K-5 1.03 versus K20D AF tests
Posted 11/03/2011 - 18:40
Link
johnriley wrote:
One thought is that this may never have been any different. No magazines have reported this as an issue, and it only becomes one at very low EV values. Before the internet, this would just not have circulated and it would have taken a very long time indeed for any issues to become common knolwedge. Are the same issues present in AF film cameras?
One thought is that this may never have been any different. No magazines have reported this as an issue, and it only becomes one at very low EV values. Before the internet, this would just not have circulated and it would have taken a very long time indeed for any issues to become common knolwedge. Are the same issues present in AF film cameras?
You almost seem to be taking the position, John, that since before we had digital cameras and the internet (and hence the ability to analyse and communicate problems such as these), we wouldn't have known about the problems, therefore we shouldn't be making such a fuss now.
The thing is, the reason we're prepared to spend about £1000 on a hi-tech camera, is because we want all the advanced features, and we want them to work reliably.
Of course you can fiddle and tinker, and up to a point, work around the limitations of the technology.
But it shouldn't have to be like that.
And if testing the ability of the AF system to focus in a variety of light levels isn't beyond the ability of careful amateurs, how much less is there an excuse for the manufacturer not to, under the controlled conditions they supposedly use when they develop their equipment?
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Posted 11/03/2011 - 18:51
Link
ChrisA wrote:
You almost seem to be taking the position, John, that since before we had digital cameras and the internet (and hence the ability to analyse and communicate problems such as these), we wouldn't have known about the problems, therefore we shouldn't be making such a fuss now.
The thing is, the reason we're prepared to spend about £1000 on a hi-tech camera, is because we want all the advanced features, and we want them to work reliably.
Of course you can fiddle and tinker, and up to a point, work around the limitations of the technology.
But it shouldn't have to be like that.
And if testing the ability of the AF system to focus in a variety of light levels isn't beyond the ability of careful amateurs, how much less is there an excuse for the manufacturer not to, under the controlled conditions they supposedly use when they develop their equipment?
johnriley wrote:
One thought is that this may never have been any different. No magazines have reported this as an issue, and it only becomes one at very low EV values. Before the internet, this would just not have circulated and it would have taken a very long time indeed for any issues to become common knolwedge. Are the same issues present in AF film cameras?
One thought is that this may never have been any different. No magazines have reported this as an issue, and it only becomes one at very low EV values. Before the internet, this would just not have circulated and it would have taken a very long time indeed for any issues to become common knolwedge. Are the same issues present in AF film cameras?
You almost seem to be taking the position, John, that since before we had digital cameras and the internet (and hence the ability to analyse and communicate problems such as these), we wouldn't have known about the problems, therefore we shouldn't be making such a fuss now.
The thing is, the reason we're prepared to spend about £1000 on a hi-tech camera, is because we want all the advanced features, and we want them to work reliably.
Of course you can fiddle and tinker, and up to a point, work around the limitations of the technology.
But it shouldn't have to be like that.
And if testing the ability of the AF system to focus in a variety of light levels isn't beyond the ability of careful amateurs, how much less is there an excuse for the manufacturer not to, under the controlled conditions they supposedly use when they develop their equipment?
my question is how can the manufacturer account for end users doing thier own tests and alterations?
See the other thread is 10 units of back focus unusual? and other threads on hacking firmware to make focus adjustments...
if people fiddled and tinkered with thier settings, before installing the firmware upgrades, would that possibly affect the outcome? I would think so...
So the question is, if installing the new firmware did not resolve the focus issue, would setting the camera back to it's original settings before installing the upgraded firmware have solved the problems?
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
Posted 11/03/2011 - 19:15
Link
GDN wrote:
I found an excel spreadsheet on the other forum which calculates EV for you.
I found an excel spreadsheet on the other forum which calculates EV for you.
Cheers I did come across that in a search but I don't have Excel isntalled
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Posted 11/03/2011 - 19:20
Link
Don wrote:
I'd suspect that a new firmware update would likely not factor into account the variables induced by users who have hacked or changed thier focusing..... we have numerous threads that cover customizing the focus (Smeggy you DID alter those settings correct? Did you revert them back to factory settings before applying the upgrade?) even those who physically removed the bottom of the camera to make adjustments with a screwdriver... Did the factory test for every conceivable mod a user could make before installing new firmware? not likely...
I wonder how many "as it was from the factory" users found the firmware update solved the problem?
johnriley wrote:
I don't know about "naysayers" but it pays to be vigilant about the methodology of users. Some will be precise and obtain good results (that is, good in the sense of reliable) and others will vary down to the extreme where fundamental flaws are not even realised.
Add to that the increasingly widespread hacking of camera systems and the ability in later models to fine-tune focus and there could be quite a lot a variables.
I don't know what answer to this there could possibly be, but returning a camera for service people to deal with is one way of hopefully ensuring an accurate result. Otherwise, we may be better just doing our own testing until we as individuals are satisfied.
