Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-28-2013, 08:44 PM   #91
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Greater Montreal Area
Posts: 736
Exactly.

Tried it earlier and indeed, the contacts don't interfere with the mirror operation.





11-28-2013, 11:24 PM   #92
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,737
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Actually, there were no SDM lenses until quite a bit after the film days as far as I know. Are their film cameras that can use SDM lenses? ALl F lenses were screw drive..
There are film bodies with power zoom contacts and FF lenses with power zoom contacts.
The same contacts used for SDM today was introduced on Pentax Z-1/PZ-1 and used for power zoom feature. FA-series lenses with power zoom feature have the same contacts as on SDM lenses.
Pentax Z-1/PZ-1 - Pentax Autofocus Film SLRs - Pentax Camera Reviews and Specifications
11-30-2013, 04:28 AM   #93
Junior Member
Val.Ou's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Near Paris
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 28
The comparison of the Z-1 and the K-7 (or K-5, or K-3) is like and evidence.
Let see:http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/352/z1etk7face.jpg
The mounting of the 24X36 Z-1 is ready for a FF-D.

Last edited by Val.Ou; 11-30-2013 at 04:35 AM.
11-30-2013, 08:43 AM   #94
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,331
I really don't get why people say K mount wouldnt work for FF. It seemed to work pretty well on film - the very thing that created the concept of "full frame." Not to mention the little Russian m39 cameras. These were the same as m42, but with an even smaller diameter mount. Same register distance as m42 and K mount. And they covered full frame film just normally, and mirror wasn't a problem.
The idea that "FF mirror wouldn't fit" seems to be absurd. It fit in the past, why wouldnt it fit now? Also, they can redesign the mirror and shutter, brands have done it before.

With the SR mechanism, some say that FF lenses don't produce an image circle big enough for SR, but that also seems hard to believe. The SR doesn't move that much. And besides, Pentax could just make future lenses with bigger image circle, if they need it. Some already have a pretty big image circle. Or make some lenses with in-lens stabilization which would automatically cancel out in-body SR, but keep the in-body SR for the lenses that have a big enough image circle. There are so many ways to do this. Pentax managed to make the SR double as AA filter. I'm sure they can figure out how to make it work for a slightly bigger sensor.

Would a FF camera be bigger than current crop sensor cameras? Quite possibly. Would it need some new innovation? Quite possibly. Would it be expensive? Very probably. Is it impossible? Nope.

Edit: then again, a lot of us don't even use SR, so if Pentax limits it, I wouldn't even mind.


Last edited by Na Horuk; 11-30-2013 at 08:53 AM.
11-30-2013, 11:18 AM   #95
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
Yup. I was concerned about SR a few years ago. I'm not now. It just isn't an issue for me in practice.
11-30-2013, 12:05 PM   #96
Veteran Member
Parry's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 541
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Yup. I was concerned about SR a few years ago. I'm not now. It just isn't an issue for me in practice.
Yes. Optical stabilisation is for beginners like the stabilisers on this little bicycle . . .



Unless you're using long focal lengths, but that's usually done using a tripod anyway and mirror lock up to reduce vibration from the mirror flap.
11-30-2013, 01:13 PM   #97
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,737
QuoteOriginally posted by Na Horuk Quote
I really don't get why people say K mount wouldnt work for FF. It seemed to work pretty well on film - the very thing that created the concept of "full frame." Not to mention the little Russian m39 cameras. These were the same as m42, but with an even smaller diameter mount. Same register distance as m42 and K mount. And they covered full frame film just normally, and mirror wasn't a problem.
They also used m37 mount on Asahiflex.
12-02-2013, 10:23 AM - 1 Like   #98
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 698
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
I think he meant only that the power zoom contacts were present on film cameras and thus should not be in the way of a FF mirror. Not that SDM itself would work on a film camera. I'm not sure what would happen if you put an SDM lens on a film camera with powerzoom contacts. I guess the best result would be "nothing" and the worst would be a fried lens.

But surely Pentax would have thought of the possibility and made it so it would not damage the lens.........
The power zoom contacts only supply a steady voltage to the lens. They are just a generic power supply that could be used for anything. What the lens does with is determined by digital signals sent through the other contacts so I'm quite sure that the result in this case would be that nothing at all happens. The way I believe it works is that when the camera is switched on it interrogates the lens to find its capabilities and will then only send commands that it knows the lens understands.

Pentax currently uses the contacts solely to supply power to the autofocus motor in the lens, however they are just a power supply, there is no control of any sort going through them. The power zoom contacts are in fact used by Sigma not only for the AF motor but also the optical stabilizer even though Pentax never intended them for that. It just picks up power from there which is available whenever the exposure meter is active and then whether or not the stabilizer is activated depends solely on the position of the switch on the barrel.

