When the world is awash in 100 million old SLRs available for peanuts, why would ANYONE have squandered money on this.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/1237204972/production-issues-lack-of-funds-have-brought-the-reflex-slr-project-to-a-halt

On Aug 24, 2021, RichA wrote
(in article<405f1ae2-eb5b-40de-af46-ca40dd6b439bn@googlegroups.com>):

> When the world is awash in 100 million old SLRs available for peanuts, why
> would ANYONE have squandered money on this.
>
> https://www.dpreview.com/news/1237204972/production-issues-lack-of-funds-have-
> brought-the-reflex-slr-project-to-a-halt

I like the idea of being able to change the lens mount. I wish Pentax would
do that for my K1...

On Wednesday, 25 August 2021 at 00:28:45 UTC-4, Bill W wrote:
> On Aug 24, 2021, RichA wrote
> (in article<405f1ae2-eb5b-40de...@googlegroups.com>):
> > When the world is awash in 100 million old SLRs available for peanuts, why
> > would ANYONE have squandered money on this.
> >
> > https://www.dpreview.com/news/1237204972/production-issues-lack-of-funds-have-
> > brought-the-reflex-slr-project-to-a-halt
> I like the idea of being able to change the lens mount. I wish Pentax would
> do that for my K1...

They got $160,000 on Kickstarter. Does anything think that is enough to develop a plastic fork, let alone a camera system?

In article <405f1ae2-eb5b-40de-af46-ca40dd6b439bn@googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

> When the world is awash in 100 million old SLRs available for peanuts, why
> would ANYONE have squandered money on this.

that looks like one of the junk slrs from the 1970s.

the idea is also incredibly stupid and never would have worked.

In article <0001HW.26D5FE7601F29FB730726138F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>,
Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:

>
> I like the idea of being able to change the lens mount. I wish Pentax would
> do that for my K1...

home depot sells some power tools...

To: Bill W
On 2021-08-25 12:28 a.m., Bill W wrote:

> I like the idea of being able to change the lens mount. I wish Pentax would
> do that for my K1...
>
It's easy for a K mount to adapt to a M42, it only needs a 10$ adapter
ring. A lot of legendary lenses are M42.
--- Synchronet 3.18a-Linux NewsLink 1.113
MtlGeek - Geeks in Montreal - http://mtlgeek.com/

In article <61263ABB.26238.usenet_recphoto@mtlgeek.synchro.net>, Ennev
<ennev@mtlgeek.synchro.net.remove-10vs-this> wrote:

>
> > I like the idea of being able to change the lens mount. I wish Pentax would
> > do that for my K1...
> >
> It's easy for a K mount to adapt to a M42, it only needs a 10$ adapter
> ring. A lot of legendary lenses are M42.

m42 lenses aren't better than k-mount. they're usually worse.

some cameras have adapters for modern lenses, but i'm not sure about
pentax. autofocus and auto-aperture won't work.

canon ef has a few, while 4/3rds has a shitload due to the much shorter
flange distance.

there is one canon adapter for nikon that remaps the signals so that
the lens can retain it's automatic functionality, created specifically
because nikon has a few lenses that canon users wanted.

To: nospam
On 2021-08-25 11:39 a.m., nospam wrote:
> From Newsgroup: rec.photo.digital

> m42 lenses aren't better than k-mount. they're usually worse.

I didn't say all of them. But I won't spit on a Jupiter :-)

> some cameras have adapters for modern lenses, but i'm not sure about
> pentax. autofocus and auto-aperture won't work.

I agree in general adapters will make you lose functionality. But the
adapter was meant by Pentax to help it's users transition to the K
mount, before that Pentax was using M42 on it's slr's. But the move was
in 1975, and there where little data exchanges between the lens and the
body back then so it's wasn't that bad. But i have a Praktica MTL 3 that
can read the aperture of a Carl Zeiss Jena M42 through a pin even if
it's a screw mount, i was surprised.

But yes, for micro 4/3 and mirrorless then is a plenty of crap adapters
that will enable you to have a lot of lens because the focal plane is
shallow where usually it's deeper on dslr. So the adapter add some
distance to enable the lens to focus properly on the sensor, but rarely
you see them adapt the signal so that aperture and focus will work properly.