An example is the firmware upgrade. Some say it works, some say it doesn't and some say it's partially successful. It may be that there are other variables, it may be that some don't test properly, who knows....but in the end all that counts is whether or not our cameras focus accurately.
One thought is that this may never have been any different. No magazines have reported this as an issue, and it only becomes one at very low EV values. Before the internet, this would just not have circulated and it would have taken a very long time indeed for any issues to become common knolwedge. Are the same issues present in AF film cameras?
Unfortunately, waiting for film processing would mean that meaningful testing would be very laborious.
I don't know about "naysayers" but it pays to be vigilant about the methodology of users. Some will be precise and obtain good results (that is, good in the sense of reliable) and others will vary down to the extreme where fundamental flaws are not even realised.
Add to that the increasingly widespread hacking of camera systems and the ability in later models to fine-tune focus and there could be quite a lot a variables.
I don't know what answer to this there could possibly be, but returning a camera for service people to deal with is one way of hopefully ensuring an accurate result. Otherwise, we may be better just doing our own testing until we as individuals are satisfied.
An example is the firmware upgrade. Some say it works, some say it doesn't and some say it's partially successful. It may be that there are other variables, it may be that some don't test properly, who knows....but in the end all that counts is whether or not our cameras focus accurately.
One thought is that this may never have been any different. No magazines have reported this as an issue, and it only becomes one at very low EV values. Before the internet, this would just not have circulated and it would have taken a very long time indeed for any issues to become common knolwedge. Are the same issues present in AF film cameras?
Unfortunately, waiting for film processing would mean that meaningful testing would be very laborious.
I'd suspect that a new firmware update would likely not factor into account the variables induced by users who have hacked or changed thier focusing..... we have numerous threads that cover customizing the focus (Smeggy you DID alter those settings correct? Did you revert them back to factory settings before applying the upgrade?) even those who physically removed the bottom of the camera to make adjustments with a screwdriver... Did the factory test for every conceivable mod a user could make before installing new firmware? not likely...
I wonder how many "as it was from the factory" users found the firmware update solved the problem?
I calibrated the lenses in normal daylight levels before carrying out the test. This was essential when applying a FW update that has some code changes on the AF system. And I suggest anyone who tests 1.03 for phase AF should check their lens calibration before proceeding
I'm an experienced beta tester for Audio software and au fait with testing procedures.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Posted 11/03/2011 - 19:24
Link
johnriley wrote:
One thought is that this may never have been any different. No magazines have reported this as an issue,
One thought is that this may never have been any different. No magazines have reported this as an issue,
So? Magazines aren't any authority on anything. There articles are just written by users who have access to print. Means absolutely nothing given the wide ranging stuff I've read from 'users' over the years
Quote:
and it only becomes one at very low EV values.
and it only becomes one at very low EV values.
That is incorrect. less than EV4 is not a very low EV value. Teh K-5 specs say the AF is rated to -1EV. 5 stops below
Quote:
Before the internet, this would just not have circulated and it would have taken a very long time indeed for any issues to become common knowledge. Are the same issues present in AF film cameras?
Before the internet, this would just not have circulated and it would have taken a very long time indeed for any issues to become common knowledge. Are the same issues present in AF film cameras?
Well good on the Internet then
The same issues were certainly not present on my K20D as my tests show.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Posted 11/03/2011 - 19:35
Link
Mike-P wrote:
I haven't bothered testing mine for low light FF problems because I rarely shoot that sort of stuff but installed the new firmware last night and then took a couple of shots to see what's what.
f1.4/ISO 3200/1/125
First picture was with liveview using the 50mm f1.4 and have to say it was as sharp as you could wish for, have hardly used live view before and have to say I was very impressed with the focus.
Then took the same pic using the viewfinder ... what a difference, it was nothing like as sharp as the LV photo.
I paid the best part of a grand for the K-5 and have to say ... can't see the point of having such a high ISO beast if it can only be useful in good/medium light conditions (even if I rarely want to use it as such).
I haven't bothered testing mine for low light FF problems because I rarely shoot that sort of stuff but installed the new firmware last night and then took a couple of shots to see what's what.
f1.4/ISO 3200/1/125
First picture was with liveview using the 50mm f1.4 and have to say it was as sharp as you could wish for, have hardly used live view before and have to say I was very impressed with the focus.
Then took the same pic using the viewfinder ... what a difference, it was nothing like as sharp as the LV photo.
I paid the best part of a grand for the K-5 and have to say ... can't see the point of having such a high ISO beast if it can only be useful in good/medium light conditions (even if I rarely want to use it as such).
Cheers Mike. That's EV3 you shot at there.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Posted 11/03/2011 - 20:41
Link
I think I'll say that firmware 1.03 is actually a lot better than I originally thought. I have had to recalibrate my lens again (a couple are different from under 1.02 ), but I am now getting almost perfect focus in daylight AND low light.
I have even just had my K5 take a photo at -0.4EV.... Admittedly it didn't get focus first hit, I did have to force it to a second focus attempt but through the lens AND no green focus light I was damn impressed.
