[mikemike]

Am I the only one amazed by how bent out of shape some folks get that their fully manual lenses don't work as automatically as they could?

[Tanzer]

OK, I might have been wrong about the Pentax reps saying the lenses wouldn't be compatible with SR, that must have been speculation from others here on PF. (I read it on the Internet so it must be true.)

But that actually supports my point. Which is this: it doesn't really matter what actually could theoretically work. Pentax just needs to come up with reasons (positive or negative) for users to buy new lenses. Moreover, they don't have any obligation to make old FF lenses work in anything but a crop mode, whether or not the stated rationale is truthful. So don't get your hopes up that a new FF body will make yer old stash any more valuable than it already is on the K-3. Ricoh doesn't somehow owe you that.

[cali92rs]

Am I the only one amazed by how bent out of shape some folks get that their fully manual lenses don't work as automatically as they could?

So you think a company should have the right to advertise something they know is false?

[thibs]

Are you ignoring the K-30 and K-50 not functioning properly with M42 lenses? That's a big limitation.
Also, "pejorative connotation"? Seriously, does Ricoh pay you? Im being honest because you paint a rosey picture of every single thing they do.

Yeah, and you often do the opposite so you're surely paid by Canikon aren't you?

Can we stop this non sense?

---------- Post added 14-03-14 at 08:42 ----------

Zvonimir,

You've basically underscored the point I was trying make.

I am not on the forums as much as some, but enough to know who is who, and that you've started posting as Uluru rather than Zvonimir Tosic on DPR. I do actually appreciate your posts at times but this passive aggressive stuff is really uncalled for.

To me this seems like flipside of the path RH went down before he got shunned/banned and started up his own blog -- an irrational and aggressive defence of Pentax. Is a new blog from you something we should be looking forward to?

As you were everyone and sorry for the interruption -- back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Funny, at times I thought Uluru was really bashing RI for nothing.
In fact I often think he's either bashing them either is he doing the complete opposite.

Maybe things aren't as simple as it seems they are, don't you think?

BTW Uluru, I'm talking about you here but there's nothing personal, hope you don't take it that way.

[Kunzite]

Are you ignoring the K-30 and K-50 not functioning properly with M42 lenses? That's a big limitation.
Also, "pejorative connotation"? Seriously, does Ricoh pay you? Im being honest because you paint a rosey picture of every single thing they do.

I said "K-mount lenses", right?
AFAIK, saying that a person is crippled does have a pejorative connotation; at least Wiki says so
And FYI, understanding why it's unlikely to see the aperture simulator again (not entirely impossible, though) and what it actually means to put it back is not a bad thing. It is strange that you hate it so much; is it better to stay in the dark and endlessly complain about the most unlikely things?
If I don't see Pentax in an unfavourable light I must be paid by them? Be negative about Pentax and it's all fine and "honest", be moderately positive (imagine! a Pentaxian happy with his choice! Outrageous!) and you're a paid shill? <children garten mode>Who's paying you?</children garten mode>

[Uluru]

....

Funny, at times I thought Uluru was really bashing RI for nothing.
In fact I often think he's either bashing them either is he doing the complete opposite.
Maybe things aren't as simple as it seems they are, don't you think?
BTW Uluru, I'm talking about you here but there's nothing personal, hope you don't take it that way.

It is something like marriage or friendship; at some stage arguing and displeasure are necessary, but out of concern. But that must be balanced somehow, by taking many points into consideration. For example, the period between the summer of 2011 and autumn of 2013 was extremely frustrating because the company has lost an important developing momentum and the camera market in that same period has began to shrink. In that period we did not see anything interesting from them, only status quo, while the Fujifilm, for example, launched their entire new system and invested in marketing.

On our side, that time was spend understanding what is the new owner like, and only after almost 3 years now, we can safely say that the Ricoh is: extremely conservative company, risk averse, rumour averse, slow on action, inaudible in marketing, but what they deliver, they deliver well.