12-02-2013, 01:05 PM   #99
Veteran Member
RuiC's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Lisboa - The Grocery
Posts: 610
QuoteOriginally posted by lister6520 Quote
The power zoom contacts only supply a steady voltage to the lens. They are just a generic power supply that could be used for anything. What the lens does with is determined by digital signals sent through the other contacts so I'm quite sure that the result in this case would be that nothing at all happens. The way I believe it works is that when the camera is switched on it interrogates the lens to find its capabilities and will then only send commands that it knows the lens understands.

Pentax currently uses the contacts solely to supply power to the autofocus motor in the lens, however they are just a power supply, there is no control of any sort going through them. The power zoom contacts are in fact used by Sigma not only for the AF motor but also the optical stabilizer even though Pentax never intended them for that. It just picks up power from there which is available whenever the exposure meter is active and then whether or not the stabilizer is activated depends solely on the position of the switch on the barrel.
That's correct! Well put! It's just a power connection.
12-03-2013, 04:45 AM   #100
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2012
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 138
There should be a thread to refer to when people ask (again) if the PZ/SDM contacts will prevent FF, if SR won't work, if the camera will be mirrrorless, if the camera will be retro-styled (with or without gold plating), if it will be labeled ricoh, if it will be delivered with a free pony...
12-03-2013, 11:02 AM   #101
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 698
QuoteOriginally posted by Mazhe Quote
There should be a thread to refer to when people ask (again) if the PZ/SDM contacts will prevent FF, if SR won't work, if the camera will be mirrrorless, if the camera will be retro-styled (with or without gold plating), if it will be labeled ricoh, if it will be delivered with a free pony...
As long as it's made of bare titanium and carbon rather than painted magnesium and plastic I won't complain.
12-04-2013, 02:09 PM - 2 Likes   #102
Pentaxian
emalvick's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Davis, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,467
Interesting thread. I really can't see a reason for Ricoh/Pentax to change mounts to accommodate FF. At this stage in the game, they'd probably lose more than they'd gain unless they chose a mount that was easily compatible with Canon, Nikon, or Sony to gain new customers that way.

For the established K-mount user base, how many of us that would actually go FF would stick with the Pentax/Ricoh line if we knew we'd have to start over buying lenses? As much as I like Pentax, I'm not sure I'd stick around (unless I could see a real cost savings). If I have to start over, I'm likely to go to Nikon because I'd rather go with a brand that I know will stick around for a while. With the Pentax line, I'm not so confident anymore. I stick with it because I've invested in it, but with the multiple changes in the company over the past 10 years, I realistically won't be surprised to see the brand die as far as new products go anyway. My hope, however, is that a FF K-mount product will generate enthusiasm outside the brand as well as within the user base. Even if I don't go FF, a FF offering in K-mount will generate confidence that may gain users in the APS-C and FF markets.

Many users do not go straight to FF, so it can be useful to know that I start at the bottom of the Pentax dSLR offering that any lenses I buy that are FF compatible will work in a future Pentax FF camera I may eventually get.
12-10-2013, 05:59 PM   #103
Forum Member




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UFTG, Oz
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 74
QuoteOriginally posted by jimr-pdx Quote
p.s. I'd still take a 30x30, 25Mpx sensor and run with it.. someone hurry up & make one!
+1

... let's hear it for the square!
12-10-2013, 08:39 PM   #104
Senior Member
TomE's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 294
If I had to purchase new lenses to go Pentax FF I would go Nikon instead, since I already have some of their FX lenses. As was mentioned before, FF worked for Pentax film cameras and it would work for Pentax FF digital.
12-21-2013, 02:52 AM   #105
Forum Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 62
Sony had shake reduction in a full-frame body in 2008, the A900. It is wider and taller than a K-5 by about an inch/couple centimeters in both directions, as well as heavier by a hundred grams or so. I think that extra size and weight would be a reasonable trade-off, but would keep the smaller APS-C body for walk-around shooting. And I agree with the above comments about desirability of a square sensor.
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!
a-mount, ff, full-frame, functions, k-mount, mount, pentax
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FF camera without FF lens? jatrax Pentax Full Frame 41 04-28-2013 03:32 PM
Is it possible to use a MICRO 4/3 lens on a FF DSLR? iNicole Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 15 10-11-2012 07:36 PM
Re-cycling another Pentax FF rumour/FF rumor from A German photography magazine rawr Pentax Full Frame 73 09-19-2012 01:12 PM
Possible trickle-up effects of Nokia's sensor vis-a-vis APS-C and FF? Unsinkable II Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 2 02-29-2012 03:42 AM
Possible Pentax FF Sensor Angevinn Pentax News and Rumors 63 11-01-2009 10:57 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:35 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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