corrections don't exist for all lenses either - they are lens specific.

They are pretty much like the lens corrections you can apply on Pentax DSLRs and you have control over them in the RAW editor, just like with the Pentax RAW files.

OTOH, Pentax cameras do some auto NR at high ISO which you cannot prevent in RAW files, so the practice of RAW files not being RAW was initiated by them.
02-10-2012, 07:30 PM   #85
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,185
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
Are you sure? From what I understand, the corrections are automatically applied in JPEG. That's how photozone can show results with and without correction. If they were applied in RAW, they would not be able to test the uncorrected images. And these corrections don't exist for all lenses either - they are lens specific.

They are pretty much like the lens corrections you can apply on Pentax DSLRs and you have control over them in the RAW editor, just like with the Pentax RAW files.

OTOH, Pentax cameras do some auto NR at high ISO which you cannot prevent in RAW files, so the practice of RAW files not being RAW was initiated by them.
AFAIK, Panasonic applies some correction to the DNG file as well. I don't care. Doesn't affect the final result. Looks good to me.
02-10-2012, 09:20 PM   #86
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 896
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
Are you sure? From what I understand, the corrections are automatically applied in JPEG. That's how photozone can show results with and without correction. If they were applied in RAW, they would not be able to test the uncorrected images. And these corrections don't exist for all lenses either - they are lens specific.

They are pretty much like the lens corrections you can apply on Pentax DSLRs and you have control over them in the RAW editor, just like with the Pentax RAW files.

OTOH, Pentax cameras do some auto NR at high ISO which you cannot prevent in RAW files, so the practice of RAW files not being RAW was initiated by them.
Yes, the major commercial RAW converters (ACR, Lightroom) process the correction meta-info on import. Not all RAW converters do though, so that's how uncorrected files are attained, by using lesser known RAW converters that don't have deals with the manufacturers.

Yes Pentax does lens correction now but's that's a relatively new thing and not such an integral part of its image quality. The K mount was from a time when engineers worked very hard to get the very best quality out of their optics. There was no such thing as auto-correction for film.

Pentax FA lenses are full-frame, meaning that APS-C gets the "sweet spot" of lenses made for a significantly bigger 'sensor' (35mm film). Edge to edge to quality, vignetting, and distortion all benefit from the 1.5x crop factor. DA lenses were made especially for APS-C digital sensors with mirrors in front of them. This meant making the rear optics of the lenses telecentric, bending the incoming light to be as perpendicular to the sensor as possible vs. at an angle, which digital sensors capture much less efficiently than film.

Micro 4/3rds and Sony NEX were designed from scratch in the digital age with digital lens correction baked into the design from the beginning. Their priority was thinness and flange distance, making the incoming light come in at extreme angles depending on the focal length. The very first m4/3rds cameras and NEX sacrificed optical quality for size of both lens and camera, and the uncorrected files prove just how much they've always relied on digital correction. See DPreview's thoughts on the Sony NEX lenses in particular, and ask yourself why all the good ones are so massive.

The K-01 will rely much less on digital correction vs. true optical quality than the other mirrorless mounts precisely because of it's 'legacy' K-mount. (In fact I'm not even sure there's even an option to correct FA lenses)
02-10-2012, 11:35 PM   #87
Senior Member
Kennod's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 126
QuoteOriginally posted by ripit Quote
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
Sorry if already stated elsewhere, but a lens mount with a different registration difference is not a K-mount, even if it could physically accept K-mount lenses. The registration distance is fundamental to compatibility, both backwards and forwards. It would be an abomination.

Of course there should be no reason why the overall body, surrounding the mount, couldn't be made thinner than the K-01, but the integrated mount would need to protrude. The body only might look a bit odd, but with lens attached the effect would be similar to a NEX with adapter+lens.

The fact that Pentax-Ricoh have chosen to design their high end APS-C (and possibly FF) mirrorless cameras around the K-mount, rather than a new mount and series of lenses, is the best possible news for those heavily invested in K-mount lenses. The future and it is looking brighter with every new announcement.
02-11-2012, 12:11 AM   #88
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by illdefined Quote
Not all RAW converters do though, so that's how uncorrected files are attained, by using lesser known RAW converters that don't have deals with the manufacturers.
Not true. The software that Olympus ships with their cameras allows you to turn off all auto corrections. It's not a big deal. Works exactly as the Pentax software in this respect. See attached screenshot of controls available for distortion correction. There are similar controls for CA and other aspects.
Attached Images
 
02-11-2012, 03:54 AM   #89
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,254
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
Not true. The software that Olympus ships with their cameras allows you to turn off all auto corrections.

I don't catch the main sense of all your dreary posts here and there?
You don't like K-01's idea and XS lenses? OK.
You can express it very simply without wasting our and your time...

The brevity is the soul of wit.

Or...There is another problem?

Last edited by ogl; 02-11-2012 at 04:11 AM.
02-11-2012, 04:09 AM - 1 Like   #90
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
Not true. The software that Olympus ships with their cameras allows you to turn off all auto corrections. It's not a big deal. Works exactly as the Pentax software in this respect. See attached screenshot of controls available for distortion correction. There are similar controls for CA and other aspects.

All this is well and good but NO USE since the sensor is piece of crap. Even if Olympus gives a gold coin with their cameras they are useless as camera since the sensor in them is crippled.

With K-01 at least you have the sensor which is one of the best in today's time.
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 07:21 AM. | 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