We can also establish some behavioural pattern now, understand their thinking and have some idea about the possible strategy, which is not too discouraging as it does make sense. Maybe not extraordinarily exciting as many would desire, but perhaps that is not too bad.

[Clavius]

On our side, that time was spend understanding what is the new owner like, and only after almost 3 years now, we can safely say that the Ricoh is: extremely conservative company, risk averse, rumour averse, slow on action, inaudible in marketing,

Do you consider being conservative and risk averse as a good or a bad thing?

but what they deliver, they deliver well.

They do? I've been following the mirror-flop-MKII issue with some disgust. Apparently they haven't learned much from the issue with the K-5. That's completely unforgivable, imho. Yes, I know, it may or may not have a different cause. But as a customer I shouldn't care, and I don't. Both causes are similar symptoms pointing to lacking QC. I'm waiting for K-3 lens release buttons to fall off and post-Hoya SDM issues. They may be risk averse, but in wrong areas. QC is definitely an area where they should be taking less risk. (Less cutting?) And marketing and maybe R&D could do with some more risk taking.

[froeschle]

We are looping here.
You have the answer in the previous responses (not only mines). Even if the cost is let's say similar, things are not being equal - it's anachronic feature vs. requirement for a modern camera.

"Anachronic" is imho just the wrong wording, I would prefer "fundamental".
"Old" lenses are still being used on many cameras, so the demand is not "out of date".
If you look at the attempts to mount lenses on mirrorless cameras, it is just the other way around - it is highly topical.
So, this is not really an argument.

Backwards compatibility is a major reason to choose a camera brand.
Both Nikon and Pentax agree on that point.
Pentax tried to guarantee it with the green button metering - but did not really succeed.
Under the control of Ricoh, it would now at last be the time to resolve this issue.
Because "we" suppose the new cameras should finally work as advertised.

I am also amazed - how emotional, provocative, and awkward a simple discussion on photographic gear [!] can develop.
Isn't personal offense beyond common sense?






PS:

Wrt cripple: This verb probably was (first) used by Bojidar Dimitrov to describe this mount variation: Summary of the K-Mount Evolution, Names, and Features. Normally, more and more functionality was added to the mount. However, by taking away the stop-down coupler, this tradition was broken. The full functionality of the previous mount was no longer guaranteed - it was less effective. I am not a native speaker but that seems to describe it correctly.

Cripple:
* to reduce the soundness, effectiveness, or perfection
* to render powerless, ineffective, or unable to move

Antonyms:
* perfect
* recondition
* repair
* restore
* revamp
* working

[Kunzite]

I guess there are still people out there using wet plates...
Yes, there is a niche of old lens users; many from what I saw are looking for cheap cameras to match their cheap lenses, and are willing to work around inconveniences. Those mirrorless cameras don't have full compatibility either

Maybe Pentax should consider introduction of aperture rings in a modern retro-styled camera and market this "feature" a lot, going after some sort of cult status. Or maybe they would need a step-less aperture system for video lenses. IMO those are better reasons than looking 3 decades in the past.

People using words like "crippled" are trying to provoke an emotional reaction. I think it's unfair; there's nothing "crippled" about my K-5IIs. I don't miss the aperture rings; it was useful on my MZ-6 because that rocker switch was quite cumbersome, but the current interface is excellent as it is. If they'll make macro accessories supporting lenses without aperture rings the last objective reasons to have them would be lost.

I'm waiting for K-3 lens release buttons to fall off and post-Hoya SDM issues.

Good luck. What I'm seeing is less troubles - and yes, I had my share; bad AF with my K10D, K-5 with spots (normal QC wouldn't catch it, I guess), K-5 with consistent back focus (the AF module had to be replaced). I learned it the hard way - never again to buy a newly launched product. I'll make an exception with that rear converter, though
QC is not a risk, but an expense. Losing customers because of improper QC is a risk - though, where would they go? Nikon?

By the way, how often did it happen to you? The mirror flop thing, I mean. Do you have a K-3 with a lousy lens release button?