Options are available on a Pentax K-1 (and others models, k-3, k-5 etc)
menus to enable the use of the aperture ring of such a lens.
--- Synchronet 3.18a-Linux NewsLink 1.113
MtlGeek - Geeks in Montreal - http://mtlgeek.com/

In article <612696BB.26240.usenet_recphoto@mtlgeek.synchro.net>, Ennev
<ennev@mtlgeek.synchro.net.remove-wj6-this> wrote:

> > m42 lenses aren't better than k-mount. they're usually worse.
>
> I didn't say all of them. But I won't spit on a Jupiter :-)

i did.

lens technology has come a *long* way since then.

lens technology has come a long way in the past decade, never mind 5
decades.

there is no reason to use m42 lenses anymore. they're 50 years old and
offer zero benefit over a modern lens.

> > some cameras have adapters for modern lenses, but i'm not sure about
> > pentax. autofocus and auto-aperture won't work.
>
> I agree in general adapters will make you lose functionality. But the
> adapter was meant by Pentax to help it's users transition to the K
> mount, before that Pentax was using M42 on it's slr's. But the move was
> in 1975, and there where little data exchanges between the lens and the
> body back then so it's wasn't that bad. But i have a Praktica MTL 3 that
> can read the aperture of a Carl Zeiss Jena M42 through a pin even if
> it's a screw mount, i was surprised.

in 1975, an m42 adapter was a reasonable choice.

it's not 1975 anymore.

back then, tamron lenses had a universal mount called adaptall. it was
junk.

On Wednesday, 25 August 2021 at 06:10:12 UTC-4, nospam wrote:
> In article <405f1ae2-eb5b-40de...@googlegroups.com>,
> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > When the world is awash in 100 million old SLRs available for peanuts, why
> > would ANYONE have squandered money on this.
> that looks like one of the junk slrs from the 1970s.
>
> the idea is also incredibly stupid and never would have worked.

I think it bears a bit of a physical resemblance to horrible Russian SLRs.

On Aug 25, 2021, Ennev wrote
(in article<61263ABB.26238.usenet_recphoto@mtlgeek.synchro.net>):

> To: Bill W
> On 2021-08-25 12:28 a.m., Bill W wrote:
>
> > I like the idea of being able to change the lens mount. I wish Pentax would
> > do that for my K1...
> It's easy for a K mount to adapt to a M42, it only needs a 10$ adapter
> ring. A lot of legendary lenses are M42.
> --- Synchronet 3.18a-Linux NewsLink 1.113
> MtlGeek - Geeks in Montreal - http://mtlgeek.com/

I checked into this. There do seem to be issues with using adapters, like not
focusing beyond 20 ft., and other focusing problems. There are lenses out
there, but not necessarily cheap for unknown quality. But thanks for bringing
this up. If I do run across one of those lenses, and it looks compelling,
I’ll know there are cheap adapters for it.

On Aug 25, 2021, nospam wrote
(in article<250820211531496326%nospam@nospam.invalid>):

> In article<612696BB.26240.usenet_recphoto@mtlgeek.synchro.net>, Ennev
> <ennev@mtlgeek.synchro.net.remove-wj6-this> wrote:
>
> > > m42 lenses aren't better than k-mount. they're usually worse.
> >
> > I didn't say all of them. But I won't spit on a Jupiter :-)
>
> i did.
>
> lens technology has come a *long* way since then.
>
> lens technology has come a long way in the past decade, never mind 5
> decades.
>
> there is no reason to use m42 lenses anymore. they're 50 years old and
> offer zero benefit over a modern lens.

The benefit could be that there are no other options. I wanted to get the
Sigma 150-600, but they don’t make it for Pentax, and there is really
nothing else out there. The longest Pentax lens is not that long, and it’s
pricier than I need. But I didn’t see much in the M42’s either. And even
if I did, it seems there are focusing limits when you use those adapters. So
it looks like the benefit for me that “could be” isn’t.

