FF: Will there be an aperture / stop down coupler?

mohb · 02-16-2015, 10:42 AM

Perhaps they should drop the screw drive to make room for the aperture coupler?

**boriscleto** · 02-16-2015, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by mohb

Perhaps they should drop the screw drive to make room for the aperture coupler?

So no more Holy Trinity...nice.

Wired · 02-16-2015, 11:02 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by mohb

Perhaps they should drop the screw drive to make room for the aperture coupler?

deathwish you have.

Not a Number · 02-16-2015, 01:59 PM

Realistically what is in it for Ricoh? Why spend the R&D and manufacturing time and money on this? Will it sell more cameras? No - how many people don't by Pentax because of lack of the coupler. Will it sell more lenses for Ricoh? Once again, no. It may even slow sales of new lenses Ricoh makes their money selling cameras and lenses and they aren't the ones selling old K and M series lenses.

Would you rather Ricoh spend time and money on retro fitting this feature into their designs (and firmware) or spend it on improving AF, video SR, mirrorless, pixel shifting or whatever?

Wired · 02-16-2015, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Not a Number

Realistically what is in it for Ricoh? Why spend the R&D and manufacturing time and money on this? Will it sell more cameras? No - how many people don't by Pentax because of lack of the coupler. Will it sell more lenses for Ricoh? Once again, no. It may even slow sales of new lenses Ricoh makes their money selling cameras and lenses and they aren't the ones selling old K and M series lenses.

Would you rather Ricoh spend time and money on retro fitting this feature into their designs (and firmware) or spend it on improving AF, video SR, mirrorless, pixel shifting or whatever?

Vinegar.... I hear it's going to be the latest trend in the photography market place....

krazykat · 02-17-2015, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Not a Number

... Will it sell more cameras? No ...

You have no way of knowing this. I would happily spend an extra $250 on the FF camera if it had the coupler. How can you know that the addition of an extra feature would not sway a single person on the camera, especially given just how much vintage K-mount glass there is out there?

I understand the orthodox argument that means they will in all certainly not include the coupler, but they would make more money from me if they included it.

normhead · 02-17-2015, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by krazykat

You have no way of knowing this. I would happily spend an extra $250 on the FF camera if it had the coupler. How can you know that the addition of an extra feature would not sway a single person on the camera, especially given just how much vintage K-mount glass there is out there?

I understand the orthodox argument that means they will in all certainly not include the coupler, but they would make more money from me if they included it.

Not me.....

krazykat · 02-17-2015, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by normhead

Not me.....

Yes, nor for the vast majority of users I suspect, but this doesn't prove Not a Number's assertion.

mee · 02-17-2015, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by krazykat

You have no way of knowing this. I would happily spend an extra $250 on the FF camera if it had the coupler. How can you know that the addition of an extra feature would not sway a single person on the camera, especially given just how much vintage K-mount glass there is out there?

I understand the orthodox argument that means they will in all certainly not include the coupler, but they would make more money from me if they included it.

I'm surprised (not really) that this thread is still active.

In any case, you would happily spend an extra $250 on the FF if it had this coupler. But I, and I suspect many others not using glass from the stone age, would not. $250 more for a feature I'll never use? No thanks! I suspect the minority want this part. A very niche group.

Zygonyx · 02-17-2015, 07:19 PM

What about a pool ?

krazykat · 02-17-2015, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by mee

I'm surprised (not really) that this thread is still active.

In any case, you would happily spend an extra $250 on the FF if it had this coupler. But I, and I suspect many others not using glass from the stone age, would not. $250 more for a feature I'll never use? No thanks! I suspect the minority want this part. A very niche group.

Yes, I suspect you feel the same as the vast majority of users, however I was simply attempting to point out that it would be a valuable feature to some (perhaps very few) users.

I was definitely not suggesting that Pentax should in reality include it and charge $250 extra (although I would buy it

)

Fogel70 · 02-17-2015, 11:11 PM

I believe they could easily improve the handling of manual lenses without any change in the hardware.

1. Add a database of manual lenses in the camera so you select which lens you are using instead of only selecting focal length, and the user can add compensation for the in-linearity of the metering system to each aperture on each lens.

2. If using Av-mode the camera do a stop down metering before the image is captured, and compares it to open aperture metering to know how much the lens has been stopped down to be able to set correct shutter speed.

edri · 02-18-2015, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by mee

I'm surprised (not really) that this thread is still active... A very niche group.

All Pentax users are by definition ... a very niche group.