[Uluru]

Do you consider being conservative and risk averse as a good or a bad thing?

Can be both.

They do? I've been following the mirror-flop-MKII issue with some disgust. Apparently they haven't learned much from the issue with the K-5. That's completely unforgivable, imho....

Users hear from very limited sources of information, and based on that they paint a big picture that is highly inaccurate. Users draw own conclusions and then 'see' faults within the wider system of design, production and service they don't understand at all. They 'see' them because in heir mind the causes for their problems 'must be there', and 'must be obvious' and are often astonished how others are not seeing same problems too.

Working myself and developing a highly complex product within a organisation that has users all over the globe, I know what kind of concoctions users may preconceive due to limited amount of information available on their side. Because what they see is only one little aspect of a far more complex system.



Regarding the mirror-flop issue, I know from a very reliable source that the new mirror-mechanism is been thoroughly tested at 500K cycles (more than twice than the suggested shutter life) without any problems and is designed to withstand great stress. RI is very conservative and they take all precaution, I'm totally assured of that. (I have visited some Japanese factories in the past, Fujifilm among photography equipment manufacturers for example). RI's production is organised and based on highly evolved design and manufacturing standards of in-built system corrections and safeguards. They also decided on smaller production batches just to be able to control their manufacturing better and perfect it further because they know they will be introducing many novelties no one else has ever done before. We also need to be aware of that, but after all, that is what warranty right is for too. The customer is more protected, and always safe, while the manufacturer takes all the risk.

However, sometimes the core reasons for some problems can be utterly baffling and are not part of either design or designed production. Like, for example, the cause that made Toyota recall many cars because they had paint blemishes showing up, which was discovered to be a type of deodorant with silicon in it that some workers in production had on them. So if a customer had to relate his/her spotted car to a deodorant, under what exact knowledge they might conclude it? But it is easier to say 'Toyota just sucks'. Or, 'mirror-flop issue is disgusting'. Users are saying that because they enjoy not only warranty rights, but also rights to exercise very primitive need for psychological revenge and being 'right' at all cost.

And so forth.

[Kunzite]

They also decided on smaller production batches just to be able to control their manufacturing better and perfect it further because they know they will be introducing many novelties no one else has ever done before. We also need to be aware of that too, but after all, that is what warranty is for too.

I noticed the smaller initial production volumes for new products, and I wondered why was that - even for products which I saw as (and were confirmed to be) highly desirable for a Pentax. For the K-3 is was 10,000 units per month, half that of the K-5II series.

[Uluru]

I noticed the smaller initial production volumes for new products, and I wondered why was that - even for products which I saw as (and were confirmed to be) highly desirable for a Pentax. For the K-3 is was 10,000 units per month, half that of the K-5II series.

They have too many new improvements and technologies implemented across the board, and future products will have even more. On average, far above the competition. That is the only way to control possible hiccups.

On the other hand, see how Fujifilm worked out their problems with new tech: they have issued two types of a camera — the X100 and X-Pro1 — and all subsequent cameras were slight improvements and variations on those two basic models, but coming with less complications (moving from OVF/EVF to EVF, etc.). They have also organised production of each new model in intermittent batches, which indadvertedly creates an affect of a product being in high demand (hardly ever on shelves) as products are not being manufactured and supplied continuously.

[Clavius]

Users hear from very limited sources of information, and based on that they paint a big picture that is highly inaccurate. Users draw own conclusions and then 'see' faults within the wider system of design, production and service they don't understand at all. They 'see' them because in heir mind the causes for their problems 'must be there', and 'must be obvious' and are often astonished how others are not seeing same problems too.

Working myself and developing a highly complex product within a organisation that has users all over the globe, I know what kind of concoctions users may preconceive due to limited amount of information available on their side. Because what they see is only one little aspect of a far more complex system.