In article <0001HW.26D7075A021D28D43074D538F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>,
Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:

> > there is no reason to use m42 lenses anymore. they're 50 years old and
> > offer zero benefit over a modern lens.
>
> The benefit could be that there are no other options. I wanted to get the
> Sigma 150-600, but they don¹t make it for Pentax, and there is really
> nothing else out there. The longest Pentax lens is not that long, and it¹s
> pricier than I need.

it looks like that lens is available for sigma's own sigma sa mount,
which is a modified pentax k mount (used without permission, but that's
another story).

some sigmoids hacked their sigma cameras to accept pentax lenses so
maybe it's possible to hack a sigma mount lens to fit pentax cameras.

i don't remember the specifics, other than the aperture lever had to be
removed for k-mount lenses to fit sigma cameras, so there will probably
be an issue where a pentax camera expects the lever to be there and
it's not.

i vaguely remember sigma also stole canon's protocol (also used without
permission) so even if you get the lens to fit, it will probably be
manual.

> But I didn¹t see much in the M42¹s either. And even
> if I did, it seems there are focusing limits when you use those adapters. So
> it looks like the benefit for me that ³could be² isn¹t.

there might be adapters with optical elements to address the focus
issue.

On Aug 25, 2021, nospam wrote
(in article<250820212005120437%nospam@nospam.invalid>):

> In article<0001HW.26D7075A021D28D43074D538F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>,
> Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > > there is no reason to use m42 lenses anymore. they're 50 years old and
> > > offer zero benefit over a modern lens.
> >
> > The benefit could be that there are no other options. I wanted to get the
> > Sigma 150-600, but they don¹t make it for Pentax, and there is really
> > nothing else out there. The longest Pentax lens is not that long, and it¹s
> > pricier than I need.
>
> it looks like that lens is available for sigma's own sigma sa mount,
> which is a modified pentax k mount (used without permission, but that's
> another story).
>
> some sigmoids hacked their sigma cameras to accept pentax lenses so
> maybe it's possible to hack a sigma mount lens to fit pentax cameras.

There’s a little about this on Wikipedia, and it looks like it’s not even
worth trying. Like you say, different protocol, and very different flange
distance, so focusing problems. Oh well. Maybe I’ll pop for the pentax lens
at some point, or just switch systems. And I’ve never been able to find
lens adapters of any use - not for any brand lens.

> i don't remember the specifics, other than the aperture lever had to be
> removed for k-mount lenses to fit sigma cameras, so there will probably
> be an issue where a pentax camera expects the lever to be there and
> it's not.
>
> i vaguely remember sigma also stole canon's protocol (also used without
> permission) so even if you get the lens to fit, it will probably be
> manual.
>
> > But I didn¹t see much in the M42¹s either. And even
> > if I did, it seems there are focusing limits when you use those adapters. So
> > it looks like the benefit for me that ³could be² isn¹t.
>
> there might be adapters with optical elements to address the focus
> issue.

On Aug 25, 2021, Bill W wrote
(in article<0001HW.26D71E350222840B30604138F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>):

> On Aug 25, 2021, nospam wrote
> (in article<250820212005120437%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
>
> > In article<0001HW.26D7075A021D28D43074D538F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>,
> > Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > there is no reason to use m42 lenses anymore. they're 50 years old and
> > > > offer zero benefit over a modern lens.
> > >
> > > The benefit could be that there are no other options. I wanted to get the
> > > Sigma 150-600, but they don¹t make it for Pentax, and there is really
> > > nothing else out there. The longest Pentax lens is not that long, and it¹s
> > > pricier than I need.
> >
> > it looks like that lens is available for sigma's own sigma sa mount,
> > which is a modified pentax k mount (used without permission, but that's
> > another story).
> >
> > some sigmoids hacked their sigma cameras to accept pentax lenses so
> > maybe it's possible to hack a sigma mount lens to fit pentax cameras.
>
> There’s a little about this on Wikipedia, and it looks like it’s not even
> worth trying. Like you say, different protocol, and very different flange
> distance, so focusing problems. Oh well. Maybe I’ll pop for the pentax lens
> at some point, or just switch systems. And I’ve never been able to find
> lens adapters of any use - not for any brand lens.

I feel silly now. I looked again, and there are several adapters that claim
to focus to infinity, and for Nikon and Canon lenses, among others. They are
all MF, though. It still might be worth looking into.

In article <0001HW.26D72048022300B430604138F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>,
Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:

> I feel silly now. I looked again, and there are several adapters that claim
> to focus to infinity, and for Nikon and Canon lenses, among others. They are
> all MF, though. It still might be worth looking into.

they usually have optical elements, whose quality can vary.

