12-24mm & purple fringing with K-5


beardedwombat

Link Posted 10/02/2011 - 19:25
I currently have a Siggie 8-16mm on back order with SRS (I originally ordered a "bargain" from ebay but the stock did not materialise - will I never learn!). Because of all the good things I constantly hear (and see) about the 12-24 I am am thinking of forsaking the 4mm difference and switching my order. I am however a little concerned about the tendency of the K-5 to exhibit PF in contrast extremis with some lenses. Mine shows it with my 18-135 and 35 f2.4. It does not show it with my DA 55-300 or Siggie 105 macro, though stuff like branches against a sky always seem to have a slight purple hue. It's easily got rid of and I'm hoping Captain Pentax is able to issue a firmware fix for it but if it's a sensor problem I don't see how he can. Anyone here using a 12-24 with a K-5 and if so any problems?

gartmore

Link Posted 10/02/2011 - 19:58
I'm curious that you assert a PF problem with your 35f2.4, can you post an example?
Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
Last Edited by gartmore on 10/02/2011 - 19:58

beardedwombat

Link Posted 10/02/2011 - 20:23
gartmore wrote:
I'm curious that you assert a PF problem with your 35f2.4, can you post an example?

It's not a problem per se as it is easily removed and the 18-135 shows it more than the 35, (both of which are great lenses). I am at work at the moment but will post examples tomorrow if I can figure out how to do it. I am just curious to know if anyone is experiencing a similar thing with the 12-24 and the K-5

royd63uk

Link Posted 10/02/2011 - 20:25
i actually have purple fringeing with my 55-300 that i didnt have with my K7 it is surely something that needs fixing
regards
Roy

Pentax K3 gripped,and some lenses
https://www.flickr.com/photos/pentaxroy/

my pbase gallery

Pentaxophile

Link Posted 10/02/2011 - 21:13
The PF issues you're having sound sensor-related, so whether the 12-24mm has lens-related PF or not is neither here nor there really.

Personally I can live with a little PF if the lens is otherwise good - the DA16-45 and Tamron 70-300 fall into this camp.

Re the PF on the K5, there's some interesting examples in this thread... link

Also shows the great latitude of the K5 for 'exposure pushing' (although the K7 is actually as bad as I expected given the shots are pushed 4EV..) PF or not though, I'd rather have the K5 sensor!
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]
Last Edited by Pentaxophile on 10/02/2011 - 21:16

Don

Link Posted 10/02/2011 - 21:21
if you are a jpeg shooter the pf/ca may be problematic, but raw shooters have the ability to profile thier cameras and use a specific "default" set of processing settings that are applied on import with programs like Aperture...
I can set the CA settings once and add it to the default import settings for that particular camera and never see the CA again.
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
Last Edited by Don on 10/02/2011 - 21:21

Algernon

Link Posted 10/02/2011 - 21:22
The K-5 does have more PF problems than the K-7. Probably better to keep a 2nd body K-7 or K20D for and pics that are likely to have PF problems.

Or use lenses with very low PF.
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi

jackitec

Link Posted 10/02/2011 - 21:27
Algernon wrote:
The K-5 does have more PF problems than the K-7. Probably better to keep a 2nd body K-7 or K20D for and pics that are likely to have PF problems.

Or use lenses with very low PF.

Sorry but you are totally wrong here, lenses cause PF not cameras,

Jack.

Algernon

Link Posted 10/02/2011 - 21:33
jackitec wrote:
Algernon wrote:
The K-5 does have more PF problems than the K-7. Probably better to keep a 2nd body K-7 or K20D for and pics that are likely to have PF problems.

Or use lenses with very low PF.

Sorry but you are totally wrong here, lenses cause PF not cameras,

Jack.

It's already been posted in a thread on here via a link to another site. I can't remember the thread or who posted the original link. It is the K-5 that causes it.

I'm just about to watch Russell Howard so I won't have time to look, but it was on here that I read it, somebody else probably remembers.
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi
Last Edited by Algernon on 10/02/2011 - 21:34

jackitec

Link Posted 10/02/2011 - 21:46
Well with all the problems that the K5 has had I'm not surprised,

Jack.

Don

Link Posted 10/02/2011 - 21:55
jackitec wrote:
Algernon wrote:
The K-5 does have more PF problems than the K-7. Probably better to keep a 2nd body K-7 or K20D for and pics that are likely to have PF problems.

Or use lenses with very low PF.

Sorry but you are totally wrong here, lenses cause PF not cameras,

Jack.

micro lenses? on the sensor itself?
if you want to find maniacal, ocd rants on everything wrong with Pentax, may I suggest you check out Ricehigh's Pentax blog?
it is the camera, it is documented. apparently...
still an easy to fix issue if you shoot raw, and I'm sure a firmware fix will address the issue in jpegs in the near future... along with the low light focus issue...
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
Last Edited by Don on 10/02/2011 - 21:59

royd63uk

Link Posted 10/02/2011 - 22:10
It is a bit disappointing though..even if it's good in every other way...
regards
Roy

Pentax K3 gripped,and some lenses
https://www.flickr.com/photos/pentaxroy/

my pbase gallery

jackitec

Link Posted 10/02/2011 - 22:15
Well Don I've checked out all the Pentax K5 blogs, reviews, comments, problems, discussions etc, that's why I don't have one, sold all my Pentax gear after 35 years of using Pentax, it's my choice,

Jack

beardedwombat

Link Posted 10/02/2011 - 22:55
The PF problem is, I believe, sensor based. What is interesting is that some lenses seem to induce it and others don't. Anyone know why? Also, can anyone answer my original question which was - does the 12-24 induce it?

I loved my K20, bought a K-7, had severe focus issues, was (I think) badly served by Pentax service who didn't want to know, like a prat I sold all my Pentax gear in a pathetic fit of pique, bought a 7D and lenses, started to loath the poor ergonomics and size of the thing and it's telescopes, and came snivelling back to Pentax. I love my K-5 and cannot believe the difference in focussing accuracy compared to my K-7. It still has a slightly dim viewfinder and viewfinder info that is difficult to see in bright light but is in a different league entirely to the 7D when it comes to practicality and ease of use. It is a superb camera even with the PF issue - but it would be great if Pentax could sort it!

beardedwombat

Link Posted 10/02/2011 - 23:05
Don wrote:
if you are a jpeg shooter the pf/ca may be problematic, but raw shooters have the ability to profile thier cameras and use a specific "default" set of processing settings that are applied on import with programs like Aperture...
I can set the CA settings once and add it to the default import settings for that particular camera and never see the CA again.

I shoot raw. CA settings have no effect on PF. I lose it in Lightroom using the purple slider - dead easy if there is no other purple in the image. It changes blue sky slightly, but a tweak of the blue slider fixes that. If there is purple in the image I have to spend a bit more time in Elements. This issue is fairly minor. My 7D overexposed with monotonous regularity - I used exp comp more on that camera than any other. All cameras have foibles, it's a question of finding one with a foible or two you can live with!
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.