[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

here will be a caveat. Most likely it will only support lenses with electro magnetic aperture. This is"t a problem for Canon, but most Nikon lenses still have mechanical aperture.

Nikons previous ML camera I played around with had no problem via the adaptor with the 50 1.8G, 85 1.8g, 105 2.5 converted pre AIS, 200-400 VrII and 70-200 F4 all have a mechanical aperture. I see no reason why this would not be carried over to the Nikons new ML.
And from my understanding there was very little issues using 3 party lenses with the adaptor

---

Last edited by Ian Stuart Forsyth; 07-13-2018 at 12:14 AM.

[Barry Pearson]

I know this is controversial. But this is based on 51 years experience with Pentax SLRs. I shoot studio portraiture, birds in flight, aircraft in flight, motorsports, landscapes, etc.

I have a huge investment in "modern" K-mount FF lenses. (My profile here is up-to-date). I don't want to invest in another "system", Pentax or otherwise. (I've tried other non-SLR systems, but they are now in storage). I don't believe there is a "perfect" viewing system.

I shoot 10s of 1000s of images in Pentax SLR burst mode per year, at various outdoor events. (Nowadays, K-1ii). Largely because it is the least-worst option available to me at the moment. I dislike the mirror-flickering when panning in burst mode, and I would like a smoother viewing method. I don't "compose" action shots. I "aim" the camera and lens, try to get the subject in the frame and sharp, then compose in Lightroom later. (I use AF-C Spot).

I've started to experiment with alternative viewing methods, such as an optical viewfinder, and a Red Dot Sight, in the hot shoe. (This is "Work in Progress"). In both cases, the fastening to the camera via the hot-shoe is poor, and I would welcome more robustly-aligned viewers.

For photos with more time available, and especially for tricky angles outdoors, I often use the K-1-series 4-legged LCD and Live View. I can be seen with the camera inches from the ground or held way over my head, etc! I also often find it a good method when using a tripod.

For "serious" portraiture, avoiding parallax problems is important, so I want through-the-lens viewing. Up to now, this has mostly meant SLR-viewing. But I've also used the FluCard system for viewing on a PC, where the camera was on a boom-arm with its viewfinder inaccessible.

A friend just bought a Lumix interchangeable lens camera. I panned with it, and I was astonished how smoothly the EVF worked, without apparent delay. I'll try it for a real event sometime, to see just how good it is for aircraft in flight and motorsports. Remember that I'm "aiming", and I think it might be good for that purpose.

On the whole, I'm not worried about the colours shown by EVFs. Every photo I shoot goes through Lightroom, so no viewing system is likely to match my final results. In a studio, I can get the overall colours sorted out simply by looking without a camera!

If Pentax launched a K-mount mirrorless camera with an eye-level viewfinder, I might buy it, perhaps to have alongside an SLR instead of a replacement for it. (But who knows?) If it had a shorter registration for some reason, I would need a fully-operational adapter for modern K-mount lens. I think it would be a serious mistake for Ricoh/Pentax to expect people with a large investment in their recent lenses to replace them all with shorter-registration lenses.

[ShaunW]

It seems to me that the single user "advantage" of mirrorless is the electronic viewfinder. The size difference is no longer as apparent as it used to be, and most mirrorless bodies aside from the top end Sony bodies have terrible battery life. Why completely start over investing in a system and lenses for one primary feature? It seems this is entirely popularity driven to me. I love the Fuji X bodies but would prefer a full frame sensor and don't want to start investing in Fuji lenses that won't be full frame compatible down the road. The X-TRANS sensor layout also leaves me skeptical of buying in. I will always keep my Pentax DSLR's even when I switch down the road, they just do the job and leave me satisfied enough.

[UncleVanya]

It seems to me that the single user "advantage" of mirrorless is the electronic viewfinder. The size difference is no longer as apparent as it used to be, and most mirrorless bodies aside from the top end Sony bodies have terrible battery life. Why completely start over investing in a system and lenses for one primary feature? It seems this is entirely popularity driven to me. I love the Fuji X bodies but would prefer a full frame sensor and don't want to start investing in Fuji lenses that won't be full frame compatible down the road. The X-TRANS sensor layout also leaves me skeptical of buying in. I will always keep my Pentax DSLR's even when I switch down the road, they just do the job and leave me satisfied enough.

Short registration distance is another benefit. Being able to mount lenses from many different sources is an advantage that drives people to those platforms. Telecentric wide angles with strong corner to corner sharpness is another advantage (which largely comes from the short registration distances). If the electronic viewfinder and electronic shutter was the only factor you could have add on Electronic Finders to mount on hot shoes that would give this benefit. (Camera in Live View but displayed on viewfinder).

The real benefits come from a combination of things not just mirror/ovf vs. sensor/evf. It is a combination of short registration, heavy electronics expertise and improved integration, etc. Smaller sensors (like m43) can yield drastic reductions in size but so can small optical sensors (Auto 110 anyone?). Conflating the mirrorless with all of these factors confuses things a bit but the reality is that many factors appeal to consumers and many realities are poorly understood by consumers.

[mikesbike]

Well, if Pentax were to emerge with a FF mirrorless, with say the Sony 42mp sensor, which also beats the K-1 in every way, and having a short registration distance, with a fast wide-angle lens available with excellent corner-to-corner sharpness yet smaller in size than other fast FF lenses, that would be something- as long as a good adapter were available for use of the full K-mount arsenal. The sony a7R III sells for around $3,000. This would not be for casual shooters.

