[froeschle]

@Tanzer

Just because Dimitri says the only reason for the crippled mount was due to cost cutting, does not make it true.

I already had mixed feelings, when the MZ 50 was introduced. That this crippling was first realized in this entry body and the low-budget FAJs (see my PS above) supports the assumption: Cut costs (and decrease functionality) in this segment. This was also told me, when I bought a SLR at that time (I think it was a MZ 5N).

They have already publicly stated that SR is not compatible with existing FF lenses

This statement is questionable:

A specification of a four stop improvement over no SR means that the acceptable blur (which s defined to be 30 microns for an FF camera due to conventional DoF definitions) is reached for 2^4 times 30 microns input blur. Which is 480 microns to either side or 1mm overall. 1mm of an 43mm image circle or 2% more. Clearly not enough to create a problem, esp. as it is 3 stops only in reality. And you can prime rhe sensor movement which means that half a mm is all the extra headroom you need.

@Kunzite

OK, thanks. The construction of the mechanical aperture lever coupled to a resistor/sensor to determine its position is present in every non-digital SLR. The resistor/sensor signals had to be encoded to digital signals and added to the software at least in the MZ/Z/ZX camera series. So, at least for the three first points, there is knowledge, how to do it. I am not sure, whether the FF DSLR prototype also still had an aperture coupler or not (at least it was based on the MZ-S). So, there is not the necessity to reinvent the wheel here. Additionally, the corresponding mechanisms in the 645(D) are imho even complexer. Maybe the chassis has to be a bit bigger. I agree on testing, documentation, and production.

So, let me come to a comparison: The K-3 features an additional headphone terminal compared to the K-5(II). A microphone or headphones can be used there. For this, a mini stereo plug had to be added and connected by wire. Software had to be written. Also the body had to be changed a bit. Would this be roughly equally complex and costly to implement than an aperture coupler? At least when we add the second card slot, this should be the case. By how much did that increase the price of the body? How important are these two additions for imaging?

[Mistral75]

Good grief! This topic has been consistently mis-represented in many places. Key piece of data: ILC camera production in 2013 was down from 2012 but still the second highest year since 2008 (no data shown before 2009). Virtually the same situation for lenses.

There are data before 2009 on the CIPA website. Numbers are theirs, graph is home-made.



See http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/common/cr300.pdf and http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/common/cr400.pdf

[monochrome]

This is translated into f stops. The open aperture metering then is corrected by this value.

Yes, such has been the case since at least the Spotmatic. One could say the Optical Preview Lever (Green Button) is the analog to the meter switch on the Spotmatic.

I suppose it is possible the software they have in place (likely ROM'ed) is encoded with lens information for all lenses electronically identified by the camera - and thus non-'A' lenses (OEM and Third-party) cannot be identified - so the software cannot calculate non-'A' lens exposure accurately any more.

[Kunzite]

@Kunzite

OK, thanks. The construction of the mechanical aperture lever coupled to a resistor/sensor to determine its position is present in every non-digital SLR. The resistor/sensor signals had to be encoded to digital signals and added to the software at least in the MZ/Z/ZX camera series. So, at least for the three first points, there is knowledge, how to do it. I am not sure, whether the FF DSLR prototype also still had an aperture coupler or not (at least it was based on the MZ-S). So, there is not the necessity to reinvent the wheel here. Additionally, the corresponding mechanisms in the 645(D) are imho even complexer. Maybe the chassis has to be a bit bigger. I agree on testing, documentation, and production.

So, let me come to a comparison: The K-3 features an additional headphone terminal compared to the K-5(II). A microphone or headphones can be used there. For this, a mini stereo plug had to be added and connected by wire. Software had to be written. Also the body had to be changed a bit. Would this be roughly equally complex and costly to implement than an aperture coupler? At least when we add the second card slot, this should be the case. By how much did that increase the price of the body? How important are these two additions for imaging?

I never said they don't know how to do it They won't necessarily be able to reuse components from existing cameras, but it's not rocket science.

The headphone terminal, interesting choice. One feature looking in the past vs. another looking in the future (video is pretty much required). One might make few people angry (most wouldn't care or accept it and go forward), the other could impact the sales.

[froeschle]

The headphone terminal, interesting choice. One feature looking in the past vs. another looking in the future (video is pretty much required). One might make few people angry (most wouldn't care or accept it and go forward), the other could impact the sales.

It was not meant as a choice but as a comparative example. The additional headphone terminal is a feature, for which one has to pay, although most users probably neither need nor want it. However, the majority - as you state - does not care or accepts it and moves forward. There is no whining that this could be the end of the world or that Pentax is doomed. But the small addition makes at least a few users (very) happy. Additionally, it is a plus in the feature list and a commitment. So, following this example, why not increase happiness again - by a de-crippling of the mount ?

[Mistral75]

(...)
They have already publicly stated that SR is not compatible with existing FF lenses
(...)

When and where?

What feature would make existing Pentax 24x36 lenses not compatible with SR whilst Minolta and Sony 24x36 lenses are compatible with SR?

[ElJamoquio]

Image circle.

That said I believe the current (recently previous?) FF lenses are fully compatible with FF.

[Kunzite]

I don't remember Pentax ever stating that, though several people made that assumption. I'd like to see some proof.

It was not meant as a choice but as a comparative example. The additional headphone terminal is a feature, for which one has to pay, although most users probably neither need nor want it. However, the majority - as you state - does not care or accepts it and moves forward. There is no whining that this could be the end of the world or that Pentax is doomed. But the small addition makes at least a few users (very) happy. Additionally, it is a plus in the feature list and a commitment. So, following this example, why not increase happiness again - by a de-crippling of the mount ?

