HD PENTAX-DA 55-300mmF4.5-6.3ED PLM WR RE

**jatrax** · 06-09-2016, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by UncleVanya

All of this may be a foolish worry over nothing.

+1 Thread closer.

Easeman · 06-09-2016, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by reh321

You'll notice that they don't claim K or M42 compatibility for any of those cameras, so they don't seem to be quite as wed to up-and-down the line compatibility as some of us are.

I was just curious why some of them have powerzoom compatibility and others don't have. And whatever powerzoom compatibility, they can become KAF4. It seems that I still don't understand the K-mount. I need to learn more.

Doundounba · 06-09-2016, 07:38 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by jatrax

Firmware requires hardware to operate, that is a basic truth. If the hardware needed is not present then the firmware cannot work, simple. Please don't leap to conclusions, of course no one outside of Ricoh knows the truth here.

But new functionality does NOT always require new hardware. (And things done in hardware can even sometimes be emulated in software.) So please, stating that because this is new functionality then it must require new hardware is just unsupported nonsense. There's just no way to know.

**jatrax** · 06-09-2016, 07:42 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Doundounba

So please, stating that because this is new functionality then it must require new hardware is just unsupported nonsense. There's just no way to know.

@Doundounba, that is not what I said or meant. Please read my post instead of jumping to conclusions. My original post said that, my second comment said that and now I'm saying it again. Firmware requires hardware to work, IF, the hardware is not present it cannot work. There, I highlighted the operative word for you. So if you want continue to be a jerk about this go ahead, I'm done.

Doundounba · 06-09-2016, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by jatrax

Firmware requires hardware to work, if, the hardware is not present it cannot work. There, I highlighted the operative word for you. So if you want continue to be a jerk about this go ahead, I'm done.

I'm sorry but things just aren't that simple, and there's no need to resort to personal insult, as you have just done. (I have also removed the shouting from your quote.) The line between software and hardware is often movable. You can often emulate hardware in (lower level) software so that higher level software has no clue it's not talking directly to a piece of hardware, but to a lower software layer. Of course, this isn't always the case, and you do eventually hit the metal. In our case, it would be nice for Ricoh to release a technical paper on KAF4, so we can see how the mount works and how it has changed from KAF3...

IchabodCrane · 06-09-2016, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by jatrax

Of course I do! I was not referring to this camera, but to firmware in general. Firmware requires hardware to operate, that is a basic truth. If the hardware needed is not present then the firmware cannot work, simple. Please don't leap to conclusions, of course no one outside of Ricoh knows the truth here.

If it's a hardware limitation in the K-3 then it must be quite arcane. Considering the K-3 II can send the necessary digital signal to the lens to control its aperture (once the firmware is updated), one would reasonably think the K-3 could do the same since they use the same processor and have the same contacts. Besides the processor and the contacts, what other piece of hardware is there in the digital signal generation?

VoiceOfReason · 06-09-2016, 08:20 AM

I hope there are enough users here that we can petition them and have Adam or Kenspro send it along asking that the K3 at least be included in an update for KAF4, and possibly the K5 series too.

Doundounba · 06-09-2016, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by IchabodCrane

Besides the processor and the contacts, what other piece of hardware is there in the digital signal generation?

I'm just speculating here, but it could be that there are pins where the camera hardware was only reading voltage and now needs to set voltage, in order to communicate to the lens what is the chosen shooting aperture...

Imp · 06-09-2016, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by VoiceOfReason

Kenspro

Kenspo

VoiceOfReason · 06-09-2016, 08:41 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Imp

Kenspo

My fingers keep typing when my brain shuts off. I'd still like to get oen to take a request to include the K3 (it isn't like it is an obsolete one) and possibly the K5 and K50 series with an update.

reh321 · 06-09-2016, 08:44 AM

This has been a fascinating thread to me.

Usually when I get into a discussion about AF, I'm advocating for good in-lens motors and everyone else is singing the praises of screw-drive

Usually I hear more good things about the K-3 than about the K-3ii; now it turns out that the K-3ii has some good points afterall.

IchabodCrane · 06-09-2016, 08:49 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Doundounba

I'm just speculating here, but it could be that there are pins where the camera hardware was only reading voltage and now needs to set voltage, in order to communicate to the lens what is the chosen shooting aperture...

I'm not an electronics engineer so will admit up front that I'm out of my league with these things. What I think I know is there's only one "pin" and that's the body to lens data pin. Signals must be multiplexed from the processor but that's still a single output point. If there's a reason why a K-3 II can properly multiplex the focusing with aperture signal but a K-3 can't, despite us thinking it's the same processor, it's not an obvious reason.

slip · 06-09-2016, 09:01 AM

this is the first time I considered a lens like this because of the new autofocus...but no K3

Randy

willeisner · 06-09-2016, 09:05 AM

It is very sad to see that the direction of Ricoh to continue with one of the characteristics but strong Pentax came to an end, compatibility with previous organizations.

I would be happy to see updates to K5 forward

Doundounba · 06-09-2016, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by IchabodCrane

If there's a reason why a K-3 II can properly multiplex the focusing with aperture signal but a K-3 can't, despite us thinking it's the same processor, it's not an obvious reason.

I'm out of my league as well here, (and trying to educate myself between posts)... But AF gets its own pins, no? (The "SDM contacts", or do they just provide power?) I'm thinking this PF article will suddenly get a lot of hits.

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

06-09-2016, 07:32 AM	#181
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by UncleVanya All of this may be a foolish worry over nothing. +1 Thread closer.