---------- Post added 02-18-2015 at 09:15 AM ----------

Originally posted by Fogel70

I believe they could easily improve the handling of manual lenses without any change in the hardware.

1. Add a database of manual lenses in the camera so you select which lens you are using instead of only selecting focal length, and the user can add compensation for the in-linearity of the metering system to each aperture on each lens.

......

Very good idea, but I would prefer that I might enter the names of the lenses. I use third-party K lenses, and M42 lenses besides the Pentax M, K lenses as well. It would be helpful if the user can enter names for a number of lenses, say at least 20

Also, would be useful the opportunity to "trap focus" for lenses that do not realize a short-circuit to the mount of the camera.

blende8 · 02-18-2015, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by Fogel70

1. Add a database of manual lenses in the camera so you select which lens you are using instead of only selecting focal length, and the user can add compensation for the in-linearity of the metering system to each aperture on each lens.

This would be a work-around.
Either Pentax stores the exposure characteristics of every Pentax lens in a list, or it allows users to create such a characteristic on their own.
For this you have to measure the exposure for every aperture set on the lens.

The main reason why the behaviour is not linear is probably that the focussing screens transmission is not linear, but depends on the lens opening.

thibs · 02-18-2015, 12:52 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by blende8

This would be a work-around.
Either Pentax stores the exposure characteristics of every Pentax lens in a list, or it allows users to create such a characteristic on their own.
For this you have to measure the exposure for every aperture set on the lens.

The main reason why the behaviour is not linear is probably that the focussing screens transmission is not linear, but depends on the lens opening.

Don't forget the aperture lever functioning is NOT linear with K/M lenses.
It became linear with A and further lenses.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What will the FF be like?	Na Horuk	Pentax Full Frame	52	02-06-2015 09:42 AM
Odd behaviour from Super A - aperture doesn't stop down	Jonathan Mac	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	15	10-21-2014 11:07 PM
Stop with the FF sensors will be the same price nonsense.	normhead	Pentax Full Frame	196	01-11-2014 12:21 AM
stop down coupler and t mount converter not meshing	blackest	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	0	07-08-2013 07:22 PM
if there will be a FF pentax - will pentax enforce a reduced image from DA40 ?	deejjjaaaa	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	08-20-2008 05:19 AM

02-16-2015, 10:42 AM	#76
mohb Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,912	Perhaps they should drop the screw drive to make room for the aperture coupler?

02-16-2015, 10:55 AM	#77
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	Originally posted by mohb Perhaps they should drop the screw drive to make room for the aperture coupler? So no more Holy Trinity...nice.

02-16-2015, 11:02 AM - 1 Like	#78
Wired Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Edmonton, AB Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,519	Originally posted by mohb Perhaps they should drop the screw drive to make room for the aperture coupler? deathwish you have.

02-16-2015, 01:59 PM	#79
Not a Number Moderator Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Venice, CA Posts: 10,526	Realistically what is in it for Ricoh? Why spend the R&D and manufacturing time and money on this? Will it sell more cameras? No - how many people don't by Pentax because of lack of the coupler. Will it sell more lenses for Ricoh? Once again, no. It may even slow sales of new lenses Ricoh makes their money selling cameras and lenses and they aren't the ones selling old K and M series lenses. Would you rather Ricoh spend time and money on retro fitting this feature into their designs (and firmware) or spend it on improving AF, video SR, mirrorless, pixel shifting or whatever?

02-16-2015, 02:08 PM	#80
Wired Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Edmonton, AB Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,519	Originally posted by Not a Number Realistically what is in it for Ricoh? Why spend the R&D and manufacturing time and money on this? Will it sell more cameras? No - how many people don't by Pentax because of lack of the coupler. Will it sell more lenses for Ricoh? Once again, no. It may even slow sales of new lenses Ricoh makes their money selling cameras and lenses and they aren't the ones selling old K and M series lenses. Would you rather Ricoh spend time and money on retro fitting this feature into their designs (and firmware) or spend it on improving AF, video SR, mirrorless, pixel shifting or whatever? Vinegar.... I hear it's going to be the latest trend in the photography market place....

02-17-2015, 03:38 PM	#81
krazykat Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 546	Originally posted by Not a Number ... Will it sell more cameras? No ... You have no way of knowing this. I would happily spend an extra $250 on the FF camera if it had the coupler. How can you know that the addition of an extra feature would not sway a single person on the camera, especially given just how much vintage K-mount glass there is out there? I understand the orthodox argument that means they will in all certainly not include the coupler, but they would make more money from me if they included it.

