Originally posted by zzeitg K (and later M, A) lenses... Since 1975. Made 45 years ago. Working just fine. And (I believe) they will be working just fine even after another 45 years. Precise mechanical and optical work. Simple.
Surely there are new features offered by the latest models. But while the mechanical and optical part can still last long, the electronic part dies way too soon. Like the SDM motors in my DA* lenses. Yes, probably exactly this experience made me a little sceptical
. (And considering the (un)availability of service....)
Not necessarily. It's backwards compatibility I'm asking for. (And hey, that has been Pentax benefit for decades...) I never said there should NOT be new features implemented.
Considering the total price of the (*) lens, would it be much more expensive to implement the mechanical aperture lever, too? (Like in case of the DA* problematic lenses. SDM motor dead -> converting to screwdrive saves the lens AF.)
You have backwards compatibility. You can use any old Pentax lens you want on any new Pentax body, though there is the issue of the green button kludge for metering..
What you are asking for is forward compatibility where you can use any old Pentax body on any new Pentax lens. That went away when they started removing aperture rings from lenses in 2003 with the FAJ 28-80 kit lens.
I've had numerous problems over the years with the mechanical parts on Pentax cameras and lenses. I had one LX with sticky mirror and both aperture cam follower and ISO resistor failure, and decided to try to future proof myself by sending all three of my LX bodies in for preventative maintenance to cure one and make sure none of the others developed the problems since Pentax did eventually start using materials that didn't turn into goo. I've had lenses develop lazy aperture and I've had lenses shed their electronic contacts because of mechanical failure inside the lens (the retainers broke).
I think the insistence that electronics will always fail and mechanical parts never will is quite a stretch of believability.
Mechanical parts are prone to wear and tear, and they are far more prone to going out of adjustment (hence the zombies on certain other forums harping about "flappy mirrors" when they are sermonizing about the advantages of mirrorless cameras.
Pentax tried to address some of this, and what we got for their trouble was aperture block failure, another kludge that didn't work quite as planned.
I'm quite content with the direction Pentax is going. Yes, it's too bad that they have removed forwards compatibility, but you still have the backwards compatibility that you find important, and if, as you say, camera bodies are disposable commodities, it really shouldn't be a big deal to just buy a newer camera body that can take advantage of the new lenses.
---------- Post added Mar 26th, 2020 at 04:06 PM ----------
Originally posted by zzeitg Bigger than FA* 85 f/1.4? Come on... The difference in price would not be that dramatic (I guess).
After seeing this photo, I'd be scared even more. Tiny little fragile thin and subtle. That's the essence of today's innovation, I know.
In case of, let's say, a mobile phone, who cares. Anyway, there will be another new generation next year. But when it comes to an (expensive) lens, I simply expect something long-time-reliable, fully functional and durable. But it's only me...
What evidence do you have that the KAF4 lenses will be anything other than long time functional and durable?