Regarding the mirror-flop issue, I know from a very reliable source that the new mirror-mechanism is been thoroughly tested at 500K cycles (more than twice than the suggested shutter life) without any problems and is designed to withstand great stress. RI is very conservative and they take all precaution, I'm totally assured of that. (I have visited some Japanese factories in the past, Fujifilm for example). RI's production is organised and based on highly evolved design and manufacturing standards of in-built system corrections and safeguards. They also decided on smaller production batches just to be able to control their manufacturing better and perfect it further because they know they will be introducing many novelties no one else has ever done before. We also need to be aware of that, but after all, that is what warranty right is for too. The customer is more protected, and always safe, while the manufacturer takes all the risk.

However, sometimes the core reasons for some problems can be utterly baffling and are not part of either design or designed production. Like, for example, the cause that made Toyota recall many cars because they had paint blemishes showing up, which was discovered to be a type of deodorant with silicon in it that some workers in production had on them. So if a customer had to relate his/her spotted car to a deodorant, under what exact knowledge they might conclude it? But it is easier to say 'Toyota just sucks'. Or, 'mirror-flop issue is disgusting'. Users are saying that because they enjoy not only warranty rights, but also rights to exercise very primitive need for psychological revenge and being 'right' at all cost.

And so forth.

All you say is perfectly true of course. And luckily you and (addmitted) me myself, know better. But as you stated: normal less informed users don't. (And I still think we should behave as such too.) Many users will conclude that Pentax had mirror flop issues in the K-5 and now, many years later, those issues are present AGAIN in the K-3. Thus, Pentax hasn't learned from the issue. It seems as if they didn't even acknowledge it. Toyota acknowledged the problem, had product called back and fixed. What's even better, they made shure it did not happen AGAIN. (And then it's still difficult to recover the reputation.) Pentax however, did let it happen again. Even though I'm sure Pentax did their best to prevent it, but then their best simply wasn't good enough.

[monochrome]

So you think a company should have the right to advertise something they know is false?

I want to see the definitive statement from Ricoh claiming all their cameras meter all 24,000,000 lenses perfectly in today's world.

Rather, we assign to them the claim that all their 24,000,000 lenses are compatible with modern cameras. We can argue all day about what we expect when we read the word compatible but they've told us the truth:

• The lenses mount
• There is some kind of metering
• The camera stops down the aperture

If I have to compensate lens by lens for imperfect exposure, well, it is a thirty or forty or fifty year old lens. I'm not surprised. Better would be better, but this is better than a new mount.

Showing me statements associated with the K10D or the K-01 doesn't count. K3 is Ricoh's camera. What is their claim? What does it mean?

[froeschle]

Wet plates neither fit my SLRs nor my DSLRs - and nobody claimed that they would .

People using words like "anachronic" are not trying to provoke an emotional reaction ? As a proposal: I will use "by-the aperture-coupler-bereft" instead of "crippled" in the future and you will use "fundamental" instead of "anachronic" . It is not about three decades in the past, it is about today. The mount is currently not perfectly/fully working. Three simple examples:

If I use

* my FA 85/2.8 Soft (in production until 2004, FA 85/2.8 Soft),

* one of the FA limiteds or the DFA 50 in non-"A"-position (available new from Ricoh, see www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/japan/support/catalog/pdf/lenses_accessories.pdf, pages 13-16 - or any of the millions of "niche" lenses with an aperture ring),

* my Pentax extension rings (available new from Ricoh, see www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/japan/support/catalog/pdf/lenses_accessories.pdf, page 14) with any lens,

I loose e.g. flash control and correct metering due to the "by-the aperture-coupler-bereft" mount. Is this "full" and "unmatched" compatibility?

I agree that most of the users won't see this problem. Especially the majority that only buys a body with the kit lens(es) and shoots in "green mode". However, cameras only identified as "uncrippled" for the majority will not necessarily satisfy the needs of enthusiasts.


BTW: I never had serious troubles with any of my Pentax DSLRs due to design or production issues (apart from e.g. the missing aperture coupler ). However, I would not deduce from that that this is also true for all users. Neither would I downplay their problems. Especially if these critically affect image taking. The solution would be to identify and resolve the issue. Ignoring or not caring about it does not help.