06-09-2016, 07:37 AM	#182
Easeman New Member Join Date: Feb 2016 Posts: 9	Originally posted by reh321 You'll notice that they don't claim K or M42 compatibility for any of those cameras, so they don't seem to be quite as wed to up-and-down the line compatibility as some of us are. I was just curious why some of them have powerzoom compatibility and others don't have. And whatever powerzoom compatibility, they can become KAF4. It seems that I still don't understand the K-mount. I need to learn more.

06-09-2016, 07:38 AM - 1 Like	#183
Doundounba Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Montréal QC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,351	Originally posted by jatrax Firmware requires hardware to operate, that is a basic truth. If the hardware needed is not present then the firmware cannot work, simple. Please don't leap to conclusions, of course no one outside of Ricoh knows the truth here. But new functionality does NOT always require new hardware. (And things done in hardware can even sometimes be emulated in software.) So please, stating that because this is new functionality then it must require new hardware is just unsupported nonsense. There's just no way to know.

06-09-2016, 07:42 AM - 1 Like	#184
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by Doundounba So please, stating that because this is new functionality then it must require new hardware is just unsupported nonsense. There's just no way to know. @Doundounba, that is not what I said or meant. Please read my post instead of jumping to conclusions. My original post said that, my second comment said that and now I'm saying it again. Firmware requires hardware to work, IF, the hardware is not present it cannot work. There, I highlighted the operative word for you. So if you want continue to be a jerk about this go ahead, I'm done.

06-09-2016, 08:11 AM	#185
Doundounba Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Montréal QC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,351	Originally posted by jatrax Firmware requires hardware to work, if, the hardware is not present it cannot work. There, I highlighted the operative word for you. So if you want continue to be a jerk about this go ahead, I'm done. I'm sorry but things just aren't that simple, and there's no need to resort to personal insult, as you have just done. (I have also removed the shouting from your quote.) The line between software and hardware is often movable. You can often emulate hardware in (lower level) software so that higher level software has no clue it's not talking directly to a piece of hardware, but to a lower software layer. Of course, this isn't always the case, and you do eventually hit the metal. In our case, it would be nice for Ricoh to release a technical paper on KAF4, so we can see how the mount works and how it has changed from KAF3...

06-09-2016, 08:18 AM	#186
IchabodCrane Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,728	Originally posted by jatrax Of course I do! I was not referring to this camera, but to firmware in general. Firmware requires hardware to operate, that is a basic truth. If the hardware needed is not present then the firmware cannot work, simple. Please don't leap to conclusions, of course no one outside of Ricoh knows the truth here. If it's a hardware limitation in the K-3 then it must be quite arcane. Considering the K-3 II can send the necessary digital signal to the lens to control its aperture (once the firmware is updated), one would reasonably think the K-3 could do the same since they use the same processor and have the same contacts. Besides the processor and the contacts, what other piece of hardware is there in the digital signal generation?

06-09-2016, 08:20 AM	#187
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	I hope there are enough users here that we can petition them and have Adam or Kenspro send it along asking that the K3 at least be included in an update for KAF4, and possibly the K5 series too.

06-09-2016, 08:29 AM	#188
Doundounba Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Montréal QC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,351	Originally posted by IchabodCrane Besides the processor and the contacts, what other piece of hardware is there in the digital signal generation? I'm just speculating here, but it could be that there are pins where the camera hardware was only reading voltage and now needs to set voltage, in order to communicate to the lens what is the chosen shooting aperture...

06-09-2016, 08:38 AM	#189
Imp Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Washington, DC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,749	Originally posted by VoiceOfReason Kenspro Kenspo

06-09-2016, 08:41 AM - 1 Like	#190
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	Originally posted by Imp Kenspo My fingers keep typing when my brain shuts off. I'd still like to get oen to take a request to include the K3 (it isn't like it is an obsolete one) and possibly the K5 and K50 series with an update.

06-09-2016, 08:44 AM	#191
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,177	This has been a fascinating thread to me. Usually when I get into a discussion about AF, I'm advocating for good in-lens motors and everyone else is singing the praises of screw-drive Usually I hear more good things about the K-3 than about the K-3ii; now it turns out that the K-3ii has some good points afterall.

06-09-2016, 08:49 AM - 1 Like	#192
IchabodCrane Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,728	Originally posted by Doundounba I'm just speculating here, but it could be that there are pins where the camera hardware was only reading voltage and now needs to set voltage, in order to communicate to the lens what is the chosen shooting aperture... I'm not an electronics engineer so will admit up front that I'm out of my league with these things. What I think I know is there's only one "pin" and that's the body to lens data pin. Signals must be multiplexed from the processor but that's still a single output point. If there's a reason why a K-3 II can properly multiplex the focusing with aperture signal but a K-3 can't, despite us thinking it's the same processor, it's not an obvious reason.

06-09-2016, 09:01 AM	#193
slip Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: 2 hours north of toronto ontario canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,535	this is the first time I considered a lens like this because of the new autofocus...but no K3 Randy

06-09-2016, 09:05 AM	#194
willeisner Senior Member Join Date: May 2013 Photos: Gallery Posts: 122	It is very sad to see that the direction of Ricoh to continue with one of the characteristics but strong Pentax came to an end, compatibility with previous organizations. I would be happy to see updates to K5 forward

06-09-2016, 09:16 AM	#195
Doundounba Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Montréal QC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,351	Originally posted by IchabodCrane If there's a reason why a K-3 II can properly multiplex the focusing with aperture signal but a K-3 can't, despite us thinking it's the same processor, it's not an obvious reason. I'm out of my league as well here, (and trying to educate myself between posts)... But AF gets its own pins, no? (The "SDM contacts", or do they just provide power?) I'm thinking this PF article will suddenly get a lot of hits.