To: Bill W
On 2021-08-25 7:12 p.m., Bill W wrote:
> From Newsgroup: rec.photo.digital

> I checked into this. There do seem to be issues with using adapters, like not
> focusing beyond 20 ft., and other focusing problems. There are lenses out
> there, but not necessarily cheap for unknown quality. But thanks for bringing
> this up. If I do run across one of those lenses, and it looks compelling,
> I’ll know there are cheap adapters for it.

I'll probably illustrate it in a link soon, not tonight ( it's tonight
for me right now :-D ) but there is yes some adapter that won't enable
you to focus to infinit event on a K mount to a M42, I got thick like
that. The one maybe by Pentax does focus to infinity or clones of it.

But yes, if you goal is to use a modern lens, I would not recommend it.
The purpose is more to use old lens.

Why old lens? I'll answer to nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> ( if it's
his real name :-) )

But myself, I found charm in old lens, I don't always seek perfection
and there is still stuff you can simulate with software like bokeh for
example, you can simulate it yes, but perfectly? no. You would need a
light field camera or a full depth map of a scene to accurately then
compute it, can be done from a 2d image.

But still everybody has it's styles and goals. And doing still some
analog picture it's fun sometime to be able to play with theses old lens
also on a dslr.

I love Pentax, I'll stick with them, I know they are commited to the
dslr etc. But yes, they got dropped by others lens makes and I don't
blame theses makers, people goes for names like Sony and Canon nowadays,
even Nikon lost ground. But for the lens it's mostly what Ricoh/Pentax
will produce in the future that we will have to chose, the quality is
not bad, but it's less choices for us.
--- Synchronet 3.18a-Linux NewsLink 1.113
MtlGeek - Geeks in Montreal - http://mtlgeek.com/

On Aug 25, 2021, Ennev wrote
(in article<6126D8CD.26245.usenet_recphoto@mtlgeek.synchro.net>):

> To: Bill W
> On 2021-08-25 7:12 p.m., Bill W wrote:
> > From Newsgroup: rec.photo.digital
>
> > I checked into this. There do seem to be issues with using adapters, like
> > not
> > focusing beyond 20 ft., and other focusing problems. There are lenses out
> > there, but not necessarily cheap for unknown quality. But thanks for
> > bringing
> > this up. If I do run across one of those lenses, and it looks compelling,
> > I’ll know there are cheap adapters for it.
>
> I'll probably illustrate it in a link soon, not tonight ( it's tonight
> for me right now :-D ) but there is yes some adapter that won't enable
> you to focus to infinit event on a K mount to a M42, I got thick like
> that. The one maybe by Pentax does focus to infinity or clones of it.
>
> But yes, if you goal is to use a modern lens, I would not recommend it.
> The purpose is more to use old lens.
>
> Why old lens? I'll answer to nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> ( if it's
> his real name :-) )

It is definitely his real name.

> But myself, I found charm in old lens, I don't always seek perfection
> and there is still stuff you can simulate with software like bokeh for
> example, you can simulate it yes, but perfectly? no. You would need a
> light field camera or a full depth map of a scene to accurately then
> compute it, can be done from a 2d image.
>
> But still everybody has it's styles and goals. And doing still some
> analog picture it's fun sometime to be able to play with theses old lens
> also on a dslr.
>
> I love Pentax, I'll stick with them, I know they are commited to the
> dslr etc. But yes, they got dropped by others lens makes and I don't
> blame theses makers,

I just read that Sigma announced no more k-mount in 2019. I missed that. They
are also dropping their own SA mount on their cameras for good, although they
seem to claim they will still make lenses with that mount.

> people goes for names like Sony and Canon nowadays,
> even Nikon lost ground. But for the lens it's mostly what Ricoh/Pentax
> will produce in the future that we will have to chose, the quality is
> not bad, but it's less choices for us.
> --- Synchronet 3.18a-Linux NewsLink 1.113
> MtlGeek - Geeks in Montreal - http://mtlgeek.com/

I looked around a bit after reading this thread, and found that there are
adapters for Canon and Nikon lenses, among others (I looked on B&H), although
none have electronics for communication.

This is a
link:<https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?q=K%20Mount%20Lens%20Adapters&filt
ers=fct_camera-body-mount_1595%3Apentax-k>