Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-20-2016, 07:55 AM   #586
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,377
I guess bottom line, second guessing decisions we know nothing about is worth 38 pages of discussion.

But in the end, you'll all come to the same conclusion I did, "get on with your life", or you'll cause yourselves a lot of unhappiness beating your heads against a wall.

"Why are you hitting yourself in the head with that hammer?"
"Because it feels so good when I stop'"

10-20-2016, 08:53 AM   #587
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,866
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Maybe. But it's not the same way Pentax responded to the request for full K/M compatibility; then, they said "it's difficult".
I should probably follow the advice in the post between these two, but this one demands an answer. In the case of full K/M capability, the engineers know exactly what is involved - more hardware, when KAF4 shows they're trying to go to less hardware, to finally provide the kind of lens control Canon provided over 20 years ago when they dumped the FD-mount and went to the EF-mount {ElectroFocus}. They could do it, but they don't want to do it to enable full capability of lenses last built in 1983, just as they don't want to put in the plunger that would be needed to enable full capability {auto mode in M42-mount} of lenses last built in 1975.
10-20-2016, 01:04 PM   #588
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,206
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
I should probably follow the advice in the post between these two, but this one demands an answer. In the case of full K/M capability, the engineers know exactly what is involved - more hardware, when KAF4 shows they're trying to go to less hardware, to finally provide the kind of lens control Canon provided over 20 years ago when they dumped the FD-mount and went to the EF-mount {ElectroFocus}. They could do it, but they don't want to do it to enable full capability of lenses last built in 1983, just as they don't want to put in the plunger that would be needed to enable full capability {auto mode in M42-mount} of lenses last built in 1975.
Or multizone with K lenses.
10-20-2016, 02:04 PM - 1 Like   #589
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,604
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Maybe. But it's not the same way Pentax responded to the request for full K/M compatibility; then, they said "it's difficult".
Let's say that's not the most explicit and clear response.

To be honest I think I don't care it isn't like my K3 can't do thing it was able to do before or even I could not put the best Pentax lenses on it. There a single consumer grade lens involved with a KAF2 variant still sold and another variant that can be got used for 1/3 of the price.

In a sense, it is more annoying to get many lenses that focus on FF pro market that I don't care of at all because I target more sub $1000 lenses that are also reasonably small/light.

But even, that, I can't really complain and that not really reasonable to complain about that. I have quite decent body that has access to decent lenses. That's all I need.

Sure... it could be better, but what could not ? And it could be much worse too... Like all the recent DFA lenses and the 16-85 being KAF4 and incompatible or the KAF4 mount bodies not accepting KAF2/3 lenses. This isn't the case. There no weird path that would end up with un-happy crewed customers except insisting on getting the 55-300 RE instead of DA/DAL/HD DA 55-300 on K3 or older hardware. But doing that you have either to be sloppy or stubborn.

10-20-2016, 03:31 PM   #590
New Member




Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 2
this is very exciting!
10-20-2016, 03:34 PM   #591
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,206
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Let's say that's not the most explicit and clear response.

To be honest I think I don't care it isn't like my K3 can't do thing it was able to do before or even I could not put the best Pentax lenses on it. There a single consumer grade lens involved with a KAF2 variant still sold and another variant that can be got used for 1/3 of the price.

In a sense, it is more annoying to get many lenses that focus on FF pro market that I don't care of at all because I target more sub $1000 lenses that are also reasonably small/light.

But even, that, I can't really complain and that not really reasonable to complain about that. I have quite decent body that has access to decent lenses. That's all I need.

Sure... it could be better, but what could not ? And it could be much worse too... Like all the recent DFA lenses and the 16-85 being KAF4 and incompatible or the KAF4 mount bodies not accepting KAF2/3 lenses. This isn't the case. There no weird path that would end up with un-happy crewed customers except insisting on getting the 55-300 RE instead of DA/DAL/HD DA 55-300 on K3 or older hardware. But doing that you have either to be sloppy or stubborn.

And yet, you do complain and use hell of hundreds of characters to write what you already wrote hundreds times (and by itself is fine btw): you do not care about FF.
Fine. Move on. Spam folder full.
10-20-2016, 04:27 PM   #592
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 138
the OP topic was about HD Pentax DA 55-300

which is an APS-C lens, thus I dont understand why some posts now are about FF vs APS-C.
AFAIK, up to now, there is no FF KAF4 lens.
10-20-2016, 11:36 PM   #593
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,604
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
And yet, you do complain and use hell of hundreds of characters to write what you already wrote hundreds times (and by itself is fine btw): you do not care about FF.
Fine. Move on. Spam folder full.
And you complain about my complaining... Now that we both aware of theses breaking news, do you feel any better?

