[Tanzer]

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

Well then they would need to make it an f/1.7 or f/1.9, just to be different. Or, disable SR when the DA50 was used, with the claim (true or not) that the FF version had a larger image circle, more compatible with SR.

I'll bet they are sorry that they failed to intentionally vignette the DA50 with some internal plastic bits.

[lytrytyr]

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.

Full support?

I'm quite happy to use "auto" M42 lenses on my K-01,
even if I have to move the preset lever to stop down to the working aperture,
because the K-01 doesn't support pushing the lens pin in automatically.

[cali92rs]

Full support?

I'm quite happy to use "auto" M42 lenses on my K-01,
even if I have to move the preset lever to stop down to the working aperture,
because the K-01 doesn't support pushing the lens pin in automatically.

Well Im glad you're happy, what about K-50 and K-30 owners:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/120-general-technical-troubleshooting/230...g-problem.html

Maybe Pentax should include a piece of foil with their K-30s so the green button can work as advertised.

[monochrome]

Full support?

I'm quite happy to use "auto" M42 lenses on my K-01,
even if I have to move the preset lever to stop down to the working aperture,
because the K-01 doesn't support pushing the lens pin in automatically.

Well Im glad you're happy, what about K-50 and K-30 owners:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/120-general-technical-troubleshooting/230...g-problem.html

Maybe Pentax should include a piece of foil with their K-30s so the green button can work as advertised.

I agree. That is a limitation of the mid-range operations, modes and menu functions, as opposed to the High-end (K30/K50 is functionally a K-01 with a mirror and OVF). Believe it or not, Pentax does in effect 'dumb down' its mid-range cameras, though I wouldn't call it disabling them.

[Uluru]

I agree. That is a limitation of the mid-range operations, modes and menu functions, as opposed to the High-end (K30/K50 is functionally a K-01 with a mirror and OVF). Believe it or not, Pentax does in effect 'dumb down' its mid-range cameras, though I wouldn't call it disabling them.

Pentax has no mid-range cameras. K-01 is long gone, and true entry level is the K50(0). Upper range is, I presume, the K-3, as K5 variants are gone.
What is middle range?

[monochrome]

Pentax has no mid-range cameras. K-01 is long gone, and true entry level is the K50(0). Upper range is, I presume, the K-3, as K5 variants are gone.
What is middle range?

Pentax lacks an entry level camera other than the EU/USA K500

[froeschle]

I'm a bit peeved that in 2014 people still complain [...]

The wish for an uncrippled mount was expressed since the introduction of the *istD. It was also communicated to Pentax Japan (via e.g. Pentax Europe/Germany) several times - but ignored. In the CP+ interview 2013, Ricoh told us that the "transfer and pray" policy now is over. Feedback from enthusiast users will not be ignored anymore. Also the question was posed: Will "the Pentax K-mount ever be de-crippled". The answer was yes, if such user feelings would be expressed. There are users (me included), who would buy a(nother) DSLR just because of this single feature. I want to use the aperture ring of my K, M, A, A*, FA, FA* lenses. In macrophotography and using flash, the current severe restrictions are a nuisance. Full functionality should be allowed - if not in all, then at least in certain models. Some users paid a 250€ premium for the K5IIs over the K5II for probable minor improvements in image quality. Why should owners of high quality and expensive "old" glass not pay for better handling and functionality? The cost for parts for the manufacturer is very probably below 1$. Even if the majority is not willing to pay say additional 10$ for a >1000$ product, an alternative could be offered, e.g. a K-3 d(ecrippled).

How fast does the number of 25 million Pentax lenses decrease? If you add K lenses from other producers, then Pentax even claimed in 2007 that the "PENTAX K bayonet is the world's most widely used lens mount today". Are lenses without an aperture ring not the clear minority? What Pentax tells us:

K-Mount Compatible with 25 Million PENTAX lenses
The PENTAX K-mount is compatible with every single K-mount lens ever made. Choose from over 25 million PENTAX lenses to use with your K-50—whether you're a novice or an expert, there's a PENTAX lens that lets you capture your interesting view of the world.

K-01 Brochure
With unmatched lens backward compatibility, the creative options are endless.

Full backward lens compatibility
PENTAX has manufactured over 25 million lenses in the last six decades; all DSLR bodies offer backward compatibility with every one.* Whichever lens is used, whether the most recent lenses or a classic screwmount, it will faithfully capture the image desired. *With adapter for screwmount and 645/67 lenses.

