[Tony Belding]

I will go one step further. I want to see a small-sized "student" DSLR with a great sensor but with only M, Av, Tv, and B modes, and as little menu options as possible; auto-focus spot only; and all main functions (iso, shutter, app) contolled with mechanical dials on the body.

That's what I like about the control setup on the Fujifilm X-T1. There isn't even a mode dial. There's just an A setting on the shutter dial, and an A setting on the ISO dial, and an A setting on the aperture ring. Whichever ones you switch to A, the camera sets automatically, and whichever ones you don't, it don't. It's a natural extension of the great control setup of the Pentax ZX-5n.

Pentax should definitely follow Fuji's example on this, and then point out that they did it first.

[stevebrot]

There's just an A setting on the shutter dial, and an A setting on the ISO dial, and an A setting on the aperture ring. Whichever ones you switch to A, the camera sets automatically, and whichever ones you don't, it don't.

I think they call that modal controls. Why Pentax and the rest of the world went away from that model is anyone's guess.


Steve

[jtkratzer]

I think they call that modal controls. Why Pentax and the rest of the world went away from that model is anyone's guess.


Steve

Because Pentax went away from aperture rings.

[Dartmoor Dave]

As far as my own needs go, the move away from aperture rings was probably the most idiotic cost-saving backwards step in photography of all time.

[gofour3]

As far as my own needs go, the move away from aperture rings was probably the most idiotic cost-saving backwards step in photography of all time.

+1 yep!

Phil.

[jtkratzer]

As far as my own needs go, the move away from aperture rings was probably the most idiotic cost-saving backwards step in photography of all time.

Verified. Of all the camera makers, the fact Pentax has not changed their mount in almost 40 years, you'd think they'd make every new lens backwards compatible with their film bodies. Maybe it's a cost thing, but the lack of an aperture ring makes me very hesitant to buy premium-priced lenses I can't use on film. I want the DA 15 Limited, but I can't use it on film with the lack of aperture ring and it doesn't cover the frame. If it did, I'd certainly own one for sure. The fact that I just upgraded to the K-5IIs and might snag the K-3 if some stupid sale price is on later this year, I may buy it anyway as I've seemingly committed to the crop sensor for now. I really have no need for full frame other than to take advantage of the film glass I have, including my pair of FA Limiteds.

[Jonathan Mac]

I suspect that back in the day the removal of aperture rings was less a cost-saver and more a desire by consumers to have everything modernised, automated and done by wheels rather than big, old-fashioned means. Rings were kept on higher-grade lenses more likely to be used by people with better quality, older cameras, in order to maintain compatibility.

The return of aperure rings (in some brands) is a very recent, retro thing. It may or may not still be in vogue 5 or 10 years from now.

I for one am a big fan of aperture rings and agree that it's a big shame that most modern lenses don't have them.

[fretlessdavis]

I really like the 'modal' control layout. ISO, Shutter Speed, and Aperture, all with rings or knobs where they belong. All with an A setting when you're feeling lazy.

[johnha]

When film SLRs were around, the only way to compete was to provide sexy features by the bucket load, the only way to control them without filling the camera with buttons was to use multi-function dials (or sliders like the SFXn) that could control various settings. Menus were limited by the top plate LCDs crude (by today's standard) display. Thus dials became popular then almost compulsory.

Without dials we wouldn't have HyperManual or HyperProgram - the two best exposure modes in my opinion, but still no excuse for removing the aperture ring...

John.

[Tony Belding]

I'd love to see aperture rings come back, at least on some lenses. I'd love to see it on future Limiteds. It wouldn't necessarily require "de-crippling" the K-mount and putting those mechanical linkages back in. It could be electronic, for all I care.

[fretlessdavis]

They could do it when they finally do full frame. Bring out a series of FA* Limited HD lenses!

[monochrome]

They're another component to be manufactured, another step in the assembly process and the internal linkages must take up some space. I'm not apologizing for removing them, but they have costs, both design costs and money costs.

[stevebrot]

I suspect that back in the day the removal of aperture rings was less a cost-saver and more a desire by consumers to have everything modernised, automated and done by wheels rather than big, old-fashioned means.

Yep...and Pentax was not the first to do so.


Steve

---------- Post added 02-27-14 at 04:34 PM ----------

They're another component to be manufactured, another step in the assembly process and the internal linkages must take up some space. I'm not apologizing for removing them, but they have costs, both design costs and money costs.

Funny that all the cheap Samyang lenses seem to have 'em.


Steve

[Tony Belding]

They're another component to be manufactured, another step in the assembly process and the internal linkages must take up some space. I'm not apologizing for removing them, but they have costs, both design costs and money costs.

Are the aperture rings on Fuji lenses mechanical? I just assumed they're electronic switches that transmit their position to the camera body. Why not do that?

[monochrome]

Are the aperture rings on Fuji lenses mechanical? I just assumed they're electronic switches that transmit their position to the camera body. Why not do that?

I don't know the answer for the Fuji lenses.

If the they (presumed Pentax revamped FA Limited) aren't mechanical aperture rings I have to question the real value of having them at all. Maybe I'm missing something?

I'm of two minds here. The 43 is, what, a 1997 design? At what point is that just too old to keep making as the world has changed? OTOH messing with the limiteds AT ALL has a very high probability to remove whatever makes them exceptional.