On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 7:06 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <godd...@me.com> wrote: > On Sep 29, 2013, at 8:08 AM, Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu > <alexandru.sa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Regardless of the speed of the AF, all FT SLR lenses have autofocused with >>> all Olympus mFT cameras from day one of the Pen E-P1. The E-M1 provides a >>> better AF solution, that's all. >>> >>> You will never have auto-diaphragm operation with a Pentax DSLR using a >>> Pentax M42 lens... That's a non-functional lens feature. > >> Indeed, but you also won't have open-aperture metering with K and M >> K-mount lenses, and with Nikon entry level bodies can't autofocus with >> all AF lenses. It's not exactly a clear cut line. > > The line between "obsolete but very usable" and "dead and buried" is very > clear cut with FourThirds SLR lenses, unlike the ones you mention above. > Because these lenses rely upon the mount to power the focusing mechanism as > well as do aperture control, without a camera that supports the mount > features for power and aperture control, the lenses are dead and buried. Are the K and F mounts dead or alive? You know, you can't fully use them as in the original versions in either case... but the current versions are in production. > > Micro-FourThirds camera bodies have been specifically designed to support the > FourThirds lens protocol so NONE of the SLR lenses are dead and buried. They > may be obsolete, but they are very usable. Again, I was talking about the mount itself, not about the ability to adapt your lenses. You're constantly deviating the discussion towards lens usage. > >> Without a good enough AF, u4/3 cameras weren't really an alternative. > > I disagree on at least two counts: > > - All Olympus mFT cameras have provided AF with FourThirds SLR lenses that > has been good enough for some purposes. > > - Even if some lenses couldn't be used with AF at all (for instance, my > Panasonic G1 and the Olympus 35 Macro), the lens was still perfectly usable > for my needs. > > Both of these things say "obsolete but very usable" to me. mFT cameras have > been a very useful alternative to my FT SLRs since 2008 when they were first > released. Yet others complained, keeping their 4/3 cameras because of that. But now it appears to be OK, the EM-1 looks terrific. > >>>> It doesn't really matters if they still making lenses or they're NOS, >>>> that's temporary; the mount is being phased out. >>> >>> That's true, but does it matter? Isn't it nice that Olympus and Panasonic >>> have provides a seamless upgrade path so owners can continue using their >>> existing lenses? And now with native DSLR focusing performance? It's time >>> to celebrate! ];-) >> It's all good, as long as you WANT to migrate to micro4/3 ;-) > > I don't want to migrate to anything, nor do I need to. I want a high quality > FourThirds format camera that can use my existing lenses. I've been using the > Olympus E-1 since some time in 2008 for that purpose, I also used the G1, L1, > and E-5 from 2007 to 2011, and now I'll use the E-M1 for that purpose. The > E-M1 has a better sensor, better viewfinder, image stabilization, better AF, > and a host of other improvements over the E-1 (and the others). I'm using the > same lenses, and have a better body to work with now. Haven't migrated to > anything, I'm still within the same system. Only thing that's changed is that > I need an adapter, supplied by the camera manufacturer, to mount my lenses on > the newer body. Big deal. They're even giving it to me for free via a rebate > program. You're overextending the meaning of a "system"; that adapter you're using is actually a one way bridge from a system to another. Suppose someone would hack a K-mount to NEX adapter, with full functionality. Does that means K-mount and NEX would become the same system? Wait, I have an even better example: the Nikon F to 1 adapter. It supports autofocus, auto exposure, even VR. Is Nikon 1 the same system as the F? ;-) > >> But we took quite a detour from where we started - which was that the >> youngest, designed for digital SLR mount couldn't survive - yet >> "dinosaurs" like K and F did. > > I don't know where you started exactly... > > But so far the FourThirds SLR mount is surviving quite nicely, through > seamless adaptation to its Micro-FourThirds successor. Never mind the many > users still quite happy with their FourThirds SLR cameras. No new 4/3 products, ever. End of story. > > The M-mount, which was the subject of Larry's original design thought, is an > even older dinosaur than either K or F, and of course it is still thriving > nicely with only one minor addition (a reader to inform the body about which > lens is fitted) to enable some new capabilities on the digital bodies. In > fact the M-mount's predecessor, Leica Threaded Mount, is also still surviving > nicely as its successor was also designed for seamless adaptation of LTM > lenses. Who's making LTM products now? Is the manual aperture M42 mount "alive", because you can adapt the lenses with no function loss? > > The K and F dinosaurs continue to survive albeit with some significant > compromises in capability depending on the specific generations of lens and > body combinations that you are using. Continuous development, and new products being launched all the time. See a difference? ;-)
Anyway, it doesn't seems like we can reach an agreement, and I don't want to force my views on you nor repeat ad nauseam the same arguments; so let's agree to disagree. Have a nice day! > > G Alex -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