The advertising is a bit in contrast to the answer at CP+ 2014, isn't it? The compatibility argument was valid before and after the Hoya regime. But "unmatched" and "full" compatibility is still not guaranteed in 2014.




PS:
The aperture coupler was first killed in the entry-body MZ-50/ZX-50. The low-budget FAJ (sometimes taunted as J-unk) lenses did no longer feature an aperture ring. So, this trend really started at the lower quality end. Not many users did complain, as the better models did not suffer from these restrictions.

The only reason for the existence of this mount variation is cost cutting. This was achieved by leaving out the stop-down coupler of the body mount and the aperture ring of the lens mount. With this move Pentax sacrificed one of its strongest advantages, the unrivaled K-mount compatibility.

Unfortunately, both restrictions now apply to all DSLRs and nearly all lenses. However, there is another reason for the missing aperture ring in WR lenses. According to hearsay, it already was contemplated to add weathersealing to the FA* lenses. This was cancelled due to e.g. problems of sealing the aperture ring. I would have preferred an aperture ring over WR, however.

PPS:

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

The DA 50/1.8 is a variation of the FA 50/1.7: DA 50/1.8
The DA 35/2.4 is even closer to the FA 35/2: DA 35/2.4
The DA 200/2.8 is a new edition of the FA 200/2.8.
Etc.
The denomination DA does not exclude FF compatibility.

[Uluru]

The wish for an uncrippled mount was expressed since the introduction of the *istD. It was also communicated to Pentax Japan (via e.g. Pentax Europe/Germany) several times - but ignored. In the CP+ interview 2013, Ricoh told us that the "transfer and pray" policy now is over. Feedback from enthusiast users will not be ignored anymore. Also the question was posed: Will "the Pentax K-mount ever be de-crippled". The answer was yes, if such user feelings would be expressed. There are users (me included), who would buy a(nother) DSLR just because of this single feature. I want to use the aperture ring of my K, M, A, A*, FA, FA* lenses. In macrophotography and using flash, the current severe restrictions are a nuisance. Full functionality should be allowed - if not in all, then at least in certain models. Some users paid a 250€ premium for the K5IIs over the K5II for probable minor improvements in image quality. Why should owners of high quality and expensive "old" glass not pay for better handling and functionality? The cost for parts for the manufacturer is very probably below 1$. Even if the majority is not willing to pay say additional 10$ for a >1000$ product, an alternative could be offered, e.g. a K-3 d(ecrippled).

How fast does the number of 25 million Pentax lenses decrease? If you add K lenses from other producers, then Pentax even claimed in 2007 that the "PENTAX K bayonet is the world's most widely used lens mount today". Are lenses without an aperture ring not the clear minority? What Pentax tells us:
..

You still don't get it.
But like the user DRabbit who is exercising her rant over her own ignorance about proper testing procedures, or like RiceHigh who is exercising his rant over the FF, all of you believe you are right and deserve full satisfaction, and that a bunch of some ignorant Japanese engineers has no clue what they are doing.
If you do love your aperture ring lenses to work as designed, get yourself a Pentax film camera from their age and rolls of film they were designed for. You may also wear the suit from the same era, and a haircut.
It will all work as specified and you in the perfect element.
But you insist on anachronisms, and demand satisfaction? Sorry, unleaded 98 doesn't go into my 1967 car either.

[monochrome]

A but harsh, I think. OTOH it can't be as easy as the poster thinks or it would be done.

You still don't get it.
But like the user DRabbit who is exercising her rant over her own ignorance about proper testing procedures, or like RiceHigh who is exercising his rant over the FF, all of you believe you are right and deserve full satisfaction, and that a bunch of some ignorant Japanese engineers has no clue what they are doing.
If you do love your aperture ring lenses to work as designed, get yourself a Pentax film camera from their age and rolls of film they were designed for. You may also wear the suit from the same era, and a haircut.
It will all work as specified and you in the perfect element.
But you insist on anachronisms, and demand satisfaction? Sorry, unleaded 98 doesn't go into my 1967 car either.

[froeschle]

@Uluru

I only see a rant here against opinions and wishes, which are in contrast to your perception .

And yes, my lenses work as specified on my ME super, LX, MZ-5N, MZ-3, and Z-1P bodies.
"Full" and "unmatched" compatibility is guaranteed and not only promised - I do not even have to wear a suit or a special haircut for that .

