[stevebrot]

From what I've seen, the old bodies have gobs of room around the mount.

Add a Super Program and you will see a different story. Clearance can be deceptive. For a few of the lenses on my shelf the clearances run a little like this:

• Pentax-A 50/1.7 ~1.0mm
• XR Rikenon 50/2 ~2.0mm
• Pentax-FA 35/2 ~1.0mm
• Pentax-FA 77/1.8 Limited ~1.0mm
• KMZ Zenitar 16/2.8 Fisheye ~2.5mm*
• Pentax-DA 18-55/3.5-5.6 ~0.5mm
• Pentax-DA 50/1.8 ~1.5mm
• Sigma 50/2.8 EX DG Macro ~0.5mm
• Sigma 17-17/2.8-4 (C) almost touching
• Rokinon 8/3.5 Fisheye ~0.5mm
• Tamron Adaptall-2 PK adapter <0.5mm
• Tamron Adaptall-2 PK/A adapter <0.5mm

Note that with the exception of the AF lenses and Rokinon, the others on the list were on the market new at the same time as the Super Program. Tamron dodged a bullet.

Just for giggles, a few adapted M42 lenses:

• KMZ Helios 44M 58/2 <0.5mm
• Vivitar 135/2.8 (Komine) >3.0mm
• Auto-Rikenon 55/1.4 unable to mount

That last one shocked me. I feel very fortunate that I chose to mount the adapter to the body first with the 55/1.4. The A/M switch has inadequate clearance to rotate past the prism housing on the Super Program. If I had mounted it as a K-mount, it might still be on the camera.

Clearance of the A/M switch should be a consideration and caution for users of adapted M42 lenses on the K-70 and K-1.


Steve

* presumably made to the Soviet GOST K-mount standard

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 08-09-2016 at 09:06 PM.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

Add a Super Program and you will see a different story. Clearance can be deceptive. For a few of the lenses on my shelf the clearances run a little like this:

I've never run across a Super Program, but you're right, and judging by these picture I came across, it looks like even some of the relatively compact Pentax lenses have no room to spare. I don't think I'd even try mounting my 85mm on there!

Thankfully, it seems like that body is the exception, rather than the norm. Maybe they got some feedback, and left more room after that.

[totsmuyco]

I've never owned a Pentax film SLR but, how big is that super program? I would really love to have a DSLR that looks like that and with about the same size with a battery grip as big as that motor drive. Make that a request for a new high end APSC.

[stevebrot]

Thankfully, it seems like that body is the exception, rather than the norm.

Hard to say. The Super Program was similar in size and design to the M-series, other A-series, and the P3-series bodies. I would expect similar close tolerances on the Program Plus and the P3-series cameras. Unfortunately, I don't have access to any of those.


Steve

[stevebrot]

I've never owned a Pentax film SLR but, how big is that super program? I would really love to have a DSLR that looks like that and with about the same size with a battery grip as big as that motor drive. Make that a request for a new high end APSC.

We are going way off topic! The Super Program is about 3 3/4" tall x 5" wide x 2" deep (yes, smaller than a Sony A7II). As Pentax film cameras goes, it is one of the more compact models and about the same size as the M-series bodies and other A-series as well as the P-3 series cameras.

As for a dSLR of similar dimensions...welcome to the ranks of those who long for development of a minimalist K-mount digital body, sometimes referred to as the "LX-D". To get a dSLR into a form factor similar to the Super Program or LX would require a much smaller battery and much simplified feature set. Think manual focus, no SR, smaller LCD, limited external controls, and single shot/limited fps. There is precedence for such a camera, only not as an SLR. Several years ago Cosina/Voigtlander partnered with Epson to produce an APS-C digital rangefinder camera built on a Voigtlander R-series M-mount body. The resulting Epson R-D1 was very cool and the world's first MILC. The Camera Store did a recent video so you can see the camera in action (note the manual shutter cock):

You Tube

You Tube

The R-D1 and its successor models are no more, but the platform on which it was built still exists. What is more interesting is that it is essentially similar to Cosina's long-running SLR platform that serves as the base for the Nikon FM10 and Vivitar 3800N. Yes, it is quite conceivable to munge parts from a R-D1 into the Cosina SLR chassis. This would result in a camera about 5 1/2" x 3 1/2" x 2" size. Unfortunately, Cosina is on record as being uninterested in doing so. As with Chris in the video, I feel there is a market for such an enthusiast camera.

How about a new Kickstarter campaign?


Steve

[reh321]

I've never run across a Super Program, but you're right, and judging by these picture I came across, it looks like even some of the relatively compact Pentax lenses have no room to spare. I don't think I'd even try mounting my 85mm on there!

