[Kunzite]

I cannot call it "fundamental", as that means "forming a necessary base or core; of central importance".
At least you could use your FA Limiteds and the DFA with the aperture ring set to A? Unless you're intentionally fighting the equipment instead of using it.

[cali92rs]

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

There is no metering with most M42 lenses on the k-50/30 unless you use live view or use a piece of tin foil.

[monochrome]

@ froeschle

None of the uses you describe involves products currently in production. Some may well be for sale in Japan or worldwide, from exisiting, legacy inventory. Would you have Ricoh liquidate thie inventory thay paid Hoya to acquire? Where would the cash flow to transform Pentax to a modern product line come from?

This is still a transition period. There are and will be inconsistencies. I do not beleive they will ever move the K-mount backward.

[froeschle]

I cannot call it "fundamental" [...]

Not even with that definition :

Fundamental
* being or involving basic facts or principles
* at a deep and basic level

OK, so at least I can use "crippled" again .

Could we agree that leaving out a feature or a choice is generally not an improvement?
The K-50 features sealings and illuminated focus points, the K-500 not.
Would "crippling" describe this procedure correctly?

At least you could use your FA Limiteds and the DFA with the aperture ring set to A? Unless you're intentionally fighting the equipment instead of using it.

I mostly do, because Pentax/Ricoh forces me to do so.
You know why, because the mount is ... [insert proper wording here] .

None of the uses you describe involves products currently in production.

Ok, first I was accused that problems only arise for lenses older than 30 years. I have then shown that there are issues with much younger lenses and even currently available products. Now, the rules of the game should change again to "products currently in production"? This is unfair . Furthermore, I must confess that I do not really know, which products are currently in production. Most of them seem to be produced in (small) batches. There are indications that the FA limiteds and even some A lenses have been put together in Japan until quite recently. If you order - say the extension rings - and they are not in the "inventory", they might be "produced" even today - like the FA* 600/4 was available on demand for a long time. Compatibility is not in antagonism with modernization here. I want just more functionality and not less. They shall not move the K-mount backward but forward (which includes better backwards compatibility).

[Kunzite]

Could we agree that leaving out a feature or a choice is generally not an improvement?

As a software developer I say that feature creep is a real problem
But in this case, I agree that leaving out the aperture simulator does not improve the product. It's not breaking it either

The K-50 features sealings and illuminated focus points, the K-500 not.
Would "crippling" describe this procedure correctly?

Nope.

I mostly do, because Pentax/Ricoh forces me to do so.
You know why, because the mount is ... [insert proper wording here] .

I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone from Pentax is forcing you to use the aperture ring on your FA Limiteds/DFA 500mm. You want to do it as part of your personal preferences, right?
Reminder: the case involving extension tubes is a separate point.

Ok, first I was accused that problems only arise for lenses older than 30 years. I have then shown that there are issues with much younger lenses and even currently available products. Now, the rules of the game should change again to "products currently in production"? This is unfair . Furthermore, I must confess that I do not really know, which products are currently in production. Most of them seem to be produced in (small) batches. There are indications that the FA limiteds and even some A lenses have been put together in Japan until quite recently. If you order - say the extension rings - and they are not in the "inventory", they might be "produced" even today - like the FA* 600/4 was available on demand for a long time. Compatibility is not in antagonism with modernization here. I want just more functionality and not less. They shall not move the K-mount backward but forward (which includes better backwards compatibility).

The thing is, giving up on aperture rings is a process that started long ago.
You're seeing the DFA 50mm (last Pentax K-mount with an aperture ring) as "requiring" a camera with an aperture simulator. Yet it's there for backwards compatibility with older cameras.
"They shall not move the K-mount [...] forward (which includes better backwards compatibility)" - sorry, forward is in the other direction.

[monochrome]

I am suggesting that Ricoh is neither Hoya nor Pentax and they have no obligation to do anything, no matter what the predecessor companies said. They bought a company and some patents bereft of modernization for next to nothing, and have beguun to modernize it.

They shall not move the K-mount backward but forward (which includes better backwards compatibility).

Whether i agree with you or don't agree with you (actually, I do in principle) and whether 'we' collectively want Ricoh to restore the full mount functionality for all K-mount lenses, I don't think it will happen. And I don't think they are in any way obligated to make it happen, nor to change thier claim of backward compatibility.

