[Not a Number]

Those few extra steps are enough to screw up what could have been a great shot. I have a few of those, because I forgot to push the green button between two shots in changing light. Yes, it is a working solution, but it's also an inconvenience.:

I don't buy it. Lack of automation didn't hold back photographers before the 1980s from taking great shots and still doesn't. If you're in a situation that requires automation why are you using these lenses? As the saying goes "A poor workman blames his tools".

And what are you going to do if it turns out many of the A, M, and K lenses are just not up to snuff on the Full-Frame body. Oh well, Ricoh could have spend the Manufacturing and R&D resources on improving Pixel-Shift or AF instead..

Everybody here who did not buy a Pentax DSLR because of the "crippled" mount raise your hands.

---

Last edited by Not a Number; 11-09-2015 at 06:30 PM.

[UncleVanya]

I don't buy it. Lack of automation didn't hold back photographers before the 1980s from taking great shots and still doesn't. As the saying goes "A poor workman blames his tools".

Everybody here who did not buy a Pentax DSLR because of the "crippled" mount raise your hands.

I avoid using M lenses partially because this workaround is pretty lame but honestly I also avoid using A series lenses since manual focus without a split screen is too hard with my visual issues.

I find the change in workflow too annoying and I concede that a lack of effort trying to get used to it could be part of my issue. Adding the uncrippled features would be a selling point but not having it is not a deterrent to me.

I have a technical question - does this method of communicating aperture settings require a physical connection or could a laser perhaps read the position - asking for pure interest.

[reh321]

I don't buy it. Lack of automation didn't hold back photographers before the 1980s from taking great shots and still doesn't. If you're in a situation that requires automation why are you using these lenses? As the saying goes "A poor workman blames his tools".

First - although I still have (and use) Pentax-M lenses, as my previous posts have indicated I do not personally resent the lack of support for them in current Pentax bodies.

However, your statement here isn't quite fair either. Sometimes today I miss shots because I forget the power that automation gives me. Sometimes I get shots with my K-30 that I would never have gotten with my Super Program. Automation gives me focusing that normally locks on faster than I ever would have done manually. Automation allows me to take pictures in faster sequence than I could ever done before when I remember that I don't have to cock my K-30 between pictures (you'll notice that I never had a motor drive for my Super Program).

[monochrome]

I really enjoy using K lenses. It's a narrow slice of the hobby, but that's my deal. I'm completely accustomed to using stop-down metering (I nearly always use the DoF preview instead of the GB) in M Mode, even acceptably content with my K400/5.6 which is a manual aperture lens. I use film cameras more than the K-3 or K-01 anyway, but I'll use almost any combination of film and lens in my collection.

If I want modern automationor the shot is important or light is quickly changing I use FA OR FA Limiteds, DA or DA Limiteds and usually P Mode. I don't understand why, in a digital age, we would ask Pentax to provide full analog utility.

[Class A]

I don't understand why, in a digital age, we would ask Pentax to provide full analog utility.

Requesting better support for K/M lenses makes sense because there is a simple solution available.

You say you are enjoying your manual lenses so why are you content with not being able to use them in certain situations and/or being forced to have a parallel assortment of modern lenses in order to cope with these situations?

I personally believe that there is practically no chance of an aperture coupler materialising, but there is nothing wrong or anachronistic about people wanting one.

[mee]

I personally believe that there is practically no chance of an aperture coupler materializing, but there is nothing wrong or anachronistic about people wanting one.

Yes there is.. because that technology is in the past and it is staying there.

It would be similar to ask Apple to give you a cassette tape player in the iPhone or Sony to provide you with screw clamp connectors for your 4k UHDTV to connect your BetaMax player... that tech is dead and gone from the store shelves. No one is buying M or K series lenses in the stores anymore.. we've moved on (for better or for worse).

Please let the past be the past. Or stick to the technology of the past. But trying to shoe horn the old into the new is not going to occur... that is to say, I wouldn't get your hopes up over it.

[Class A]

Yes there is.. because that technology is in the past and it is staying there.