Since I do happen to have both a Super Program and a Sigma 70-300mm I tried it.(*). As you can see, it did work.

The comment I've been wanting to make is that the prism housings of the older cameras tended to go almost straight up {virtually nothing above the mount}; for some reason, they slant seriously forward on the newer ones, which makes the fit much more difficult.


(*) in order to get a good view I ended up putting the camera sideways on our dining room table and then standing on a chair - good thing my wife was napping!

[Edgar_in_Indy]

Since I do happen to have both a Super Program and a Sigma 70-300mm (*) I tried it.(**). As you can see, it did work.

That's the Super Program? Is that the same camera as the one in the photos I posted? It seems like it had a little bit of an overhang, but in your photo from the side the overhang seems almost non-existent, and it seems impossible that any lens would have a fit issue.

[reh321]

That's the Super Program? Is that the same camera as the one in the photos I posted? It seems like it had a little bit of an overhang, but in your photo from the side the overhang seems almost non-existent, and it seems impossible that any lens would have a fit issue.

Yup (see frontal view below).

The change in "overhang" was exactly my point. The older cameras had virtually nothing forward of the mount.

I probably should have cleaned it some before its big moment, but it has been retired for 21 years now ... except for the time 11 years ago when I took it on vacation because of some odd behavior by the Canon EOS Elan that replaced it {turned out to actually be the flash}

[stevebrot]

It seems like it had a little bit of an overhang, but in your photo from the side the overhang seems almost non-existent, and it seems impossible that any lens would have a fit issue.

Look at the actual clearance in the photo...the lens is fairly tight in at the section just outboard from the mount face (the surface that is causing the K-1 and K-70 issues).


Steve

[stevebrot]

Clearance of the A/M switch should be a consideration and caution for users of adapted M42 lenses on the K-70 and K-1.

This morning I did a little look-see on my K-3 and was surprised to see that one of my lenses (probably the Auto Rikenon 50/1.4) had abraded the area just above the mount on the prism housing.


Steve

[rawr]

I know we have had this discussion before here (for the K-30 and K-1), and folks like to criticize the 3rd parties for not meeting 'Pentax specs', but I think it's simply good engineering to design things to avoid causing problems with 3rd party lenses - and causing problems for your customers.

It's worth noting too that Pentax seems unique in having an ever increasing overhang over the lens mount. Canon, Nikon, Sony and even Fujifilm maintain either a totally flat face above the lens mount, or just always keep plenty of room around it.

The way Pentax are doing things makes life harder for third-party lens makers, I imagine, since it seems it is only the Pentax mount that has this problem.

[D1N0]

I know we have had this discussion before here (for the K-30 and K-1), and folks like to criticize the 3rd parties for not meeting 'Pentax specs', but I think it's simply good engineering to design things to avoid causing problems with 3rd party lenses - and causing problems for your customers.

It's worth noting too that Pentax seems unique in having an ever increasing overhang over the lens mount. Canon, Nikon, Sony and even Fujifilm maintain either a totally flat face above the lens mount, or just always keep plenty of room around it.

The way Pentax are doing things makes life harder for third-party lens makers, I imagine, since it seems it is only the Pentax mount that has this problem.

Well I think you got that wrong. When you decide to make lenses for a brand without even licensing the mount then you have no right to complain (and Sigma doesn't) When you buy Sigma lenses, you also have no right to complain with any other company than Sigma.

[BigMackCam]

This morning I did a little look-see on my K-3 and was surprised to see that one of my lenses (probably the Auto Rikenon 50/1.4) had abraded the area just above the mount on the prism housing.

Huh. Well, now. I'll have to check my K-3... I've never thought of looking for any marks, but I guess it's possible they're there!

[Edgar_in_Indy]

Well I think you got that wrong. When you decide to make lenses for a brand without even licensing the mount then you have no right to complain.

Is this even actually an option? Does Pentax offer some kind of "licensing" to 3rd part lens makers, besides just re-branding it as a "Pentax" lens with a higher price and much shorter warranty?

[monochrome]

Is this even actually an option? Does Pentax offer some kind of "licensing" to 3rd part lens makers, besides just re-branding it as a "Pentax" lens with a higher price and much shorter warranty?

Do Tamron lenses have problems mounting cleanly? Does Pentax outsource manufacture to or co-brand with Sigma?

Really, the people criticizing Pentax are Sigma lens owners. The overhang isn't an issue for me, and won't be if I buy a new Sigma or used one that has a replaced spacer plate.