I think Ricoh will support mounting old lenses to whatever modern iteration of the K-mount they produce in the future, and I thihk there will be a (probably somewhat) cumbersome facility available to emulate full functionality for many but not all lenses and accessories (with specific, limited issues and incapacities), and I think Pentax will continue to (quietly) agree that legacy lenses are compatible, but . . . . .

I think Ricoh will continue to move the mount and new lens designs and lens redesigns away from analog aperture sensing and control.

[Tanzer]

As much as I would like the mount to be de-crippled, I have to agree entirely.

Ricoh will not gain any new customers, or prevent existing customers from leaving, by making the mount more backwards compatible. That would not be a smart business move on their part. It just will not happen.

[froeschle]

But in this case, I agree that leaving out the aperture simulator does not improve the product.

!

It's not breaking it either

But it is making it worse (by how much depends e.g. on personal preferences).

Nope.

How would you call that then? Disabling? Limitation?

I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone from Pentax is forcing you to use the aperture ring on your FA Limiteds/DFA 500mm.

They are forcing me to set the aperture ring to the "A" position - as otherwise full functionality is not guaranteed .

forward is in the other direction

Open aperture metering (aperture coupler) vs. step-down metering (green button) and flash control are achievements. Better backwards compatibility (better and more functionality) would be a step forward - at least for me.

I am suggesting that Ricoh is neither Hoya nor Pentax and they have no obligation to do anything, no matter what the predecessor companies said. They bought a company and some patents bereft of modernization for next to nothing, and have beguun to modernize it.

I agree that Ricoh is neither Hoya nor Pentax. But they bought the company together with their commitments. Why did Ricoh buy Pentax after all? Is the joint history not part of the story? Ricoh and Pentax shared the same mount for their SLRs. However, reintroducing the Ricoh pin really would be a step backwards . Imho, with the acquisition of Pentax, Ricoh also adopted responsibility for the products and the promises. So, there is at least some obligation .

Ricoh representatives raised the hope that de-crippling of the mount finally indeed would be an option. The (my) frustration is a reaction to their response. First - after submission of the petition - there was no comment at all. Then, lame and wrong arguments were cited. Affected lenses are and will still be the majority - by a huge and overwhelming amount. Metering with the aperture coupler also always will be more reliable than the "green button".

[Kunzite]

How would you call that then? Disabling? Limitation?

Building a product to a cheaper price point.

They are forcing me to set the aperture ring to the "A" position - as otherwise full functionality is not guaranteed .

They are also forcing you to turn on the camera, and press the shutter button in order to take a picture. Even more complex things like keeping your battery charged... otherwise full functionality is not guaranteed!

Ricoh representatives raised the hope that de-crippling of the mount finally indeed would be an option. The (my) frustration is a reaction to their response. First - after submission of the petition- there was no comment at all. Then, lame and wrong arguments were cited. Affected lenses are and will still be the majority - by a huge and overwhelming amount. Metering with the aperture coupler also always will be more reliable than the "green button". "Lies" or we don't care simply are not proper answers, imho!

Sure, it is an option - with two conditions:
+ there is enough demand to make it worthy (added costs for all customers, to the benefit of the few)
+ there are no other more important features left to implement

Your assessment of the situation is extremely biased; few people are actually affected by it. Neither me nor Ricoh (I suppose) can be persuaded by such claims.

[IchabodCrane]

!

But it is making it worse (by how much depends e.g. on personal preferences).

How would you call that then? Disabling? Limitation?

They are forcing me to set the aperture ring to the "A" position - as otherwise full functionality is not guaranteed .

Open aperture metering (aperture coupler) vs. step-down metering (green button) and flash control are achievements. Better backwards compatibility (better and more functionality) would be a step forward - at least for me.

I agree that Ricoh is neither Hoya nor Pentax. But they bought the company together with their commitments. Why did Ricoh buy Pentax after all? Is the joint history not part of the story? Ricoh and Pentax shared the same mount for their SLRs. However, reintroducing the Ricoh pin really would be a step backwards . Imho, with the acquisition of Pentax, Ricoh also adopted responsibility for the products and the promises. So, there is at least some obligation .