By the same reasoning you could defend the absence of any metering support and/or focus confirmation for manual lenses.

With this reasoning, you could even easily have the forthcoming FF model not support screw drive lenses. Why "support technology of the past"?

It would be similar to ask Apple to give you a cassette tape player in the iPhone

This analogy does not work at all.

The more appropriate analogy would be Apple not supporting playing uncompressed audio files, i.e., only supporting the most modern lossy audio formats. The reason why this analogy is more appropriate is because it is easy and not intrusive to any users that have no interest in older technology to support older audio formats (just like adding an aperture coupler or better software support would be easy and non-intrusive), as opposed to do doing something entirely unreasonable (adding cassette playback to an iPhone).

Please let the past be the past. ... that is to say, I wouldn't get your hopes up over it.

Please read my posts more carefully. I explicitly said that I don't expect an aperture coupler to materialise. I'm not one of those people lobbying for one. I only said, the desire for an aperture coupler (or better software support) is 100% reasonable. I don't see why it should be ridiculed at all.

P.S.: While I'd be totally fine with the idea of an aperture coupler being dead and buried forever, I also think it would be very cool of Pentax to -- at some point in the future -- give people the option to spend some money to get one.

There could be a special edition of a flagship camera that would target those with a collection of manual lenses. I guess it would not be financially viable to do this, but if it were, it would be a great way for Ricoh to communicate that they value their existing customers and reward brand loyalty.

[rullrich]

Yes there is.. because that technology is in the past and it is staying there.

It would be similar to ask Apple to give you a cassette tape player in the iPhone or Sony to provide you with screw clamp connectors for your 4k UHDTV to connect your BetaMax player... that tech is dead and gone from the store shelves. No one is buying M or K series lenses in the stores anymore.. we've moved on (for better or for worse).

Please let the past be the past. Or stick to the technology of the past. But trying to shoe horn the old into the new is not going to occur... that is to say, I wouldn't get your hopes up over it.

I don't think that's correct. Apple doesn't advertise to support a long history of cassette tape players. If an aperture coupler would be easy to implement and not that expensive (which I don't know) than I would really like to see one. Otherwise Sony could with almost the same right claim to support Pentax legacy glass.

[mee]

I don't think that's correct. Apple doesn't advertise to support a long history of cassette tape players. If an aperture coupler would be easy to implement and not that expensive (which I don't know) than I would really like to see one. Otherwise Sony could with almost the same right claim to support Pentax legacy glass.

Show me where Ricoh Imaging is touting the full support of legacy K mount lenses on current DSLR bodies.

[One3rdEV]

Unfortunately sometimes the tech that is still available or brought to the present market place does not perform as well as tech that once existing in the market place. What is available now or in the future does not always exceed what was available in the past- except for the fact that it is presently available. But then this may be a fleeting moment also.

Photography includes a bit of this as well.

Can be a bit frustrating to old timers such as myself who experienced past technologies that delivered well (e.g. perhaps greater efficiency, predictable, repeatable, concise control, or creative freedom) but have since been taken away.

[mee]

By the same reasoning you could defend the absence of any metering support and/or focus confirmation for manual lenses.

With this reasoning, you could even easily have the forthcoming FF model not support screw drive lenses. Why "support technology of the past"?


This analogy does not work at all.

The more appropriate analogy would be Apple not supporting playing uncompressed audio files, i.e., only supporting the most modern lossy audio formats. The reason why this analogy is more appropriate is because it is easy and not intrusive to any users that have no interest in older technology to support older audio formats (just like adding an aperture coupler or better software support would be easy and non-intrusive), as opposed to do doing something entirely unreasonable (adding cassette playback to an iPhone).


Please read my posts more carefully. I explicitly said that I don't expect an aperture coupler to materialise. I'm not one of those people lobbying for one. I only said, the desire for an aperture coupler (or better software support) is 100% reasonable. I don't see why it should be ridiculed at all.

P.S.: While I'd be totally fine with the idea of an aperture coupler being dead and buried forever, I also think it would be very cool of Pentax to -- at some point in the future -- give people the option to spend some money to get one.

