[RobA_Oz]

uhhh stepper motor is nothing new....
It's just as new as the brushless DC motor pentax use in their "new" DC lenses...

"New" doesn't just refer to invention. New product, new application, new detail refinement, new production process are all possibilities in what Norm's saying. Technology advances without invention.

Having said that, I still don't see how the K-mount is necessarily made obsolete by any such advances. If its just a matter of additional digital signalling capacity, there's plenty of physical space for more contacts, or even multiplexing. If a new technology required more space in the throat of the camera body, that's a different matter, but it would doubtless affect all makers equally.

[ElJamoquio]

It would affect Nikon more than Pentax and Canon less.

Really, nobody's saying that Nikon can't autofocus, and their mount is worse than Pentax.

[the swede]

It would affect Nikon more than Pentax and Canon less.

Really, nobody's saying that Nikon can't autofocus, and their mount is worse than Pentax.

Interesting! Why is Nikon mount worse?

[ElJamoquio]

As I mentioned a few posts above, the rear element diameter possible is smaller and further away.

[geojazz]

Folks though it is fun to wonder and speculate, speculation without evidence will drive everyone batty .....LOL!!!
I will just wait patiently and see what occurs then make my decision as to my future camera systems.

[Anvh]

And there goes FF advantage
Revolutionary Metabones Speed Booster Makes Your Lenses Wider, Brighter, and Sharper - NoFilmSchool

[maxfield_photo]

The "speed booster" is a pretty clever idea, take the image circle of a larger optic and map it to a smaller format. But it remains to be seen whether it will live up to it's claims of extra sharpness. Generally speaking, any time you introduce extra glass between the rear element and the sensor, it degrades the image, and just like teleconverters, though it will work with any optical formula, it's only truly "optimized" for certain configurations.

But assuming all the claims are true, the biggest problem with this miracle solution is that it only works on cameras with a significantly shorter flange distance than the original for which the lens was intended. So the Q could benefit if they ever introduce a K to Q version, but the K-01, and any K mount DSLR are out of luck.

[Anvh]

But assuming all the claims are true, the biggest problem with this miracle solution is that it only works on cameras with a significantly shorter flange distance than the original for which the lens was intended.

Why so?

[Fogel70]

Why so?

Because the adapter shortens the register distance of the lens.

If would become much more complex if used for the same register distance on both lens and camera, as the adapter then also would have to compensate for moving the lens further away from the register distance.


The SpeedBooster white paper includes some interesting info.
http://www.metabones.com/images/metabones/Speed%20Booster%20White%20Paper.pdf

[Anvh]

Thanks, wonder if they can overcome that problem.
TC that goes into the plus don't have that problem.

[ElJamoquio]

It would be incredibly straightforward, for example, to use this with A-mount lenses on an E-mount camera.

I'm still not buying it being a combo of good&inexpensive. It could take, for instance, a 85mm F/1.2 lens - expensive but not ridiculous - and in theory turn it into a 50mm f/0.7 lens. Stack two of them together and it's a 35mm 0.5 lens. If it's so good, why didn't the lens designers use those elements in the first place?

[Anvh]

If it's so good, why didn't the lens designers use those elements in the first place?

Zeis 50mm f/0.7

http://web.archive.org/web/20090309005033/http://ogiroux.blogspot.com/2008/0...-50mm-f07.html

The engineering looks eloquent to me. The key idea is to make a supersized 70mm f/1 that lights a much larger image circle, and then design a “condenser” that brute-forces your way to 50mm f/0.7 by shortening the focal length and condensing the light. Basically it’s adding a 0.7x teleconverter that gives 1 f-stop.

Anything else? =)

[ElJamoquio]

I'm still not buying it being a combo of good&inexpensive.

Still not buying it. Sure you can do it. The canon 50mm f/1.8 is $100. The F/1.4 is $350. The F/1.2 is $1300. The F/1.0 would be about $5k and the F/0.7 would be, what $15k?


Or... the 50mm f/1.8 is $100. Why, then, wouldn't a 25mm f/0.9 using a couple sets of these elements... be cheap and good?

[Fogel70]

I'm still not buying it being a combo of good&inexpensive. It could take, for instance, a 85mm F/1.2 lens - expensive but not ridiculous - and in theory turn it into a 50mm f/0.7 lens. Stack two of them together and it's a 35mm 0.5 lens. If it's so good, why didn't the lens designers use those elements in the first place?

The problem is that the mirror is in the way of designing SLR lenses this way, but for RF and MILC there are some fast lenses.

It's not possible to stack them as the image circle of the lens is not big enough, at least not if using FF lens on APS-C.

[Clavius]

The "speed booster" is a pretty clever idea, take the image circle of a larger optic and map it to a smaller format. But it remains to be seen whether it will live up to it's claims of extra sharpness. Generally speaking, any time you introduce extra glass between the rear element and the sensor, it degrades the image, and just like teleconverters, though it will work with any optical formula, it's only truly "optimized" for certain configurations.

But assuming all the claims are true, the biggest problem with this miracle solution is that it only works on cameras with a significantly shorter flange distance than the original for which the lens was intended. So the Q could benefit if they ever introduce a K to Q version, but the K-01, and any K mount DSLR are out of luck.

Life is tough for the manufacturers of cameras with longer registry distances. More ammunition for EVIL fans.

Would 645 to K be something though? Well, 645 to E would top that anyway.