|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-30-2013, 10:12 AM
|
| |
Just a thought: Olympus and Fuji have had some recent success with so-called "retro" product designs that evoke the days of classic film photography - Olympus taking the self-referential route with the OM-D, and Fuji referencing classic rangefinder design in more general terms.
That's style, rather than substance. On the other hand, Pentax has arguably been more concerned with maintaining substantive ties to its heritage (thinking here of things like ongoing compatibility with M42 lenses…even M37 lenses), rather than stylistic ones.
In light of the recent Olympus and Fuji offerings (to say nothing of neo-retro design successes in other industries), I would be interested to know whether Pentax has considered incorporating more legacy design/styling elements into forthcoming products. There's a rich brand heritage there, and I could readily see a "retro" Pentax camera garnering some press attention and consumer interest. That extends even to things like naming conventions - I can imagine (but wouldn't necessarily advocate for) a "Spotmatic-D" or an "LX-D," or even a revival of the Takumar name for certain applications. Pentax's long-standing commitment to backwards compatibility would certainly give added legitimacy to any such initiative.
One way to help establish a distinct position for a brand (by no means the only way) is to strengthen linkages to the brand's history. There are modest signs that Pentax is open to that notion, but I'd like to know whether the brand might be entertaining such a strategy in a more fundamental or broad-based way.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
09-09-2011, 07:35 AM
|
| |
Hi,
Yes, D-mount is the most common 8mm ciné mount (15.875mm thread, 12.29mm register distance). Anyone with an interest in acquiring some of these lenses for eventual adaptation to a "Q" would be well advised to start right now; my working assumption is that the usual eBay dealer "suspects" are already scouring the listings, hoping to corner the market. That was their M.O. with respect to high-quality 16mm ciné lenses, when the C-to-m4/3 format adapters started to appear, and I would expect history to repeat itself.
One note of caution, for anyone brave enough to embark on such an enterprise: while the 16mm C-mount is a more-or-less settled, stable standard, things get a little more complicated when you get into the world of 8mm. For example, the excellent Kern lenses fitted to Bolex H8 cameras (8mm format) actually use the physical C-mount thread; but the register distance is shorter than that of the "true" 16mm C-mount format. And there's also the CS-mount format - often encountered in surveillance camera applications - which uses the C-mount thread as well, but with a still shorter register distance.
Since the H8 Kerns are, by all odds, the most desirable of the 8mm-format lenses, it may well be - if the Q system is successful - that some clever entrepreneur will offer Q adapters made specifically for them: C-mount thread but H8 register. CS-mount adapters would be a possibility as well. I can even imagine a single adapter with switchable flanges to suit all three of the C-mount thread systems; there exist adapters for C-mount lenses, for instance, that come with optional flanges for Robot lenses.
One thing's for sure: the early pioneers who decide to venture into this uncharted territory will have some interesting experiences, both good and bad, with respect to things like vignetting, sensor coverage and physical incompatibilities. That was certainly the case with the first users of C-mount lenses on m4/3 bodies - still is, to be perfectly honest.
Cheers,
Jon
PS As for T2 (any T-mount) lenses: if there's an M42 or Nikon adapter, couldn't you simply use a common M42 or Nikon T-adapter for any T-mount lens you wanted to try?
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-23-2010, 07:32 AM
|
| |
@cpk: thank you! I thought the very same thing; the camera is on its way there as I write. I was perfectly comfortable with the notion of doing the installation myself, but I really wanted the benefit of the precise calibration.
Now my only concern (apart from struggling to be patient while the camera's out of my hands!) is the AF adjustment necessary to get the focus-confirmation a bit more accurate. Still trying to confirm that "minus" is the right direction for front-focusing...but I can determine that through trial-and-error, if all else fails.
Thanks!
Jon
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-22-2010, 06:53 AM
|
| |
Thanks again, everyone, for the replies. Based in part on all this helpful information, I've decided to have the nice folks at KatzEye install an OptiBrite-treated screen for me.
I'm looking forward not only to the enhanced view, but also to the ability to use the split-prism as a diagnostic aid in performing the AF adjustments necessary to correct (or at least reduce) the inaccuracy of the focus-confirm indicator.
I do have one followup question, for folks who have performed those adjustments: what is the appropriate adjustment direction, plus or minus, to correct a front-focusing issue? I haven't been able to find that precise answer anywhere, despite several searches. I know what my own intuition would suggest, but I've learned, over the years, not to assume that interface designers think the way I do.
Thanks for your help!
Cheers,
Jon
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-19-2010, 11:22 AM
|
| |
Hi,
Thanks, everyone, for the very helpful replies!
I always find, when I post a question, that the answers help me to see how I could have phrased it more clearly. I should have been clearer in saying that the focus confirmation I'm talking about is the green hexagon; so far as I can recall, I've never used this camera with an AF lens, so this is purely a problem of the green hexagon seeming to have lost its reliability (and I did find it quite reliable until this issue manifested itself).
Nice to hear that my lens-swapping isn't likely to have contributed to the problem. I didn't really think so, but one never knows.
@philbaum: I'm thinking that the Katzeye screen is almost certainly in my future. I thank you for pointing out benefits beyond the obvious ones.
