[Kunzite]

The legendary K, M, A* and FA* lenses are part of the latter.

Nope, it's only about K and M lenses. All the others will work properly - because controlling the aperture from the camera is a proper alternative to the aperture ring.

[froeschle]

... proudness on their history. The legendary K, M, A* and FA* lenses are part of the latter ...

This statement was about the (proud) "history". Nevertheless, the crippled mount of the body negatively affects the usage of all lenses with aperture ring. It disables the choice of using the latter (without negative impact). For better handling, one e.g. could set the aperture at the lens, shutter and ISO values with the two e-dials. It also would simplify the usage of bellows and extension rings (without A contacts but with provided stop down information). These are accessories, which still are sold by Ricoh/Pentax! Additionally, one could use P-TTL in this combination. There are no negative aspects of a de-crippled mount for the user - besides a small and probably rather negligible price increase, if at all. Just a simple mechanical lever, a "readout" and minor software variations are required.

EDIT:
The effort to de-cripple the mount should be very limited. The problem might be of different nature. Pentax would admit that crippling the mount was a mistake. They sacrificed one of the strongest advantages - the unrivaled K mount compatibility.

[Kunzite]

It doesn't affect anything if you don't want to use the aperture ring. Canon and Nikon users do just fine without them... they're really a thing of the past.
Regarding the cost, even what we perceive as minor, easy to do usually has a non-negligible impact. And that should be multiplied with a 6 digits annual production volume.

My guess is that there simply aren't enough customers for which this is really important.

[froeschle]

It does affect a lot e.g. if you want to use the aperture ring or in macro photography (see above).

Most users do just fine in "green mode", so get rid of M, TV, AV, etc. ?

The mechanical aperture ring adds value but also cost.
Nowadays, it is more common to control aperture through the camera (with exceptions, e.g. Fuji, Leica).
It is just less expensive.
E.g. for video purposes, it is a desired feature - again.

But the petition was not about the reintroduction of the aperture ring but only of the aperture coupler.
Nikon at least thought that there were enough customers for which this is really important.

A 6 digit number multiplied by a small amount (as an example )
100000 * 1¢ = 1000$ - peanuts

[Kunzite]

We're not talking about M, Tv, Av, and people are actually expecting those modes to be available. Not so much regarding aperture rings, and we can include professionals with high-end lenses and cameras.

The mechanical aperture coupler adds value to few, and cost to all.

But if the real cost is $10, then the final amount will be $1,000,000.
1¢ can't even be considered wishful thinking, it can't even cover the components.

[Tanzer]

The aperture coupling was removed purely to help deprecate old lenses. Pentax will say that it was less accurate, or removing/re-engineering the production to leave it out would save money, but it doesn't take an engineering or business degree to recognize that both those claims are false, and the real reason was to help deprecate old lenses.

If you don't believe that, just look at the several film bodies that do not work with manual lenses at all. An experiment that they tried several times in an effort to push FA series lenses. Pentax did NOT always support all K-mount lenses. Thankfully they backed away from that. Pentax may claim to support 50 trillion lenses now, but they didn't always say that.

Anyhow, once you understand these facts, you will realize that Ricoh will never reintroduce the aperture coupling, no matter how much we might wish for it. Because to do so would be the antithesis of what they started so many years ago, plus it would add cost just to put it back in again.

Furthermore, if Pentax can find a way to somehow further cripple the mount, or old lenses, without alienating existing customers too harshly, they will most certainly do that. And believe me, they continue to evaluate how much they might get away with.

[Kunzite]

The aperture coupling was removed purely to help deprecate old lenses.

That's called "fallacy of the single cause"
Sorry, but I'm not willing to believe they did it from pure corporate evilness

[monochrome]

I understand how open aperture metering and the aperture coupler work.

I also understand that metering on modern dslr's is performed digitally by communicating with the lens elctronically. The aperture coupler is an analog device that itself must be interpreted eletronically, converted digitally and approximated in software. The camera isn't reading a signal from a CDS cell.

Uncrippling the K-mount actually isn't less complex than Green Button metering, it is more complex. Today, using stop-down (GB or OPL) metering we are essentially using the same concept as Super Takumar lenses on a Spotmatic, which is still better than a Sekonic in the hand..

I'm not suggesting Pentax shouldn't Un-Cripple the mount. I'm simply saying it isn't as simple (nor as nefarious) as some here believe.

[cali92rs]

That's called "fallacy of the single cause"
Sorry, but I'm not willing to believe they did it from pure corporate evilness

I don't think anyone is saying it's evil.
I do believe it is hypocritical for people to tout the "25 million lenses in circulation" (or however many) and backward compatibility, and then not provide full support for those lenses.

So instead of citing backward capability as a strength, they should say, yes, you can use those lenses...but forget about proper metering and flash.

[monochrome]

So instead of citing backward capability as a strength, they should say, yes, you can use those lenses...but forget about proper metering and flash.

with non-'A' lenses. Does Pentax under Ricoh still TODAY make the marketing claim that cameras are backward-compatible with 24 million lenses or is that an echo from Hoya days?

I'm not offended that my 1975 and 1965 lenses fit the mount but don't operate perfectly with a 2013 dSLR. I'm quite happy that my 1980 and forward lenses meter well, are controled by the camera body and in many cases focus themselves.

I'm a bit peeved that in 2014 people still complain that a modern elctronic camera company won't accomodate their desire to pay $80 for an M50/1.4 that was made 30 years ago and operate it flawlessly on a $1250 camera body, in order to avoid paying $800 for a DA*55/1.4

[ElJamoquio]

Dunno, when I was thinking of buying my first Pentax I compared costs of the entire system I wanted to Canon/Nikon.

Big difference between $1330 and $2050... or $2000 vs. $4000 for a full system...

I don't think I'm the only one. (But I still wouldn't uncripple the mount).

[Tanzer]

I think Pentax would need to offer one cheap 50 mm lens, similar in principle to the current DA 50 f/1.8, but in FF, to compete with the used market, and with the benefit of being available, warranted, and fungus-free. No quickshift or bayonet mount for a lens hood, since none of the used lenses have that either. They could even get away with using the older SMC coating, or SMC-Lite coating, although I doubt they would do that. Of course a plastic mount.

Then they can offer a premium 50 mm with all the trappings, maybe call it a 48 or 51 mm just to be different. They can get away with pricing this and other lenses higher.

[Kunzite]

cali92rs, if the only reason to not include the aperture coupler is to force people buy new lenses - I call that corporate evilness.
Except I actually know there is a cost associated with including such old tech in the cameras. I also believe that the number of people who would buy a Pentax because of this feature being present - and wouldn't buy otherwise - are negligible. Most likely it's an excuse for a decision long made.

Regarding those 24 million lenses:
Some companies are claiming "the fastest autofocus" - guess what, it's as measured in their lab, and with specific lenses. That's marketing, it won't tell the whole story. Yet I don't think Pentax claimed perfect compatibility with all those lenses.

[ElJamoquio]

I think Pentax would need to offer one cheap 50 mm lens, similar in principle to the current DA 50 f/1.8, but in FF, to compete with the used market, and with the benefit of being available, warranted, and fungus-free.

They could just officially call the DA50 F/1.8 a FF lens.... it is a full frame lens in everything but designation.

[Uluru]

This is similar story to the one in which some people blamed Apple for excluding the floppy drive from their Macs. Or getting rid of serial ports in favour of USB. Etc. The full compatibility with past cannot be maintained forever because it costs the company its future and far more exciting endeavours.