OTOH, my DA 12-24mm f/4 gives me very fine edge performance, and low distortion also, especially from 15mm up. Great with my KP. So how much would I be willing to spend for perhaps a minor improvement? There are those whose shooting needs would definitely benefit, but how many are they?

[stevebrot]

For Nikon they have a body that's well suited for mirrorless, which would be the DF (albeit different control design).

...and minus the mirrorbox and with a different mount and smaller/lighter construction and without the optical viewfinder and specs more in line with current expectations. Retaining the silver/black color scheme would be nice.


Steve

[stevebrot]

And from my understanding there was very little issues using 3 party lenses with the adaptor

...meaning 3rd-party F-mount, right?

Steve

[stevebrot]

If Pentax launched a K-mount mirrorless camera with an eye-level viewfinder, I might buy it, perhaps to have alongside an SLR instead of a replacement for it. (But who knows?) If it had a shorter registration for some reason, I would need a fully-operational adapter for modern K-mount lens. I think it would be a serious mistake for Ricoh/Pentax to expect people with a large investment in their recent lenses to replace them all with shorter-registration lenses.

If there would be a Pentax MILC before the end of the decade, it most likely will use a different mount with some sort of adapter for K-mount. A K-02 FF in KAF2 is highly unlikely.

I would expect that legacy pawl-drive AF in an adapter is asking a little much and will substantially increase the size and weight. Likewise, having mechanical aperture coupling would be nice, but with a cost in size and weight. The Sony solution would be a good guide as to what to expect. I know that sounds dumb and cruel and counter intuitive, but there is historic precedent. In a box on my lens shelf are three genuine Pentax Mount Adapter K. Despite having a significant installed base of SMC/S-M-C Takumars out there and the theoretical means to engineer full auto-aperture legacy support,* Asahi chose to launch the new K-mount with only the slimmest of backward compatibility.



I suspect that history will repeat itself unless the dSLR line is axed altogether. AF for in-lens-motor designs only and body-controlled aperture is what I would expect.


Steve

* The K- mount coupling implementation at launch was arguably the most advanced mount of the time. Body size and weight constraints would have made legacy aperture actuation and/or aperture ring coupling very difficult to implement. Given that body-controlled aperture was likely also in the works, continued limited support was a wise compromise.

[stevebrot]

Being able to mount lenses from many different sources is an advantage that drives people to those platforms.

Traditionally, bodies supported lens sales and not the other way around. Unless significant margin is built into body pricing, easy adapting is counterproductive.


Steve

[monochrome]

The single - perhaps only - factor holding Pentax back from offering a Pentax-quality FF MILC is sourcing $100,000,000 to build the production facilities and tools for the cameras and lenses. MILC’s are intentionally* more capital and production process intensive than dSLR’s. Ricoh has production design expertise. Pentax has product design expertise. Both are capital-starved, conservative and risk-averse.

* people are more expensive than capital.

[reh321]

I suspect that history will repeat itself unless the dSLR line is axed altogether. AF for in-lens-motor designs only and body-controlled aperture is what I would expect.

If they follow that path, they will have to make sure that their KAF3/KAF4 lens catalog is "adequate" ..... some people might actually mean it when they say ''Deal breaker .... I'm going to ---" if they don't support screw-drive lenses and don't have the type of catalog users have become accustomed to.

[Mikesul]

If they follow that path, they will have to make sure that their KAF3/KAF4 lens catalog is "adequate" ..... some people might actually mean it when they say ''Deal breaker .... I'm going to ---" if they don't support screw-drive lenses and don't have the type of catalog users have become accustomed to.

I know this upsets some people but at some point Pentax will reach a point where they can, and want to introduce new technology but can only do so by abandoning screw mount,the aperture level and probably the mirror box. I am pretty sure they will regret that but will not be deterred by the threats to leave found on web fora. There are things that can only be done well and easily without a mirror. I find the recent Sony EVFs wonderful to use. I also understand that some people have problems with the evf. That does not seem to be holding Canon and Nikon back from their plans. I will probably use the K-1 the rest of my life but that does not make me a fan of not improving the technology.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

..meaning 3rd-party F-mount, right?

correct

[UncleVanya]

Traditionally, bodies supported lens sales and not the other way around. Unless significant margin is built into body pricing, easy adapting is counterproductive.

That's the model Sony used however to torpedo the ruling king and queen in the market at the time.


You have to think of it as a 2 prong strategy. 1) Sony could get their product a foothold while they got lenses and 3rd party support off the ground. 2) Then they could (and did) badmouth the resolution characteristics of older lenses and not discuss their unique rendering so they could sell more sharp modern lenses. I don't know that this avenue is open to future entrants. It may have been a singular event.

[reh321]

That's the model Sony used however to torpedo the ruling king and queen in the market at the time.

You have to think of it as a 2 prong strategy. 1) Sony could get their product a foothold while they got lenses and 3rd party support off the ground. 2) Then they could (and did) badmouth the resolution characteristics of older lenses and not discuss their unique rendering so they could sell more sharp modern lenses. I don't know that this avenue is open to future entrants. It may have been a singular event.

I'm thinking Pentax would have to use the strategy they used to get started in the FF market .... a few new lenses and hope that any other needs of users could be satisfied by using totally manual lenses.