What happens if...

jeztastic · 04-22-2012, 02:15 PM

Pentax made a big deal out of K-Mount compatibility with the K-01. It would be pretty strange behaviour.

**pacerr** · 04-22-2012, 03:13 PM

EVERY manufacturer absolutely HAD to modify their existing lens mount (at no small cost in R&D and tooling) to accommodate the electronic advantages of auto-exposure and auto-focus. AND they had to do it with the technology then at hand and with no practical experience with the potentialities of the current digital sensor or micro processor technology which were barely on the horizon.

(The different OEM mechanical solutions to auto-focus foretold the end of Tamron's fine line of Adaptall SP lenses as a single lens barrel design couldn't accommodate all of the AF methods via an economical adapter. Perhaps if they had ALL been electronic AF schemes . . . ? )

I can't imagine stuffing robust, reliable PK/A data pins and screw-drive AF mechanics into the M42 screw mount. The change in aperture control from linear, mechanical linkage, and from diameter to area aperture control to facilitate universal AE compatibility, was accomplished at the same time.

The on-going frustration over K-mount compatibility, now and for the future, is like condemning Ford for not including future provisions for 400 hp engines, air bags and automatic transmissions in the Model T. It also shows a failure to appreciate the limits of technology and foresight that existed nearly half a century ago. Consider the rotary dial phone vs. the 4G iPad in the same discussion. Heck, just try to explain to a teenager why we "dial" the phone.

The physical dimensions of the K-mount has been proven adequate for full frame lenses and has the potential for dealing with future innovations in the lens/body interface -- especially with modern data exchange technology -- a Blue-tooth lens/body data stream, tether enabled maybe? Or an optical link?

Do you still keep harnesses for a horse-drawn carriage, and horse manure!, in the garage? The PK/A mount is what it is. If it MUST change, it will; but not without due consideration for the economics and practical advantages of the situation.

Adam · 04-22-2012, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by attilaworx

Out of curiosity (and because I don't know much about camera mounts): would there be a technical advantage to creating a new mount?

Different connectors? Different flange distance? Different sensors or AF or whatever?

The only advantage would be elimination of the mechanical linkage, which would decrease the production cost of lenses and allow for larger apertures (like 85/1.2).

SpecialK · 04-22-2012, 06:28 PM

Quote:

...an amazing all singing al dancing full frame DSLR...

I would turn off the sound.

Blue · 04-22-2012, 08:25 PM

Pentax struggles to fill out their Lens Map now. How is adding another one going to help. Besides, Asahi Optical shifted to the K-mount because they had pushed it to the limit. You don't see Nikon dumping their bayonet mount. Canon shifted from a breech lock to the EOS. However, Pentax or Nikon didn't have to do that. Plus, it allows for the potential of more compact bodies and lenses.

Blue · 04-22-2012, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Adam

The only advantage would be elimination of the mechanical linkage, which would decrease the production cost of lenses and allow for larger apertures (like 85/1.2).

Pentax still proved they could go to 85/1.4, 50/1.2 and 135/1.8 with this mount. They even had a prototype 35/1.4.

Alizarine · 04-23-2012, 02:22 AM

Originally posted by DaveHolmes

Pentax brings out an amazing all singing al dancing full frame DSLR... With a mount that isn't K-shaped?

I'll buy a K-5 or two, and wait for angry Pentaxians to sell their K lenses at awesome low prices.

Blue · 04-23-2012, 05:05 AM

Originally posted by Alizarine

I'll buy a K-5 or two, and wait for angry Pentaxians to sell their K lenses at awesome low prices.

Don't count on it. Most of us still shoot film as well.

Alizarine · 04-23-2012, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by Blue

Don't count on it. Most of us still shoot film as well.

My dreams have just been shattered.

04-22-2012, 03:13 PM	#17
pacerr Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Paris, TN Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,349	EVERY manufacturer absolutely HAD to modify their existing lens mount (at no small cost in R&D and tooling) to accommodate the electronic advantages of auto-exposure and auto-focus. AND they had to do it with the technology then at hand and with no practical experience with the potentialities of the current digital sensor or micro processor technology which were barely on the horizon. (The different OEM mechanical solutions to auto-focus foretold the end of Tamron's fine line of Adaptall SP lenses as a single lens barrel design couldn't accommodate all of the AF methods via an economical adapter. Perhaps if they had ALL been electronic AF schemes . . . ? ) I can't imagine stuffing robust, reliable PK/A data pins and screw-drive AF mechanics into the M42 screw mount. The change in aperture control from linear, mechanical linkage, and from diameter to area aperture control to facilitate universal AE compatibility, was accomplished at the same time. The on-going frustration over K-mount compatibility, now and for the future, is like condemning Ford for not including future provisions for 400 hp engines, air bags and automatic transmissions in the Model T. It also shows a failure to appreciate the limits of technology and foresight that existed nearly half a century ago. Consider the rotary dial phone vs. the 4G iPad in the same discussion. Heck, just try to explain to a teenager why we "dial" the phone. The physical dimensions of the K-mount has been proven adequate for full frame lenses and has the potential for dealing with future innovations in the lens/body interface -- especially with modern data exchange technology -- a Blue-tooth lens/body data stream, tether enabled maybe? Or an optical link? Do you still keep harnesses for a horse-drawn carriage, and horse manure!, in the garage? The PK/A mount is what it is. If it MUST change, it will; but not without due consideration for the economics and practical advantages of the situation. Last edited by pacerr; 04-22-2012 at 03:30 PM.

04-22-2012, 02:15 PM	#16
jeztastic Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Canterbury Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 596	Pentax made a big deal out of K-Mount compatibility with the K-01. It would be pretty strange behaviour.

04-22-2012, 04:45 PM	#18
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,595	Originally posted by attilaworx Out of curiosity (and because I don't know much about camera mounts): would there be a technical advantage to creating a new mount? Different connectors? Different flange distance? Different sensors or AF or whatever? The only advantage would be elimination of the mechanical linkage, which would decrease the production cost of lenses and allow for larger apertures (like 85/1.2).

04-22-2012, 06:28 PM	#19
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,481	Quote: ...an amazing all singing al dancing full frame DSLR... I would turn off the sound.

04-22-2012, 08:25 PM	#20
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Pentax struggles to fill out their Lens Map now. How is adding another one going to help. Besides, Asahi Optical shifted to the K-mount because they had pushed it to the limit. You don't see Nikon dumping their bayonet mount. Canon shifted from a breech lock to the EOS. However, Pentax or Nikon didn't have to do that. Plus, it allows for the potential of more compact bodies and lenses.

04-22-2012, 08:27 PM	#21
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Adam The only advantage would be elimination of the mechanical linkage, which would decrease the production cost of lenses and allow for larger apertures (like 85/1.2). Pentax still proved they could go to 85/1.4, 50/1.2 and 135/1.8 with this mount. They even had a prototype 35/1.4.

04-23-2012, 02:22 AM	#22
Alizarine Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Manila Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,185	Originally posted by DaveHolmes Pentax brings out an amazing all singing al dancing full frame DSLR... With a mount that isn't K-shaped? I'll buy a K-5 or two, and wait for angry Pentaxians to sell their K lenses at awesome low prices.

04-23-2012, 05:05 AM	#23
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Alizarine I'll buy a K-5 or two, and wait for angry Pentaxians to sell their K lenses at awesome low prices. Don't count on it. Most of us still shoot film as well.

04-23-2012, 06:56 AM	#24
Alizarine Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Manila Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,185	Originally posted by Blue Don't count on it. Most of us still shoot film as well. My dreams have just been shattered.