Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-11-2016, 07:15 AM - 2 Likes   #46
Pentaxian
FantasticMrFox's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Scotland
Posts: 2,097
QuoteOriginally posted by Dean Bradshaw Quote
Interesting point of view. Ricoh/Pentax should research, test and modify their design to ensure backward compatibility with a third party product that pays no licence fee to them?
If they want to make sure that their customers have access to as many lenses as possible, which is vital for any system, then yes, they should check that certain very popular third party lenses fit their cameras. They have no legal obligation, but they are risking upsetting people and losing customers.

QuoteOriginally posted by PeteL Quote
For Pentax to check every 3rd party K mount lens that is out there would be incredibly expensive and time consuming! But then why on earth should they even contemplate doing so? Pentax make some very fine lenses of their own.
It would hardly take a lot of time or resources to take a couple dozen of the more popular third party lenses out there and take five minutes per lens to make sure they work as they should. That's a job an intern can do in a day, or maybe a week if they want to be really thorough.

QuoteOriginally posted by Na Horuk Quote
Anyone think this might be a hit job to take the steam out of the K-1's powerful entry onto the market?
Basically, Pentax needs third party lens support. And saying that you can't use the most popular Sigma lenses on Pentax camera can be very damaging to Pentax. Is it possible that someone paid out Sigma to make this statement?
Yes, yes, absolutely. I bet Sigma is eager to hurt their own sales in order to arbitrarily damage a manufacturer. Makes a lot of sense

Seriously though, did you put in an order for tinfoil hats recently?

QuoteOriginally posted by awaldram Quote
So because Sigma refuse to pay Pentax for the right to use their mount, Rioch should 'test' these 'non' K mount offering and change there specified design and clearances to match Sigmas Made up design !??

Ignoring Pentax lost licencing fees and Pentax's lost sales to competitors what reason have Ricoh to change their design to fit someone else's made up spec ?

I do see a flaw in your expectation
None of the third party manufacturers pay any of the camera manufacturers licensing fees for their mounts. This is a mutually beneficial relationship - camera makers benefit from there being a large selection of lenses available for their mounts because it draws customers to their system.

If you read general camera forums you see a lot of people being amazed by the K-1 and voicing their intention to switch to Pentax (or use it along their other systems), but you also have a fair amount of people stating that Pentax is missing certain lenses they want or need and thus rule out a switch. It doesn't matter whether they're right or wrong, if they don't buy into Pentax because they are missing lenses that other manufacturers can offer (like all FF Sigma 'Art' lenses except for the 35 mm), then Pentax is losing money.

So yes, it doesn't matter whether Sigma pays Pentax to use their mount or not - lack of lenses has been a prime argument against Pentax for a long time, and Pentax needs to work to eliminate that barrier. Making a minor change to a design point that results in the highest quality 35 mm lens on the market potentially damaging the camera is a pretty stupid move.

05-11-2016, 07:18 AM   #47
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,331
QuoteOriginally posted by FantasticMrFox Quote
Yes, yes, absolutely. I bet Sigma is eager to hurt their own sales in order to arbitrarily damage a manufacturer. Makes a lot of sense Seriously though, did you put in an order for tinfoil hats recently?
Sigma already has low Pentax K support, and they might sense Pentax' weakness. Maybe they wanted pay from Ricoh to continue K support and talks went bad. Maybe a competitor saw Sigma's support as critical for Pentax' continued sales, a competitor that has a lot of business with Sigma and knows who to nudge. Its just a little article, but look at how its reverberating on these forums. I'm not saying its a complot between the head of Sigma and some other camera industry leaders, but it could still be a result of some odd internal workings.
It doesn't have to be James Bond style conspiracies for something little like that to happen, and the business world is full of things that are stranger than fiction.
05-11-2016, 07:19 AM   #48
Pentaxian
awaldram's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hampshire
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 720
QuoteOriginally posted by richmondthefish Quote
Its a shame people blame third party vendors for this as if they are fortune tellers. It reminds me of the out lash Adobe got when the retina iMac was released and Lightroom was very slow. Everyone started yelling at Adobe but its not like Apple worked with them so they would have an update so that their software would be efficient with a 5k display. The hip thing is to develop these technologies in secret, release them and let the third party manufactures scramble.
Your exmple is not relevant it about intellectual property and rights on its design. Sigma won a legal case which allows them to make oen moutn lens without cost (I believe they used clean room reverse engineering to by-pass patentable property rights)

If the 3rd parties paid licence fees they'd have design blueprints so would be able to see what the designed clearance requirements were.