I'll continue to monitor the situation, to see if any patterns develop: indoors vs. outdoors, wide-open vs. stopped-down.
Thanks again, all.
Cheers,
Jon
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-19-2010, 06:36 AM
|
| |
Hi All,
I've searched for relevant discussions and haven't found any, so I thought I'd impose on your collective wisdom.
I've been using a K20D for a little over a year, exclusively with manual focus lenses - mostly screwmount, some k-mount, and a few other odd mounts, via various adapters, bellows, etc.. It's not at all unusual for me to changes lenses several times in a day. I mention that because I'm wondering if it might be relevant to an issue that has manifested itself recently.
Up until a few weeks ago, I had good success using the focus confirmation system as a focusing aid. It wasn't always 100% accurate, of course, but it was usually very helpful. But recently, I've found that it seems to be almost invariably wrong - just "off" the proper focus distance. I've tried a bunch of different lenses, a bunch of different subjects and lighting conditions - indoors, outdoors, on and off a tripod. The result is always the same. I'm in the process of trying to figure out whether the confirmation signal is always front focusing or back focusing; if that's the case, I can at least use it as a rough indicator.
I've used the sensor cleaning routine several times, and I've updated to the latest firmware version.
Maybe I've become a little too dependent on the focus confirmation feature, but I'm having trouble doing without it. I wish my old internal biological focus-confirm system were as good as it used to be (or that the viewfinder image were as bright as that of my old Spotmatic!). I'm using the stock screen, so I may need to invest in a Katzeye or something similar.
Any thoughts on what might be responsible for this issue? Any recommendations by way of diagnosing the problem? (For example, should I attach the kit lens and verify that AF is working properly? I know the K20D allows focus adjustment for AF lenses - would that be useful here?) Do you reckon that the frequent lens changing might have something to do with this? Grasping at straws here, I guess, but I know that my personal shooting habits aren't necessarily typical, so I wonder whether they have something to do with the problem.
Thanks so much for your help!
Cheers,
Jon
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-29-2009, 06:26 PM
|
| |
Hi All,
I've been considering picking up a Helios-40; I'd like to have the 40-2, but I would be OK with the original version as well. If I do opt for the older model, however, I would strongly prefer the so-called "B" model - the aluminum version with the rotating tripod mount. (I'm not willing to take a chance on a fixed tripod mount in an application that requires two adapters, and I do expect to use the lens on a tripod more often than as a handheld.)
If I wind up with a 40 "B", I'll be using it on an *istDL; and that's where my question comes in. Judging by eye, the rearmost part of the lens - particularly the mighty rotating tripod ring - seems extremely wide, and I have concerns about clearance between the camera's flash/prism and the lens.
I've seen references to the 40 "A" and the 40-2 being successfully used on the *istDL, but not the 40 "B". Has anyone tried this combination? Any issues?
Thanks!
Jon
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-16-2009, 01:52 PM
|
| |
Hi,
Thanks very much for the replies. (Thanks, too, for relocating this thread appropriately.)
I've been using both Takumars (of several vintages and focal lengths) and other-brand lenses - everything from a Yashica 20mm 3.3, to an ancient Jena 50mm 3.5 Tessar, to a fairly recent-production Jupiter-9.
The photographs (except for user error) have been fine, but the feeling of the play as one focuses is disconcerting.
I suppose it might be worthwhile to give another adapter a try, since I'm basing my inferences on a sample of one - and an elderly one at that. Am I right in assuming that if I go that route, I should avoid the inexpensive adapters populating eBay?
Cheers,
Jon
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-16-2009, 10:01 AM
|
| |
Hi All,
Well, I've been a member for all of five minutes, and I'm already making a nuisance of myself with a question:
I've been using my old Takumars (encouraging results so far) on my *istDL with a proper Pentax-brand M42->K adapter. I'm having an issue with the adapter: when it's installed on the camera, there's significant back-and-forth rotational play - a few mm each way.
There's no such play evident when I have a k-mount lens mounted directly to the body - either the kit lens that came with the outfit or my old manual-focus k-mount lenses.
In addition, by way of attempting a diagnosis, I've installed the M42->K adapter on my old K2 body. It seems much more secure on that camera; if I really try I can induce a little bit of play, but it's negligible compared to what I'm experiencing with the DSLR.
The adapter is old - about the same vintage as my first-generation k-mount cameras.
Any suggestions for further diagnosing this issue? My initial thought was to purchase a new adapter, just to see if the old one is the problem. Of course, if the only possible solution is a later-generation DSLR, I guess I could adjust to that reality.... ;)
Thanks in advance for your help!
Cheers,
Jon
|
|
Forum: Welcomes and Introductions
06-16-2009, 09:37 AM
|
| |
Hi All,
An introduction is in order. For years I actively collected and used vintage Pentax screwmount cameras and lenses (with a few detours into medium format and other 35mm SLR systems). I no longer shoot film, but I've recently begun using my old Takumars (and some other M42 lenses) on my Pentax DSLR, and I'm very much enjoying reconnecting with my old favorites.
So I'm a bit out of practice, a relative novice with respect to digital, and my old eyes don't seem to focus quite as confidently as they used to. Forgive me in advance, please, for asking questions that have already been addressed; I promise to use the "search" function before making a nuisance of myself.
Nice to be here!
Jon
|