A car from 1967 really is an anachronism - maybe you should replace the engine by a flux capacitor ?
Do the streets still support such an old vehicle ?

@monochrome

Maybe I miss something, this would be the task: A lever reads out the position of the stop down indicator of the lens (even present in current DA lenses [!] - set there to full/A aperture). This is translated into f stops. The open aperture metering then is corrected by this value. Neither cost nor complexity were mentioned as an argument from the Ricoh representatives at CP+ 2014.

[cali92rs]

You still don't get it.

You don't get it...Ricoh/Pentax makes this claim on their website:

K-Mount Compatible with 25 Million PENTAX lenses
The PENTAX K-mount is compatible with every single K-mount lens ever made. Choose from over 25 million PENTAX lenses to use with your K-50—whether you're a novice or an expert, there's a PENTAX lens that lets you capture your interesting view of the world.

That is not true. They are not compatible unless you use a piece of tinfoil:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/120-general-technical-troubleshooting/230...g-problem.html

In fact, if you read that thread, they even acknowledge the problem and have not bothered to fix it nor updated their website.

The problem in my mind is not the fact that the lenses aren't supported, but the fact that they claim they are, they know they aren't, and yet they still advertise that they are compatible.

[Tanzer]

Just because Dimitri says the only reason for the crippled mount was due to cost cutting, does not make it true. Every feature that is put into a product, or removed from a product, ultimately is a marketing decision that is weighed for its pros and cons. Anyone who is a practicing engineer understands this.

And to quote that "feedback from enthusiast users will not be ignored anymore" does not mean that Ricoh do everything that enthusiasts want. They received the PF petition (which I signed) for an uncrippled mount, thought about it for 2 seconds, probably even talked about it at a meeting. And to no one's real surprise, they decided not to make any changes.

And just because the DA50 f/1.8 may support a full-frame image circle, does not mean Ricoh will support it as such. They have already publicly stated that SR is not compatible with existing FF lenses, so to save face, and sell more lenses, they could easily make a new line of FF lenses that they claim (maybe true, maybe not) to have a slightly larger image circle which is compatible with SR. And then allow SR to be enabled only for the newer lenses, and/or limit SR to a crop mode with any unrecognized lenses. This would maintain the same exact level of backwards compatibility as today - so no one can rightly complain - all while encouraging new lens sales. Just because Ricoh may release a FF body, does not mean you will reap all of the benefits with your old stash of lenses. Ricoh is thinking long and hard about that.

[Kunzite]

Cost and complexity is always a factor, even for apparently trivial things.

Let me try making an incomplete and sketchy list of what's needed:
Development:
+ a mechanical aperture simulator coupled to a resistor/sensor to determine its position
+ conversion of the resistor/sensor signals to digital signals
+ software to integrate the signals in exposure metering
+ new chassis/body with room for the aperture simulator
+ test everything
+ documentation update
Production:
+ secure components supply
+ train workers to include new components assembling
+ calibration and QC check for the new components
Post-production:
+ somewhat higher support cost because of the added complexity

[Tanzer]

Don't forget the business case.

[Mistral75]

I just read the article on camera sales for the past year on DP. It doesn't paint a very promising picture for the future. Ricoh-Pentax wasn't mentioned but the numbers put out by Canon, Nikon, Olympus, and Fuji are scary. Ricoh isn't mentioned in the article but based on the industry overall, they probably didn't fare much better. The big headline of the article blames it all on the weak Yen. DSLR sales down 6% and mirroless sales down 22%. In the interview, they mention the declining market due to smartphone cameras. That's a little more realistic than blaming it on exchange rates. Nobody mentions market saturation. The market for digital cameras has flat lined as the majority of photo enthusiests have moved from film to digital, bought some lenses and are happily shooting pictures. I can fully understand the cautious approach Ricoh is taking towards a FF camera.

Not exactly. in 2013 compared to 2012:

• DSLR shipment went down 14.7 per cent. in volume (number of pieces) and down 11.4 per cent. in value (turnover generated)
• Mirrorless shipment went down 16.4 per cent. in volume and only 2.8 per cent. in value (higher average price)
• Interchangeable lens shipment went down 12.1 per cent. in volume but up 5.3 per cent. in value thanks to a different product mix including more lenses for 35mm format and less for smaller formats.

See http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/d-2013_e.pdf and http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/s-2013_e.pdf