02-17-2015, 03:57 PM	#82
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by krazykat You have no way of knowing this. I would happily spend an extra $250 on the FF camera if it had the coupler. How can you know that the addition of an extra feature would not sway a single person on the camera, especially given just how much vintage K-mount glass there is out there? I understand the orthodox argument that means they will in all certainly not include the coupler, but they would make more money from me if they included it. Not me.....

02-17-2015, 06:08 PM	#83
krazykat Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 546	Originally posted by normhead Not me..... Yes, nor for the vast majority of users I suspect, but this doesn't prove Not a Number's assertion.

02-17-2015, 06:28 PM	#84
mee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,403	Originally posted by krazykat You have no way of knowing this. I would happily spend an extra $250 on the FF camera if it had the coupler. How can you know that the addition of an extra feature would not sway a single person on the camera, especially given just how much vintage K-mount glass there is out there? I understand the orthodox argument that means they will in all certainly not include the coupler, but they would make more money from me if they included it. I'm surprised (not really) that this thread is still active. In any case, you would happily spend an extra $250 on the FF if it had this coupler. But I, and I suspect many others not using glass from the stone age, would not. $250 more for a feature I'll never use? No thanks! I suspect the minority want this part. A very niche group.

02-17-2015, 07:19 PM	#85
Zygonyx Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Ile de France Posts: 4,033	What about a pool ?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-17-2015, 07:27 PM	#86
krazykat Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 546	Originally posted by mee I'm surprised (not really) that this thread is still active. In any case, you would happily spend an extra $250 on the FF if it had this coupler. But I, and I suspect many others not using glass from the stone age, would not. $250 more for a feature I'll never use? No thanks! I suspect the minority want this part. A very niche group. Yes, I suspect you feel the same as the vast majority of users, however I was simply attempting to point out that it would be a valuable feature to some (perhaps very few) users. I was definitely not suggesting that Pentax should in reality include it and charge $250 extra (although I would buy it )

02-17-2015, 11:11 PM	#87
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 3,062	I believe they could easily improve the handling of manual lenses without any change in the hardware. 1. Add a database of manual lenses in the camera so you select which lens you are using instead of only selecting focal length, and the user can add compensation for the in-linearity of the metering system to each aperture on each lens. 2. If using Av-mode the camera do a stop down metering before the image is captured, and compares it to open aperture metering to know how much the lens has been stopped down to be able to set correct shutter speed.

02-18-2015, 12:02 AM	#88
edri Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: walking in the air Posts: 1,315	Originally posted by mee I'm surprised (not really) that this thread is still active... A very niche group. All Pentax users are by definition ... a very niche group. ---------- Post added 02-18-2015 at 09:15 AM ---------- Originally posted by Fogel70 I believe they could easily improve the handling of manual lenses without any change in the hardware. 1. Add a database of manual lenses in the camera so you select which lens you are using instead of only selecting focal length, and the user can add compensation for the in-linearity of the metering system to each aperture on each lens. ...... Very good idea, but I would prefer that I might enter the names of the lenses. I use third-party K lenses, and M42 lenses besides the Pentax M, K lenses as well. It would be helpful if the user can enter names for a number of lenses, say at least 20 Also, would be useful the opportunity to "trap focus" for lenses that do not realize a short-circuit to the mount of the camera.

02-18-2015, 12:44 AM	#89
blende8 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Bremen, Germany Photos: Albums Posts: 1,521 Original Poster	Originally posted by Fogel70 1. Add a database of manual lenses in the camera so you select which lens you are using instead of only selecting focal length, and the user can add compensation for the in-linearity of the metering system to each aperture on each lens. This would be a work-around. Either Pentax stores the exposure characteristics of every Pentax lens in a list, or it allows users to create such a characteristic on their own. For this you have to measure the exposure for every aperture set on the lens. The main reason why the behaviour is not linear is probably that the focussing screens transmission is not linear, but depends on the lens opening.

02-18-2015, 12:52 AM - 1 Like	#90
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by blende8 This would be a work-around. Either Pentax stores the exposure characteristics of every Pentax lens in a list, or it allows users to create such a characteristic on their own. For this you have to measure the exposure for every aperture set on the lens. The main reason why the behaviour is not linear is probably that the focussing screens transmission is not linear, but depends on the lens opening. Don't forget the aperture lever functioning is NOT linear with K/M lenses. It became linear with A and further lenses.