[markku55]

To be more specific, if Pentax do really make a new mirrorless body, it is not wise to use the same distance from sensor to the flange as in K-mount.
I have understood that Pentax will introduce first a MILC, and I really hope they do not make that mistake to adopt the distance from the sensor to the bajonet flange from their DSLR.
I still wish for K-mount in the case of a new DSLR with normal or fixed mirror.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

If Pentax would stop using the K-mount, then why would people with older K-mount lenses stay with Pentax?

Because Pentax would provide the only adapters allowing them to autofocus their collection? Or for manual lenses, at least get the SR and automatic aperture operation (of course, all within the limitations of what today's crippled K-mount can do).

It's probably because I'm skeptical such an adapter could be made, would be fully compatible, would have AF for non-sdm lenses, would be weather sealed, wouldn't cost $800, etc...

You are probably not aware of this marvel of engineering called ... <drum roll> ... auto focus extension tubes!!! That is all you would need in principle. I know, I know, the fact that Pentax doesn't offer something like this (which is why I link to Nikon) could give you the impression that it is beyond their technical capabilities - but maybe Ricoh will show them the way or at least will get Kenko to design some.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

If the Pentax userbase was not prevented from switching because of their K-mount glass collection, Pentax would have been dead years ago.

Sorry to break it up to you at the height of your enthusiasm, but Pentax, the company, did die years ago - the last "Pentax Corporation" made camera that I have is the K10D. The company died because the user base they had in the 70s and 80s has mostly moved to Canon and Nikon and what they were left with was a small base of people trading in used lenses and unable to support the company (and new users that couldn't care less of the K-mount legacy). Yes, some people even purchased new lenses - they purchased so many new lenses that Tamron and Sigma offer partial support of K-mount and Cosina has dropped it completely (that was a big strike against K mount).

Fortunately, the Pentax brand has ended up with a company like Ricoh that seems to be able and willing to take risks. So we'll see what happens.

[markku55]

Sorry to break it up to you at the height of your enthusiasm, but Pentax, the company, did die years ago - the last "Pentax Corporation" made camera that I have is the K10D. The company died because the user base they had in the 70s and 80s has mostly moved to Canon and Nikon and what they were left with was a small base of people trading in used lenses and unable to support the company (and new users that couldn't care less of the K-mount legacy). Yes, some people even purchased new lenses - they purchased so many new lenses that Tamron and Sigma offer partial support of K-mount and Cosina has dropped it completely (that was a big strike against K mount).

Fortunately, the Pentax brand has ended up with a company like Ricoh that seems to be able and willing to take risks. So we'll see what happens.

I can not fully agree, but most of that is quite understandable.
Pentax should/must think their strategy so that they will catch the serious amateurs to their family and I don't think that in this trategy ingludes 100% commitment to K-mount.
I suggest to accept both continuation of K-mount and one new mount, even may be the same as K-mount but using an other distance from sensor to the mount flange.

---

Last edited by markku55; 01-20-2012 at 01:27 PM.

[bigdavephoto]

If Pentax would change to another mount and provide an adapter to use K-mount lenses so you could use the lens in auto would be great.

The problem is that adapter would cost around $600 and I myself could not afford that and I feel a lot of people would move to other brands if they did this.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

The problem is that adapter would cost around $600 and I myself could not afford that and I feel a lot of people would move to other brands if they did this.

The Kenko device that I linked to costs $179. And it is actually a set of three tubes - each as complex as each other. A single adapter would not have to cost more than a third of that - $60, but let's say $100, because Ricoh is EVIL and wants to milk the Pentax brand (cheap sarcasm) or maybe because Kenko sells for a smaller market (grim realism) - still $100 is not a prohibitive price to use all your lenses on a new camera. And it is quite a way off from your $600 estimate or Clinton's $800 one. After all, people are willing to pay $100 to buy a crummy PKA adaptall-2 adapter, just so they can control aperture of old MF lenses through their camera bodies.

If Ricoh wants, they can phase out the K-mount without losing compatibility with all the K-mount lenses. It is technically possible.

I don't think Ricoh wants that though. They seem committed to supporting the K-mount and DSLRs - at least for the near future. And that makes sense if they want to move to an SLT type of design in the future - I can buy that (both figuratively and literally). But I wouldn't have much interest in a K-mount MILC and I would start having doubts about the Ricoh strategy if that is what they are going to announce this year.

[bigdavephoto]

Your right, Laurentiu, it would be possible to make an adapter to mount K-mount lenses onto a different mount type. I do know this because you can find adapters to mount Pentax lenses onto just about any other brand of camera body if you are willing to look for them and pay the price.

Using your example of extension tubes, if the body has a compact senser (can't think of the right term right now ) and you are using an older lens so you multiply by 1.5 to get your actual focal lingth how much would you be losing when adding that adapter? Would you need to divide by .75 to get your actual focal lingth or would you need to multiply by 2 to get the focal lingth?

When ever you add an adapter, you will be moving the glass farther away from the senser/film, so the focal lingth will change too.

I may have over estamated when I said $600, but when you are out of work even $50 could be too much.

