Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-09-2012, 01:13 AM   #2986
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,250
Bogus title, bogus content

07-09-2012, 07:37 AM   #2987
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Anvh, you like it or not, medium format is their pro system. This won't change, and your input is irrelevant.

Don't tell me you don't know about the OM-G, erm, OM-D (Oly's marketing must be affecting me, I keep calling it that way ). Is exactly what you're asking Pentax to do: short registration distance, "pro" mirrorless, can use 4/3 lenses with stinkin' adapters (which coincidentally aren't free and you'd get slow AF) and with those, you even have f/2.0 zooms. Tell me, are they competing with Canikon's pro FF?

I see you're not even sure if you used Pythagoras or not... for me, the conclusion is clear: you made that up.
By the way, one does not simply scale down the registration distance; there are many areas that are more or less constant: shutter space, the protruding part of the lens (more than 0.8mm, as you can see), tolerances...

And about your solve-it-all technology, I'll quote from that page: "Switches between reflective and transparent states in seconds"
Wow. I'm speechless.
It's not irrelevant at all, MF is very different then FF so it's a bogus comparison and you know i didn't mean it in that way.

That's not at all what i'm asking for, what gave you that idea?
I have always said i would like the mirror in there so it's nothing like the OM-D.

I'm not sure? lol i'm very sure, that the biggest height APS-C format can have for digital (19,1mm) and you see that it comes down to 27,01mm. So do i get an apology from you?
In the K5 the sensor is actually 15.6 mm heigh so the mirror length is 22,06 mm giving you just a bit more clearance but i went for the worst case scenario.

Well the Q went around the shutter problem.

Yeah seconds was not the best word but you know what i mean.
And solve it all with technology.... have you have take a closer look at your camera it pack full with technology so replacing one with the other is not such a bad thing if it improves something.
But hey you like to keep things the same, it's a surprise to me you even shoot digital... you don't mind that Pentax use an APS-C sensor, isn't the difference too great compares to 135 film?

Last edited by Anvh; 07-09-2012 at 07:44 AM.
07-09-2012, 07:52 AM   #2988
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,264
Since M is an RF mount and it frequently sticks into the camera body the Registration distance is not going to work for an SLR. the shortest AF SLR registration is the Canon, the shortest SLR is the 40mm you already pointed out and less than 5mm isn't going to do much for the brand, and will in fact likely cost the brand a large range. The K mount works as it should, is capable of as fast as F1.2 (which barely anyone shoots in any case) It covers FF and apsc. there is no argument you can make that will show that there will be enough benefit to change the system. Canon's change to Eos was forced by the inability to make the old mount work properly with AF, same thing for the Minolta mount change. One of Pentax' biggest strengths is the fact that they have mount compatability going back to the beginning of the SLR.They really need to uncripple the mount and metering system but even as it sits it is more functional than any other brand using their legacy lenses
Like I've said before there is virtually no chance they will do anything of the sort you are looking for (and no responsible manager would let it even proceed in R&D when there is so much else that needs attention)
07-09-2012, 08:01 AM   #2989
Veteran Member
maxfield_photo's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,215
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Bogus title, bogus content
But 200 pages worth

07-09-2012, 08:02 AM   #2990
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
QuoteOriginally posted by maxfield_photo Quote
But 200 pages worth
for me only 100 pages (look in the settings).
07-09-2012, 08:10 AM   #2991
Veteran Member
Asahiflex's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,754
However in 9 posts we'll reach the 3000th post on this subject. Which is about the maximum I'd be willing to pay in dollars for a Pentax FullFrame camera
07-09-2012, 08:32 AM   #2992
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,250
Anvh: It is very relevant, because all depends on which pro market they want to be. MF was their answer back then, it is their answer now - nothing has changed.