It seems everybody wants something for nothing

1 3rd party doesn't want to pay for design specs
2 User want to buy cheap 3rd party glass
3 OEM is expected to carry the engineering cost of 3rd party fxck ups

Fortunately the real world has laws (both legal and moral) to protect us from such mis-allocation of blame

An example was Sigma paying Nikon 14.5$ fro Copyright infrimgment on their Reversed engineered VR

Some history
lens - Why do 3rd party lenses have compatibility issues? - Photography Stack Exchange

Also I beleive Tamron and Tokina have 'agreements' with Pentax/Ricoh hence no issue for these lens.
05-11-2016, 07:27 AM   #49
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,557
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
I have been using my Sigma 85mm a lot since getting the K-1. No problems what so ever.
It wasn't about the images. Sigma is telling customers their lenses can scratch the body. Can you see where that might be when putting the lens on and maybe make a little video? Basicly Sigma says, don't use them, since we will not cover damage to your K-1 that might occur.

05-11-2016, 07:30 AM - 2 Likes   #50
Veteran Member
distudio's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney
Photos: Albums
Posts: 440
QuoteOriginally posted by awaldram Quote
Also I beleive Tamron and Tokina have 'agreements' with Pentax/Ricoh hence no issue for these lens.
Indeed, and the agreement is so good that we can't buy most modern Tamron lenses in K-mount and pay a hefty premium for the equivalent rebadged Pentax version.
05-11-2016, 07:36 AM   #51
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,598
QuoteOriginally posted by awaldram Quote
I beleive Tamron and Tokina have 'agreements' with Pentax/Ricoh hence no issue for these lens.
It depends on what the current issue is, exactly.

If it's an issue of K-mount dimensions and (for example) clearances within the lens mount circle, sure, it's all covered by K-mount specs. Bad Sigma for not measuring things properly.

But if it's a design issue about what lens clearances are workable outside (above/below/left/right) of the lens mount, it's not really a K-mount specification issue at all. It's all about aesthetic or ergonomic design choices - like the degree of taper of the lens towards the mount, the fatness of the lens body against the camera body, and the amount of overhang of the pentaprism above the mount circle. Etc.

Both Pentax and Sigma may have made some sub-optimal design choices here.
05-11-2016, 07:43 AM   #52
Loyal Site Supporter
tvdtvdtvd's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 682
A lot interesting opinions in this thread as to who should take responsibility for compatibility issues.
IMO....

Ricoh/Pentax has a responsibility to assure their camera is compatible with Ricoh/Pentax products,
certainly for current, ideally for legacy as well. Compatibility with any partnered company product, (Tamron),
would also seem appropriate.

Any third party manufacturer would ideally assure compatibility with any standard they wish to cater.
However, it seems entirely unreasonable to expect a third party to anticipate an OEM change, especially
when third party and OEM don't have a working relationship. Sigma appear wiling to 'repair' their lenses
to fit the K-1, though no further details are provided in the announcement. I can only imagine Sigma
plans to redesign the outer barrel of these affected lenses. IMO, that seems a pretty big step on Sigma's
part, and even sign of a commitment for the K-mount.

That said, I've always found Sigma lenses to be quite bulky relative to equivalent Pentax lenses of similar
spec. No surprise this issue might be an issue. And yet, no one seems to have reported an actual problem.
The vagary of Sigma's announcement would suggest they haven't actually tested this issue.

Personally, I only own one Sigma lens, which itself is not on the list. It, (70mm/2.8 DG Macro), is a bulky
thing, and it's bulkiness is one of the reasons I only own one Sigma lens. I can only hope this 'issue'
lights a spark at Sigma to think about bulk when designing future lenses.
05-11-2016, 07:54 AM - 1 Like   #53
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,233
Just for some clarification regarding the K-mount and the Sigma announcement.
  • The physical mount design (dimensions clearance and so forth) for the original K-mount (1975) has never been patented
  • Whatever patents that associated with the physical aspects of the KAF2 mount (AF with power contacts) would have expired about five years ago, at least for the United States.
  • The Sigma announcement indicates an issue of physical interference resulting in damage to the camera. It is not clear whether this interference damages the mount or body casting or something in the mirror box, but something in the area may sustain a scratch.
  • The issue is limited to the K-1
  • Sigma has promised a fix
  • It is not clear whether this issue is related to the electric operational issues noted by some users
  • The implications or side-effects of the "scratch" and physical interference are not known
I have to admit that this is a strange one. A quick look at the current model Sigma lenses associated with the issue does not offer any obvious point of external interference. What's more, several active PF users have been using the lenses in question with their K-1 cameras with no reports of physical damage.


Steve

05-11-2016, 07:56 AM - 7 Likes   #54
Forum Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 62
So I put the 35 A under some goooood lighting, and I unfortunately have to retract my previous statements. I can see the interference they are talking about, which isn't where I was even looking initially. There is also a slight rub in the body. That being said, it's not at a level to stop me from using the lens just yet. I'm guessing the repair for this will be machining a sharper edge angle of the mount by a hair. Picture attached. You probably need to zoom in a bit.
.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
Nexus 6P  Photo 
05-11-2016, 08:03 AM   #55
Site Supporter
UserAccessDenied's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Maryland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,084
At the demise of K-1 owners; more Sigma lenses to soon hit the Marketplace?!!?!

hahah, sorry...

