Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-12-2013, 08:31 AM   #1156
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
Like i said i don't see a problem with the contacts.
All the potential problems you name are also their with every other mount and most of them have contacts too.

ffs?
The leica M diameter is 44mm indeed about the same as the K mount, i've no idea what you mean with making up excuses?
Having an M mount and a good adaptor for it to the K mount it would mean you can use Leica M lenses and Pentax lenses.
Since the M mount has a shorter register it means faster lenses are posiable.

Does this mean they will screw up their customers... wel not really since this mount would be for mirrorless and not for DSLR... i hear no one complain that the Q had a different mount...


I think camera's like the K-01 are a bit stranger. Sure it's nice they use the K-mount without an adaptor but i rather have a system that also taps into other resources. You are free to dislike that idea although i don't know why...


Last edited by Anvh; 02-12-2013 at 08:38 AM.
02-12-2013, 08:43 AM   #1157
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,471
Weren't we talking about how the "small" diameter K-mount supposedly could hinder the implementation of SR with a FF sensor? And the miraculous solution is a mount which is not wider! (not only that, but it doesn't even have any modern feature).
Which is a FAIL.
02-12-2013, 09:32 AM   #1158
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,122
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Weren't we talking about how the "small" diameter K-mount supposedly could hinder the implementation of SR with a FF sensor? And the miraculous solution is a mount which is not wider! (not only that, but it doesn't even have any modern feature).
Which is a FAIL.
Where did ANYONE say M-mount was the solution to that problem? Not me, but I would be happy to give up SR for the ability to mount off-brand glass though.
02-12-2013, 09:53 AM   #1159
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,471
What problem would they solve, then, by going M-mount? There are two things I don't see in your posts:
- a strong, compelling argument for changing the mount - which can only be a K-mount technical inadequacy otherwise unsolvable. And, after proving that,
- a strong, compelling argument for adapting a rangefinder mount and "hacking" it to support most basic modern features, instead of creating a modern mount.

Don't tell me about mounting off-brand lenses; you can already do that with off-brand cameras. And don't tell me how losing SR is acceptable, just because.

02-12-2013, 10:10 AM   #1160
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,122
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
There are two things I don't see in your posts:
- a strong, compelling argument for changing the mount - which can only be a K-mount technical inadequacy otherwise unsolvable.
Extremely rapid declining 3rd party manufacturer support.

QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
- a strong, compelling argument for adapting a rangefinder mount and "hacking" it to support most basic modern features, instead of creating a modern mount.
Because the mount is open source. Anybody can use it. But I agree, a totally new modern mount would be even better...
02-12-2013, 10:25 AM   #1161
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Weren't we talking about how the "small" diameter K-mount supposedly could hinder the implementation of SR with a FF sensor? And the miraculous solution is a mount which is not wider! (not only that, but it doesn't even have any modern feature).
Which is a FAIL.
Not me...
02-12-2013, 10:28 AM   #1162
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,471
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Extremely rapid declining 3rd party manufacturer support.
That's not a technical argument about a K-mount inadequacy (and it's pretty much false). The Nikon F has a much higher market share, and technically it's not superior to the K-mount - maybe the market share (which actually determines the 3rd-party support) issue lies elsewhere? If so, changing the mount won't fix anything; and a better strategy must be found.

QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Because the mount is open source. Anybody can use it. But I agree, a totally new modern mount would be even better...
That's not a technical argument for using the M-mount; extensive modifications would be needed, while working within the legacy mount's constraints.
Besides, the first point wasn't proven so it's premature to talk about the second

Instead of technical reasons, you could also convince me with strong business cases, which I'm sure you don't have.
02-12-2013, 10:31 AM   #1163
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Because the mount is open source. Anybody can use it. But I agree, a totally new modern mount would be even better...
Now this is funny...

People who are mostly against a changing mount use the argument that they can't use their lenses.
With a completely new mount the change is more extreme.
At least when you go to another mount which is already establish you have new user group to tap into and a range of lenses.