I don't think you were so decisive, but whatever.
Then, know that by going APS-C they would:
a. gain almost nothing in terms of registration distance; I've made an estimation some time ago, when this idea was under discussion but I'll skip that for a more practical experiment.
b. cut the FF path, so if the market conditions would change in such a way that Pentax could and should go FF, they won't be able to unless changing the mount again.
Do the following experiment: take Falk's cut in half K-5 image, and open it in Paint or another image editor. Draw a line over the full length of the mirror. Then, grab the bottom end of the line and, without changing the line's length, drag it until the line is horizontal.
You'll be amazed how little space is left (don't forget the lens would protrude a little bit inside).

This means the only way to actually gain something is to go mirrorless, i.e. OM-G like. Coupled with the proposed usage of the M mount, a rangefinder mount that leaves no room for a mirror... it seems to me you don't know what you're asking for.

"Seconds" is not a word, but the reality - the limits of that technology. Sorry, nobody will plan for some uncertain dramatic technological breakthrough.

No soup, erm, apology for you. You applied Pythagoras to APS-H, not to the ~15.6mm APS-C used by Pentax; you were claiming this is the mirror height (I see now you're calling it length; much better) and that besides it, there's nothing that would need space (everything, including the lens protrusion, could fit in 0,8mm).
Unless you'll put your thought in order and try to better understand things you'll remain unable to claim anything.

Your strawman attempt failed, as expected. I jumped to digital because I had reasons to (and digital APS-C was, even back then, adequate for my needs). Give me the proper reasons and I would adopt a new technology; but don't tell me I should do it just because.

Last edited by Kunzite; 07-09-2012 at 08:43 AM.
07-09-2012, 09:46 AM   #2993
Junior Member




Join Date: Jun 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 47
I still think it is funny that people continue to say they will not be able to use the DA lenses on a full frame body. Nikon and Canon allow aps-c lenses on their full frames, why wouldnt Pentax? When you put an aps-c lens on a Nikon, you can have the custom settings set for the camera to 'auto-crop' to aps-c, or you can turn that off, and just crop out the viginette in post-processing. The latter would be my preference, as you could utilize more of the space (most aps-c lenses will still cover more than just aps-c, but not quite full frame). Sure there are some lenses that you will want to replace with actual full frame lenses.. but your favorite DA lenses you could still use, and image quality would not be that different from your apsc camera. I would probably not invest in another fisheye, so I would definitely utilize my DA 10-17 on the full frame body. Yes, WHEN it comes out, because it will.

07-09-2012, 10:13 AM   #2994
Veteran Member
Asahiflex's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,754
The K-mount is a fullframe mount, period.
07-09-2012, 10:37 AM   #2995
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,336
QuoteOriginally posted by Asahiflex Quote
The K-mount is a fullframe mount, period.
Geez, that's way too direct and logical a post for this thread.
07-09-2012, 10:58 AM   #2996
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,250
Yes, it is, but a fullframe mount pretty much also suited for APS-C.
07-09-2012, 11:24 AM   #2997
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
It surely depends but like i said i didn't mean it like that so sorry for the confusing i thought you would understand but it seems you are just annoying on purpose.

A. then link me to it since you aren't explaining anything like normal you only saying it doesnt work. I'm still waiting for some answer from you but you're to busy pointing at my mistakes hoping that i forget it it seems so don't talk me down i'm actually trying to answer your questions not ignore them like you do.
B. they will indeed cut the FF path but why do they need to keep FF if they don't plan on making one? Afterall we are working under the assumption they won't make an FF but will want to compete with them with APS-C or did you forgot that?

But there is a lot of excess room in the K5, just look how far forward the entrance is for the viewfinder.

Well APS-H is part of the advance photography system so thought lets use the largest size, what's so wrong with that?
Well height or length it depends on how you look at it, i was imaging it when looking into the mount from the front and then it's called heigth not length.
So lets see if i can show you that shutter and mirror fits insinde a 27mm room in the mirror box then that should do it? will do my best i won't use the Pentax though but the konica if i can find it or the canon FD as the base.

lol... like i said it was a poor word chose i don't know the precies changing time but it isn't seconds but i use as a figure of speech, confusing isn't it?
Here same technology but different material is used for the film for the mirror, it does take a little bit of time to recover but going from mirror to translucant is almost instant.

