I agree. I think an uncrippled mount would be the best thing in the world for a full frame camera. Its the only thing I asked for really. Even nikon supports at least AI lenses and you can convert everything previous to AI. I realize that only their pro oriented cameras are uncrippled, but still they at least provide backwards compatibility. An uncrippled mount wouldn't cost that much to produce I don't think. It does add to the complexity. So when's that full frame coming out again? ;)
If I had to adapt glass and lost the ability to stop down automatically, it would indeed suck pretty hard, but wouldn't be all that different from using takumars on DSLRs. For a lot of what I shoot, it wouldn't matter. Just another thing to slow me down. On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 4:25 PM, P.J. Alling <[email protected]> wrote: > Which is the argument for the "thing that shall not be mentioned." It would > make using K and M glass about as easy to use as A glass is now. Which is > to say, no more difficult that it was to use when those lenses were first > manufactured. I remember when I bought my MX, my second or third accessory > was a genuine M42 to K adapter. I think I used my M42 mount lenses on that > camera a few times, but mostly I used them on the Spotmatic until in a fit > of simplification frenzy I sold it, cheaply, just to get rid of it. > > > > On 7/20/2013 1:38 PM, Bill wrote: >> >> On 19/07/2013 2:01 PM, Tom C wrote: >>> >>> I also agree that the legacy lens advantage is pretty much non-existent. >> >> >> It's interesting that you should say that, and kind of ironic in a way. >> The reason why legacy lenses are not an advantage is because they are less >> convenient to use (manual focus, green button kludge, etc), and yet people >> happily go out and buy adapters to put legacy lenses onto their cameras from >> other brands. Look at the number of adapters you can get to put legacy glass >> onto 4/3 cameras. I suspect that every brand ever made can now be mounted to >> a 4/3 camera via an adapter. >> I bought an adapter to allow mounting K-mount glass onto my Q, and, being >> the not so bright person that I am, did exactly the same thing when I bought >> my Fuji. >> And you know what? It's a pain in the ass. Sure, the thing mounts, and you >> can take a picture with it if you want to go to the effort, but why bother? >> I could almost see it if you had a bunch of Canon FD lenses around, as it >> would be a way to put them to use again, since Canon decided their user base >> was a liability in the mid 1980s and abandoned them, but really, if you have >> an ability to mount the lens to a camera that it is compatible with, just >> mount it to that camera. Putting an A series lens onto my K5 means I lose a >> bit of functionality, mounting it onto my Fuji or my Q takes me from >> functionality loss to wanting to slash my wrists to make the misery go away. >> Even using an older non A series lens on the K5 is easier than on the Fuji >> or Q. >> >> I would say that as long as there is a market for adapters to mix and >> match brands of lenses onto other makers' cameras, the advantage of legacy >> lenses exists to a reasonable extent, though it won't be apparent to a new >> user who just bought his first DSLR and kit lens. >> >> bill >> >> > > > -- > There are two kinds of computer users those who've experienced a hard drive > failure, and those that will. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