There could be a special edition of a flagship camera that would target those with a collection of manual lenses. I guess it would not be financially viable to do this, but if it were, it would be a great way for Ricoh to communicate that they value their existing customers and reward brand loyalty.

I'm sorry if you misread that as being directed at you. It was in general to the loud minority here. There is minimal incentive for them to add an aperture coupler or any additional features to support ancient lenses. They make no money from legacy lens purchases and I suspect very few purchases from the legacy lens users market (in the form of body sales should they make one with these features). I strongly doubt there is enough demand to warrant the feature vs profit from providing it.

Ricoh/Pentax currently sell screwdrive lenses so your own case is moot. They don't sell full manual lenses however, so my thought is valid.

Compressed and uncompressed audio formats are still around, alive, and sold in the market. So that also doesn't work. But you're not seeing the forest through the trees in this matter and I'm not sure how else to explain it. Round peg in square hole. Ancient technology trying to be shoehorned to work with new technology.

While I'd be happy to see any and all supportive features for as many lens types as possible.. I'm not seeing it happen. Even Ricoh reps when asked about that were quick to skirt around it.. they don't seem to want to touch it. It is a niche in a niche. (manual lenses in DSLR photography)

I think we have a better potential to see 4k video than get an aperture coupler and any other features to support 40 year old lenses. I'd be happy to eat crow if they provide it though. Again don't get your (in general) hopes up because the potential for seeing this is slim.

---------- Post added 11-09-15 at 11:39 PM ----------

Unfortunately sometimes the tech that is still available or brought to the present market place does not perform as well as tech that once existing in the market place. What is available now or in the future does not always exceed what was available in the past- except for the fact that it is presently available. But then this may be a fleeting moment also.

Photography includes a bit of this as well.

Can be a bit frustrating to old timers such as myself who experienced past technologies that delivered well (e.g. perhaps greater efficiency, predictable, repeatable, concise control, or creative freedom) but have since been taken away.

Solid metal cars with full bumpers aren't coming back either.. now you get hit at 5 or 6 mph and you have 800 dollars in damage. There were definitely advantages to the old designs. On the other hand, cars now are generally lighter and get better fuel economy. So there are advantages to the new designs as well.

I have a couple M primes. The build quality is fantastic. Solid metal body, smooth focusing ring. But they are also heavier and flare like crazy (not to mention the lack of auto anything).

[Class A]

There is minimal incentive for them to add an aperture coupler or any additional features to support ancient lenses.

Agreed.

However, I don't think one should underestimate the positive financial long-term payback that can be the result of rewarding customers with actions that seemingly make no sense financially from a short-term perspective.

Ricoh/Pentax currently sell screwdrive lenses so your own case is moot. They don't sell full manual lenses however, so my thought is valid.

Your original argument that I criticised was not about whether some technology is still being sold or not. The argument I criticised was the idea of abandoning backward-compatibility on the basis that some technology is "old" / "outdated".

If your original argument had been about Ricoh shooting themselves into the foot financially by offering an aperture coupler, I would have responded differently.

Ancient technology trying to be shoehorned to work with new technology.

The problem with your position is that this is not a case of "shoehorning" at all.

The mount has not changed physically. Increasing backward-compatibility would be a simple matter of reading the position of the aperture coupler. The respective parts would only add an insignificant amount to the production cost of the camera.

I think we have a better potential to see 4k video than get an aperture coupler and any other features to support 40 year old lenses.

Of course, but that still does not validate the viewpoint that reducing backward-compatibility is always the right thing to do.

[Mistral75]

(..)

There could be a special edition of a flagship camera that would target those with a collection of manual lenses. I guess it would not be financially viable to do this, but if it were, it would be a great way for Ricoh to communicate that they value their existing customers and reward brand loyalty.

Nikon have done that with the Df which is the only Nikon DSLR you can use pre-Ai lenses with.

[kenspo]

Of course, but that still does not validate the viewpoint that reducing backward-compatibility is always the right thing to do.

But its not the highest priority. They are making a pro camera for the future.

[Class A]

But its not the highest priority.

And I agree that it should not be.