My K-3ii works with Sigma lenses, and the camera is serving me just fine.
05-11-2016, 08:08 AM   #56
Pentaxian
awaldram's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hampshire
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 720
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
It depends on what the current issue is, exactly.

If it's an issue of K-mount dimensions and (for example) clearances within the lens mount circle, sure, it's all covered by K-mount specs. Bad Sigma for not measuring things properly.
Looking at my large barrelled lens both Sigma and Pentax the difference is obvious

1 Sigma Old = Squared end fitting to a standard Diameter PK mount
2 Pentax All = Chamfered to standard PKa mount
3 Sigma New = Squared end fitted to an extended diameter (1.5mm bigger than any Pentax mount) Pka type mount
05-11-2016, 08:09 AM   #57
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,598
QuoteOriginally posted by ShiftR Quote
I can see the interference they are talking about
Thanks for the photo. Aside from chafing the camera body, this might slightly interfere with the quality of the electrical or physical contact between lens and body. That could perhaps help explain some of the compatibility issues users have reported. Some of those problem Sigma lenses can't sit flat on the K-1 mount.
05-11-2016, 08:10 AM - 1 Like   #58
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,233
QuoteOriginally posted by ShiftR Quote
So I put the 35 A under some goooood lighting, and I unfortunately have to retract my previous statements. I can see the interference they are talking about, which isn't where I was even looking initially. There is also a slight rub in the body. That being said, it's not at a level to stop me from using the lens just yet. I'm guessing the repair for this will be machining a sharper edge angle of the mount by a hair. Picture attached. You probably need to zoom in a bit.
.
...and the prize goes to ShiftR for coming up with the goods. Thumbs down to Pentax for cutting things a little close here. I suspect that clearance with some Pentax product might be a little tight as well.


Steve
05-11-2016, 08:11 AM   #59
Pentaxian
awaldram's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hampshire
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 720
QuoteOriginally posted by ShiftR Quote
So I put the 35 A under some goooood lighting, and I unfortunately have to retract my previous statements. I can see the interference they are talking about, which isn't where I was even looking initially. There is also a slight rub in the body. That being said, it's not at a level to stop me from using the lens just yet. I'm guessing the repair for this will be machining a sharper edge angle of the mount by a hair. Picture attached. You probably need to zoom in a bit.
.
Yep you can clearly see Sigmas 'fat' mount fouling the body.

If a standard mount was fitted (that didn't extend past the body mount) no fouling would occur despite Sigma Squared body style.

Equally Sigma can re-engineer the mount to have a full 45 degree chamfer which would give about .5mm clearance.

I can see why they did this (to give additional support to heavy lens) but surely they should have wondered why Pentax never made 'fat' mounting plates ?

Having said that it certainly looks like the k1 is weird in the clearance department !

Last edited by awaldram; 05-11-2016 at 08:18 AM.
05-11-2016, 08:38 AM   #60
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,233
QuoteOriginally posted by awaldram Quote
If a standard mount was fitted (that didn't extend past the body mount) no fouling would occur despite Sigma Squared body style.
Standard mount? I did a quick survey of my lens shelf and wider diameter lens flange (or body for those that are flush-mounted) are remarkably common. What is strange is that the body flange diameter varies between Pentax camera models over the years. Pentax body to Pentax lens, the lens/body flange diameters from my collection are not a consistent match.

I expect that other clearance issues with the K-1 may crop up. I took a look at my PKA Adaptall-2 and am not sure that it would clear the K-1 body.


Steve
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!
announcement about k-1, body, camera, compatibility, design, dozen, dslr, full frame, full-frame, issue, k-1, k-1 lens, k1, lens, lenses, mount, nikon, pentax, pentax k-1, pka, scratch, sigma, sigma announcement, space, third party lenses
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
my 1-k words about the K-1 jimr-pdx Pentax Full Frame 35 05-15-2016 02:32 PM
Question How to Unpin the 'Pentax K-1 Full Frame' announcement at the top of page mee Site Suggestions and Help 8 02-26-2016 09:00 AM
Announcement no one is talking about: Macro converter GM-1 astron Ricoh GR 4 02-23-2016 02:31 PM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 50mm f1:2.8 K-A Mount 1:1 Macro Manual Focus Lens $85 shipped to US Archimedes the Dog Sold Items 7 11-28-2015 09:46 AM
Dreaming about next PMA announcement regken Pentax DSLR Discussion 3 02-28-2007 08:24 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:36 PM. | 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