Ricoh representatives raised the hope that de-crippling of the mount finally indeed would be an option. The (my) frustration is a reaction to their response. First - after submission of the petition- there was no comment at all. Then, lame and wrong arguments were cited. Affected lenses are and will still be the majority - by a huge and overwhelming amount. Metering with the aperture coupler also always will be more reliable than the "green button". "Lies" or we don't care simply are not proper answers, imho!

Haven't you said everything there is to say at least five times by now? To recap:

Can you mount legacy lenses on modern Pentax cameras? Yes
Can you capture photographs using those lenses with metering assistance from the camera? Yes

[cfraz]

!

Ricoh representatives raised the hope that de-crippling of the mount finally indeed would be an option. The (my) frustration is a reaction to their response.

Ah!!! Now we are getting somewhere. At least part of your frustration is due to cultural misunderstanding. When asked the aperture coupler question, the Ricoh official did not say yes, we are going to add bring it back. The phrase he used means no, even though that is not the literal meaning of the words. He would have no more likely answered with a "no" than he would have pulled out his gloves and slapped the interviewer across the face with them.

Take a look at this: http://www.japanese-language.aiyori.org/article6.html

One more thing you must know about Japanese “yes” and “no” is that Japanese RARELY say “no” directly when they are turning down offers. For example:
A: 今週の土曜日、一緒に映画を見ましょう。(Let’s see a film together this Saturday)
B: いきたいですが、土曜日はちょっと…(I want to go, but this Saturday is a little bit…)
In B’s dialogue, surprisingly, the most important part is “…”, which implies that B is turning down A. Every Japanese understands that “…” is a rejection. If you think that “I want to go” is the key phrase and ask your Japanese friend what’s wrong with Saturday or suggest Sunday as an alternative, you are being impolite. On the other hand, when you want to turn down an offer from a Japanese, you shouldn’t directly say “だめ” (no), because “…” in Japanese shows people your consideration of their feeling.

In business world, when you hear a Japanese say 前向きに考えます(We open our mind to it), 努力してみます (We’ll try our best), 考えておきます(We will think about it), 検討させていただきます(Please let us study it) or other similar phrases, he is rejecting you politely, trying not to hurt your feeling with a direct rejection. You should NOT call him next week and ask him about the progress of his study, because he will never do any study. It applies sometimes even when a Japanese is speaking in English. So how to tell when a Japanese really means to say ‘yes’? A good rule of thumb is whether he goes into details to elaborate his ‘yes’ or just say ‘yes’ without adding anything.

[emphasis added]

This mirrors my experience during a two week visit to Japan. I never once heard a "no" response when asking if this train would get us to our destination, or if that was available on the menu, etc. Surprisingly, it didn't take long to understand the meaning of a response that didn't say "no" but was clearly meant to signal no.

Hope this helps.

[Kunzite]

In some cases it could be "we're actively working on it, targetting a Photokina launch - but I can't say anything for now, sorry".
Or so I'm hoping

[JPT]

It seems to me that the response to the aperture coupler question was as close to a definitive "no" as you are likely to get from a Japanese company representative, so I think it's time to lay this one to rest. Pentax hasn't released cameras like this for 15 years or so and none of their current lenses require it for correct operation. If it didn't make sense for them to do it before, why would it suddenly make sense now? Personally, I think they have far more important things to spend their time on.

And you might say that Nikon has managed to do it, but the Df is almost comically expensive for what it is.

[thibs]

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.

Exactly.

---------- Post added 15-03-14 at 11:15 ----------

It seems to me that the response to the aperture coupler question was as close to a definitive "no" as you are likely to get from a Japanese company representative, so I think it's time to lay this one to rest. Pentax hasn't released cameras like this for 15 years or so and none of their current lenses require it for correct operation. If it didn't make sense for them to do it before, why would it suddenly make sense now? Personally, I think they have far more important things to spend their time on.

And you might say that Nikon has managed to do it, but the Df is almost comically expensive for what it is.

IMO if Pentax would do it anytime in the future it would be only on a very high end camera which they probably won't produce for years if not for ever (D4/Df class camera).
In practice, it is the same since those are ridiculously expensive: never. (note that I'd be the first to be happy if they did but...).

[mecrox]

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.

Fine - I wouldn't disagree. But if you are already a camera-maker which is all of those things, then why buy Pentax? The whole thing still remains an enigma.