[Clavius]

The Kenko device that I linked to costs $179. And it is actually a set of three tubes - each as complex as each other. A single adapter would not have to cost more than a third of that - $60, but let's say $100, because Ricoh is EVIL and wants to milk the Pentax brand (cheap sarcasm) or maybe because Kenko sells for a smaller market (grim realism) - still $100 is not a prohibitive price to use all your lenses on a new camera. And it is quite a way off from your $600 estimate or Clinton's $800 one. After all, people are willing to pay $100 to buy a crummy PKA adaptall-2 adapter, just so they can control aperture of old MF lenses through their camera bodies.

If Ricoh wants, they can phase out the K-mount without losing compatibility with all the K-mount lenses. It is technically possible.

I don't think Ricoh wants that though. They seem committed to supporting the K-mount and DSLRs - at least for the near future. And that makes sense if they want to move to an SLT type of design in the future - I can buy that (both figuratively and literally). But I wouldn't have much interest in a K-mount MILC and I would start having doubts about the Ricoh strategy if that is what they are going to announce this year.

I was hoping Ricoh's own camera division would provide the mirrorless camera's. Like a good functional k-mount module for the GXR. Or even a dedicated body. And that Pentax would be the other half going towards advanced amateur and pro gear.

That way, Ricoh would finally have a camera that would sell. And Pentax would become a more serious player.

[Fogel70]

When ever you add an adapter, you will be moving the glass farther away from the senser/film, so the focal lingth will change too.

An adapter will not change focal length. What the adapter do, is to move the optics to the distance the lens was designed for. Using any other distance would change the lens ability to focus.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

When ever you add an adapter, you will be moving the glass farther away from the senser/film, so the focal lingth will change too.

I think you are confused by me using extension tubes as an example. But as Fogel explained above, as adapters, they wouldn't move the glass farther than it was designed to be used with a sensor.

I may have over estamated when I said $600, but when you are out of work even $50 could be too much.

Yes, but in that case, what do you care if Pentax continues making K mount cameras or not - you're not going to be able to afford those either!

[bigdavephoto]

Actually, I'm not as confused as you think I am .

When you use the M42 to K-Mount adapter I agree, the lens sets in the same position bacause the K-mount is larger so the adapter sits flush.

Now the only way that this would work by getting rid of the K-mount and going to the xyz-mount is if the xyz-mount is larger then the K-mount. Then the adapter would sit flush. Pentax does already make a mount that is larger then the K-mount and I admit, I'm am not the smartest person in the world, but I don't think the 645 mount will work very well on a DSLR like a K-5.

Now, if I understand correctly, the Q-mount is smaller then the K-mount. If this is the case then making an adapter that sits flush is not possible. An adapter for this set up would be like using 645 lenses on a DSLR camera. That adapter does not sit in the camera body but on the camera body and does not have any contacts or machancs. In essense an auto lens becomes full manual.

And that is for an adapter that runs almost $200.

Pentax 645 Lens to Pentax 35mm K-Mount Body Adapter 38455 B&H

If I understand correctly, the Q-mount is smaller then the K-mount so if Pentax would use the Q-mount instead of the K-mount, any adapter would be on the camera body and not flush with the camera body, so the adapter would be moving the lens away from the senser. I my be wrong about changing the focal lingth of the lens but the adapter would be like an extension tube and would change the magnification.

And I won't be out of work forever and I still would not want to buy a new body with the xyz-mount if I have to get an adapter to use my current lenses. I think the millions of other people that own Pentax think along the same lines.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

This has nothing to do with M42, flush adapters, or Q.

Read about mount registration distance. Then think of this hypothetical adapter as if it would adapt Pentax K mount lenses to a shorter registration K-mount (like you would adapt them on a Canon camera, except now you can maintain full compatibility with K mount features).

I still would not want to buy a new body with the xyz-mount if I have to get an adapter to use my current lenses.

Why not? What do you care if you use an adapter or have it welded to the body?

[Clavius]

Why not? What do you care if you use an adapter or have it welded to the body?

If I have to use my precious glass via an adapter, I can just as well jump to another brand. I can do that with other brands too.

[bigdavephoto]

This has nothing to do with M42, flush adapters, or Q.

Read about mount registration distance. Then think of this hypothetical adapter as if it would adapt Pentax K mount lenses to a shorter registration K-mount (like you would adapt them on a Canon camera, except now you can maintain full compatibility with K mount features).



Why not? What do you care if you use an adapter or have it welded to the body?

You just proved my point to the T. Look at the regastration distince of the K-mount, the screw mount and the Q-mount. If the adapter COULD fit flush then the distince would be a little over 11mm causing the lens to not focus. If the adapter is made so that the distince is the proper 46.5mm, that would work, but no contacts so your all auto lens would be turned into a full manual lens. If you want contacts and motors and gears added, that pushes the price right back to the 4-5-6 hundred dollar mark that most people would not be willing to spend.

You must have the ability to buy what ever you want whenever you need it.

I do care because if Pentax would do away with the K-mount and the ability to be backwords compatable, what would the point of staying with Pentax be? If you haven't noticed, a lot of people have already asked that question on this fourm and the restounding reply has all been in favor of Pentax keeping the K-mount.

Of course, all I am doing is stating my opinion here and I know my opinion doesn't count for much in life to anybody.

[Clavius]

I do care because if Pentax would do away with the K-mount and the ability to be backwords compatable, what would the point of staying with Pentax be? If you haven't noticed, a lot of people have already asked that question on this fourm and the restounding reply has all been in favor of Pentax keeping the K-mount.

Don't worry, Pentax knows that VERY WELL. That's why they used the K-mount in the new MILC they're introducing.