02-12-2013, 10:33 AM   #1164
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,122
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
Now this is funny...

People who are mostly against a changing mount use the argument that they can't use their lenses.
With a completely new mount the change is more extreme.
At least when you go to another mount which is already establish you have new user group to tap into and a range of lenses.
Look at Sony, I happily use E, PK, M and M42 all on the same body. The latter three requiring simple adapters.
02-12-2013, 10:39 AM   #1165
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
That's not a technical argument about a K-mount inadequacy (and it's pretty much false). The Nikon F has a much higher market share, and technically it's not superior to the K-mount - maybe the market share (which actually determines the 3rd-party support) issue lies elsewhere? If so, changing the mount won't fix anything; and a better strategy must be found.
Those werent mine points though so don't involve our previous conversation


QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
That's not a technical argument for using the M-mount; extensive modifications would be needed, while working within the legacy mount's constraints.
Besides, the first point wasn't proven so it's premature to talk about the second

Instead of technical reasons, you could also convince me with strong business cases, which I'm sure you don't have.
Technical argument... well there werent any beside the faster glass and use of M lenses.
The mounts constraints... why would thos be a problem? All in all you can lower the amount of contacts you need to 4 maybe even 3.
You need power, that are 2 contacts and then you've the digital contact. The aperture contacts are binary esentially so they can be converted to digital aswell eeasy enough so that would be the 4th contact. I see no reason why you cant mount 4 contacts on the M mount.

I've no idea what you mean with first point.
02-12-2013, 10:42 AM   #1166
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,471
Anvh, is indeed funny to see you refusing to understand that a new mount would make using K-mount lenses more difficult. No matter how much I'd try, my Limiteds won't fit on a Leica.

There are always constraints while working with legacy mounts. Even with the K-mount (which adapted quite well to the modern requirements, maybe the removal of the aperture lever is feasible too).
A new mount would give you more freedom, however, one doesn't simply change their mount - there must be a strong reason to do so. But none is presented, by the "let's change the mount" people.

Clavius, in other words you already have a solution for your problem and Pentax implementing a similar solution is just unneeded redundancy.
02-12-2013, 10:44 AM   #1167
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Look at Sony, I happily use E, PK, M and M42 all on the same body. The latter three requiring simple adapters.
Sony went very extreme with the register of their mount, just look at the corner quality of the images...
For a mirrorless fullframe camera you would need (want) more distance then that.

So an 135formatt mount would most likely be close to that of the M mount... if so then why not use the M mount?
02-12-2013, 10:49 AM   #1168
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,471
No, no, no. Don't ask "why not use X", explain why they should use X. But first, explain why the mount should be changed.
a. technical reason (which?)
b. large market share to be captured, fast, offsetting losing the current users (numbers?)
02-12-2013, 10:49 AM   #1169
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Anvh, is indeed funny to see you refusing to understand that a new mount would make using K-mount lenses more difficult. No matter how much I'd try, my Limiteds won't fit on a Leica.
You didn't bought the right limited then Leica M6 w/Pentax SMC 43mm F1.9 & finder | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Actually you're suggesting using a new mount, not me...
02-12-2013, 10:52 AM   #1170
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,471
You're not doing what?
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
why not use the M mount?
A deeply modified M mount is a new mount.

And I'm doing what? I'm strongly against Pentax using a new mount (even my signature is reflecting my position on this subject)

By the way, that specific Limited is afaik unavailable, and won't fit my cameras. And I don't want a 43mm lens.
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!
24x36mm, aps-c, camera, capacity, company, d4s, dont, ff, followers, frame, full-frame, idea, im, iso, k-3, lens, lenses, letter, light, lw/ph, nikon, page, pentax, release, time, traffic
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The full frame Pentax that never was dj_saunter Pentax DSLR Discussion 23 05-06-2011 04:06 AM
Pentax and Full Frame oppositz Pentax DSLR Discussion 58 03-18-2011 09:39 AM
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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:34 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