I didn't asked you why you changed i asked you if the difference wasn't too great for you, reading is quite hard right?
07-09-2012, 11:28 AM   #2998
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Yes, it is, but a fullframe mount pretty much also suited for APS-C.
The difference between FF and 645 is almost just as great as between FF and APS-C so with the same reason 645 mount would also pretty much suit FF... I think that idea would come with a lot more resistance, what do you mean with narrow minded...
07-09-2012, 11:34 AM   #2999
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,165
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
But what if no big sensor with PD-AF is available? What if it works as "fast" as the Canon 650D's one? Until we'd see the adapter we won't know how it would look.

Valid and strong arguments against that stupid idea were already made; should I repeat them, again? I'd rather like you to go back and read them, also read what that stupid idea is about. Nope, it's nothing as innocent as being able to use your lenses on some compact camera, if you wish.

You're a Canonite. I can understand why you wouldn't care if Pentax would change their mount, just because, and force all of their users to either buy ("get for free") adapters, or jump ship. But what if Canon would do it? Just because.
First off, you might want to take a look at the way you are writing; you are coming across as a rather rude and argumentative person in this thread, and I am guessing it is not your intent.

Your main argument seems to be that Pentax should stick to K mount because they would not produce a mirrorless with decent phase detect autofocus and a fully function K mount adapter. This is a rather ridiculous stance; the technology exists for very capable phase detect autofocus on a mirroless (Nikon J1, V1) and making a fully compatible K-mount adapter (that is not crippled like the current K mount cameras) is certainly not some amazing leap of technology. You seem to think that Pentax is a) incapable of making an APS-C sensor with PDAF onboard, b) making it perform adequately, and c) making a basic K-mount adapter.

As for Canon, I think they would be stupid NOT to consider a new mount. Technology is moving forward at a rapid pace, and pretending it is still 30 years ago and continuing to produce camera bodies based on that is a losing prospect. What I would like to see is a mirrorless body, decently small, with if not a FF sensor at least the option of using one in the future, on-CMOS PDAF ala Nikon, and an EF lens adapter that is fully compatible with the existing mount. Then I could choose whether to use it as an EF mount body (via adapter) or with the new, hopefully more compact, lenses. Win, win.

How do you feel about the K-01? And, if the K-01 was half as thick and came with a K-mount adapter that made it work exactly as the current K-01, would it be better or worse?

As for the K-mount, how long should that be used? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? At what point does it cease to be a perceived advantage and becomes a burden instead?
07-09-2012, 11:38 AM   #3000
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,165
QuoteOriginally posted by NewTake Quote
I still think it is funny that people continue to say they will not be able to use the DA lenses on a full frame body. Nikon and Canon allow aps-c lenses on their full frames, why wouldnt Pentax?
Uh, Canon does not let you mount EF-S lenses on EF mount bodies. Would be nice if they did like Nikon, but there are some physical limitations at play here.
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!
aps-c, bodies, body, dslr, full-frame, lenses, lineup, pentax, system, users
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Full frame pentax cem.kumuk Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 11-12-2010 03:13 PM
Pentax and Full Frame... Shutter-bug Photographic Technique 60 11-03-2010 10:03 AM
Pentax A 50/1.2 on Full Frame aegisphan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 23 10-28-2010 04:16 PM
News Regarding Advertising on PentaxForums.com: An Official Statement Adam Site Suggestions and Help 5 03-24-2010 07:37 PM
Official: New DSLR Body is Coming; Full Frame Model is Under Planning! RiceHigh Pentax News and Rumors 78 08-04-2008 06:18 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:36 PM. | 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