10-21-2016, 01:24 AM   #594
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,705
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Let's say that's not the most explicit and clear response.
Let's say that what we see as explicit and clear might be considered rude in another culture.
10-21-2016, 05:58 AM   #595
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,377
QuoteQuote:
more hardware, when KAF4 shows they're trying to go to less hardware, to finally provide the kind of lens control Canon provided over 20 years ago when they dumped the FD-mount and went to the EF-mount {ElectroFocus}.
"lens control". Apparently if Pentax was able to go 30 years without it, it wasn't terribly necessary, and while the control may be electronic instead of mechanical is that really better, or is that just another electronic part that can fail? I curious ti know if Pentax for most of past 10 years having a better frequency of repair than Canon or Nikon has to do with the lenses containing more reliable mechanical components.
10-21-2016, 06:46 AM   #596
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,705
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
I should probably follow the advice in the post between these two, but this one demands an answer. In the case of full K/M capability, the engineers know exactly what is involved - more hardware, when KAF4 shows they're trying to go to less hardware, to finally provide the kind of lens control Canon provided over 20 years ago when they dumped the FD-mount and went to the EF-mount {ElectroFocus}. They could do it, but they don't want to do it to enable full capability of lenses last built in 1983, just as they don't want to put in the plunger that would be needed to enable full capability {auto mode in M42-mount} of lenses last built in 1975.
I'm not sure about your answer - my post was not a question, and you're not exactly touching the point I was making.

Actually KAF4 support might very well require "more hardware" - lens-side, this is obvious; but also camera-side. Nikon, for example, still launched cameras which were not compatible with their electronic aperture lenses after the first such lenses were introduced (the D3000). Nikon said: "As the electromagnetic aperture requires additional power from the camera, not all cameras are compatible with type E lenses."
10-21-2016, 07:54 AM   #597
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,866
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
"lens control". Apparently if Pentax was able to go 30 years without it, it wasn't terribly necessary, and while the control may be electronic instead of mechanical is that really better, or is that just another electronic part that can fail? I curious ti know if Pentax for most of past 10 years having a better frequency of repair than Canon or Nikon has to do with the lenses containing more reliable mechanical components.
I keep hearing here that Pentax users are frustrated when their equipment can't quite match what Canikon are doing. My personal belief, which is why I switched from Pentax to Canon twenty-one years ago, is that the EF lens system gave Canon an incredible edge. You are free to differ, since opinions are like that.

---------- Post added 10-21-16 at 10:56 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
I'm not sure about your answer - my post was not a question, and you're not exactly touching the point I was making.

Actually KAF4 support might very well require "more hardware" - lens-side, this is obvious; but also camera-side. Nikon, for example, still launched cameras which were not compatible with their electronic aperture lenses after the first such lenses were introduced (the D3000). Nikon said: "As the electromagnetic aperture requires additional power from the camera, not all cameras are compatible with type E lenses."
OK, I guess I misunderstood you. I definitely agree that the new lens system might require new body-side hardware, which might help to explain why only certain bodies have been retrofitted via firmware. I certainly hope that in the case of Pentax, all new bodies will support the new system by default.
10-21-2016, 08:03 AM   #598
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,377
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
I keep hearing here that Pentax users are frustrated when their equipment can't quite match what Canikon are doing.
Not if they look at the price of that equipment. I haven't heard one complaint about a K-1 not matching a D610. But Canon do have expensive equipment, more than anything Pentax sell that will out perform Pentax equipment, if you're willing to pay more money. That has nothing to do with EF lenses versus screw drive lenses, or anything else.
10-21-2016, 09:18 AM   #599
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,705
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
[/COLOR]OK, I guess I misunderstood you. I definitely agree that the new lens system might require new body-side hardware, which might help to explain why only certain bodies have been retrofitted via firmware. I certainly hope that in the case of Pentax, all new bodies will support the new system by default.
Great. I'd say we agree on both the K/M compatibility issue, and about the KAF4.

As for KAF4. It might be something minor, like an updated electronic component. I cannot completely rule out a purely marketing decision - though leaving the K-3 out doesn't make sense to me, so I think it's unlikely.

I believe all future bodies will support the new system; why is so? Nikon released the D3000 when all their (then newly introduced) electronic aperture lenses were expensive PC-Es (and I might be wrong, but I think these lenses were usable with restrictions). But Pentax' first is the affordable 55-300.
10-21-2016, 11:09 AM   #600
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 144
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
"lens control". Apparently if Pentax was able to go 30 years without it, it wasn't terribly necessary, and while the control may be electronic instead of mechanical is that really better, or is that just another electronic part that can fail? I curious ti know if Pentax for most of past 10 years having a better frequency of repair than Canon or Nikon has to do with the lenses containing more reliable mechanical components.
Electronic parts are actually more dependable than mechanical parts. Look at the issue Pentax had with the aperture actuators on the K-xx series. Yes, there is one other thing that can fail, but one less mechanical thing that can fail. Personally, I prefer a mechanical aperture, because a mechanical failure can be fixed fairly easily, parts not in production can be 3d printed or had from a doner lens where as good luck fixing the circuitry in a fully electronic lens. Plus, a fully electronic mount makes macro a pain, there has got to be nothing as annoying as using a canon lens with a dumb extension tube, and ones that communicate with the lens are stupid expensive.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
aperture, bodies, body, cameras, capability, change, day, device, firmware, flagship, hardware, hd pentax-da, ii, k-3, k-mount, k100d, kaf3, lens, lenses, mirrorless, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, people, plm wr, portfolio, ricoh, sense, sigma lenses
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
HD PENTAX-DA 18-50mm F4-5.6 DC WR RE D1N0 Pentax News and Rumors 167 04-09-2015 10:03 PM
Pentax HD 55-300mm f4-5.8 ED WR lens: recognizing issue in Lightroom 5.6 lavie Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 09-10-2014 05:24 AM
For Sale - Sold: HD PENTAX-DA 1:4-5.8 55-300mm ED WR 55-300 (price reduced) transam879 Sold Items 6 07-15-2014 06:05 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:03 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top