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.
And there is no such thing as adding "just a small feature" for something as vague as "increase happiness".

[thibs]

When and where?

What feature would make existing Pentax 24x36 lenses not compatible with SR whilst Minolta and Sony 24x36 lenses are compatible with SR?

It has never been stated indeed.
What's been stated and is obvious is that the SR mechanism needs to be modified for the bigger sensor and that it is a problem (takes more space, more weight etc) and that it has to be taken into account.

They NEVER said SR was not possible with FF.
They also NEVER stated that they would come with an FF with SR or nothing. They may decide to do as the other brands and go with FF + in lens stab as they do for 645D, where the sensor, clearly, is much too big for SR (at least in their criteria).

[NotSteve]

Sorry for going off topic gang, but this has to be said:

Zvonimir,

How about growing up and giving up this silly passive aggressive pursuit of DRabbit? She's not even a participant in this thread. Really now, setting up a zombie account on DPR to troll other forum users? It's getting a bit much don't you think?

I'll repeat what I posted on DPR:

Uluru/Zvonimir,

You've mistaken a working professional photographer as Pentax's quality control/technical support department. You do understand the difference, don't you?

You claim you don't want to annoy anyone, but then proceed to antagonize the OP, as if she and not Pentax is the source of the problem. At this point, you are annoying more than just the OP.

The only pity I detect in this thread is your self-pity that someone who has tried very diligently and sincerely to sort out a problem will not deign to consider your provocative posts anything more than that.

Might I kindly suggest that you pick up a K-3 and and an intervalometer and pick-up the work you are suggesting others take up and get back to us.

K3 STILL Locking Up (fw 1.03) - crazy mirror syndrome and unreliability: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

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.

[Uluru]

..

You've mistaken a working professional photographer as Pentax's quality control/technical support department. You do understand the difference, don't you?

You claim you don't want to annoy anyone, but then proceed to antagonize the OP, as if she and not Pentax is the source of the problem...

Dear NotSteve, (then Joe, Allan or Mark, who opens an account here for random?)

Your reply is noted. However, the user DRabbit indeed posted here n PF a thread about her misfortunes and in which she jumps into pre-conslusions and calls upon Pentax to solve problems she did not investigate properly. Nor did DRabbit pursue the good and recommended procedures of the problem solving. DRabbit failed in both and also failed in third — the way of communicating and finding a better spirit of understanding to matters that inflict more than one party.

Similarly, the users here demand from Pentax total de-crippling of the mount, because they suppose the new cameras should work like they want and be de-crippled, and in manner of expressing themselves they go beyond common sense. In that same attention seeking way an ex-forum member Rice High raised mass campaigns claiming Pentax should issue an FF camera.

The difference between your reply plus DRabbit's highly unprofessional behaviour, and a behaviour of a real professional like Kerrick James is quite obvious — Kerrick James will never resort to public attack of the Pentax under the NotSteve or DRabbit or RiceHigh pseudonyms, launch YouTube videos and spread them around to prove some point, etc.

But you two will defend + rant around forums to raise dust to appear victims of 'the Pentax negligence' and will justify your actions and your 'pains' it seems, no matter what. There is a fine line between a practical joke and a full attack without resorting to all recommended means of investigation, and by joining the latter, you too also seem not to understand the matter at all.

[NotSteve]

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.

Dear NotSteve, (then Joe, Allan or Mark, who opens an account here for random?)

Your reply is noted. However, the user DRabbit indeed posted here n PF a thread about her misfortunes and in which she jumps into pre-conslusions and calls upon Pentax to solve problems she did not investigate properly. Nor did DRabbit pursue the good and recommended procedures of the problem solving. She failed in both.

Similarly, the users here demand from Pentax total de-crippling of the mount, because they suppose the new cameras should be de-crippled. In that same attention seeking way an ex-forum member Rice High raised mass campaigns claiming Pentax should issue an FF camera.

The difference between your reply plus DRabbit's highly unprofessional behaviour, and a behaviour of a real professional like Kerrick James is quite obvious — Kerrick James will never resort to public attack of the Pentax under the NotSteve or DRabbit or RiceHigh pseudonyms.

But you two will defend + rant around forums to raise dust to appear victims of 'the Pentax negligence' and will justify your actions and your 'pains' no matter what. There is a fine line between a practical joke and a full offensive attack without resorting to all recommended means of investigation, and by joining to the latter, you too also seem not to understand the matter at al.

[Kunzite]

Just some food for thought.
Why are we saying the mount is "crippled"? Ignoring the pejorative connotation which I think it's intentional, it's suggesting the K-mount is unable to function properly which obviously is not the case (no limitation with up to 30 years old lenses, all proper K-mount lenses usable).
To keep the camera-human analogy, isn't it more like complaining that our vestigial organs like the appendix don't work "as they should"?

[Uluru]

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.

Some people would insist life is more simple than it is, and therefore their conclusions unquestioned and true.
But it isn't so. I am not certain why you defend some incomplete testing and obviously constantly repeated desire to express dissatisfaction caused by presumptions and limited resources needed for thorough testing valid, and a criticism of it invalid or protective of a company?
It is easier to blame Pentax / Ricoh Imaging in each and every case than do all what is required by the ever increasing standards of professional ethics and required continuous education.

[cali92rs]

Just some food for thought.
Why are we saying the mount is "crippled"? Ignoring the pejorative connotation which I think it's intentional, it's suggesting the K-mount is unable to function properly which obviously is not the case (no limitation with up to 30 years old lenses, all proper K-mount lenses usable).
To keep the camera-human analogy, isn't it more like complaining that our vestigial organs like the appendix don't work "as they should"?

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.