Anyway back to more playing with the camera tonight and tomorrow I think...
I have even just had my K5 take a photo at -0.4EV.... Admittedly it didn't get focus first hit, I did have to force it to a second focus attempt but through the lens AND no green focus light I was damn impressed.
Anyway back to more playing with the camera tonight and tomorrow I think...
Posted 11/03/2011 - 21:23
Link
Smeggypants, love the work you are doing, you are helping us all.
I don't have a K5, I went the K10 then K7 and I'm waiting for the K3, but anyway, the original images you posted, seem very dark, not questioning the focus, just wondered why they weren't a bit brighter ?
If it was a white card with blank ink, why I am seeing just dark grey and black ?
Is the K5 not exposing correctly ?
I may be missing something here, but all the images you posted seem 'dark' ?
Enlighten me !
John
I don't have a K5, I went the K10 then K7 and I'm waiting for the K3, but anyway, the original images you posted, seem very dark, not questioning the focus, just wondered why they weren't a bit brighter ?
If it was a white card with blank ink, why I am seeing just dark grey and black ?
Is the K5 not exposing correctly ?
I may be missing something here, but all the images you posted seem 'dark' ?
Enlighten me !
John
Posted 11/03/2011 - 21:33
Link
They are crops so the actual exposure was for a greater part of the frame. I used centre weighted metering. Mind, had I used spot metering on the white paper that would have probably turned out grey
As an aside, and not so noticeable on these shots si that my K20D underexposes compared to my K-5
As an aside, and not so noticeable on these shots si that my K20D underexposes compared to my K-5
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Posted 11/03/2011 - 22:32
Link
Quote:
You almost seem to be taking the position, John, that since before we had digital cameras and the internet (and hence the ability to analyse and communicate problems such as these), we wouldn't have known about the problems, therefore we shouldn't be making such a fuss now.
You almost seem to be taking the position, John, that since before we had digital cameras and the internet (and hence the ability to analyse and communicate problems such as these), we wouldn't have known about the problems, therefore we shouldn't be making such a fuss now.
No, I didn't say anything like that. What I was saying was that it would be interesting to know if such issues have always been present in some models, but because information didn't circulate so quickly we would have been relatively unaware.
Quote:
Well good on the Internet then
Well good on the Internet then
Absolutely, more information more quickly has to be a good thing. We are better informed, although there is in equal measure the potential for mis-information as well.
It took a long time for people to become aware that after leaving a film camera for some time the first shot or two would be blurred. Why? Because of the kink in the film where it left the non-tangential film trap on the 35mm cassette. This eventually led to the redesign of the exit on the cassette, but it took over 40 years before it was realised.
Take the issue of exposure errors with M series and earlier lenses - film cameras were the same throughout the 1990s and the digital models have the same problem still. In this case it seems that it's something that cannot so easily be addressed.
So the question was a reflective have we been suffering from BF and FF focus errors for years and just been dismissing it as user error? We've all had less sharp images from time to time...
Best regards, John
Posted 11/03/2011 - 23:44
Link
johnriley wrote:
What I was saying was that it would be interesting to know if such issues have always been present in some models, but because information didn't circulate so quickly we would have been relatively unaware.
What I was saying was that it would be interesting to know if such issues have always been present in some models, but because information didn't circulate so quickly we would have been relatively unaware.
We'll never know for sure, but I'm certain this is the case.
I'm equally sure that the manufacturers have historically been relying on that lack of information to let them get away with it.
At their peril, Pentax perpetuate that attitude now.
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Posted 11/03/2011 - 23:52
Link
The Canon 60D doesn't even have an AF adjustment facility.
But you're right, before the Internet and mass communication I doubt the K-5's FF fault would ever get addressed. I remember some music equipment in the 80s and 90s that had absurd design errors ( never mind faults ) and never got addressed. The 'Magazines' that many treated as 'god' at the time didn't pick up, or report, on these faults ( probably for the same corrupt reasons as they don't today ) and there were no public forums for users report their feedback on products. Dire situation.
So yes the Internet has and will become responsible for a much better standard of product.
But you're right, before the Internet and mass communication I doubt the K-5's FF fault would ever get addressed. I remember some music equipment in the 80s and 90s that had absurd design errors ( never mind faults ) and never got addressed. The 'Magazines' that many treated as 'god' at the time didn't pick up, or report, on these faults ( probably for the same corrupt reasons as they don't today ) and there were no public forums for users report their feedback on products. Dire situation.
So yes the Internet has and will become responsible for a much better standard of product.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Posted 11/03/2011 - 23:54
Link
ChrisA wrote:
We'll never know for sure, but I'm certain this is the case.
I'm equally sure that the manufacturers have historically been relying on that lack of information to let them get away with it.
At their peril, Pentax perpetuate that attitude now.
johnriley wrote:
What I was saying was that it would be interesting to know if such issues have always been present in some models, but because information didn't circulate so quickly we would have been relatively unaware.
What I was saying was that it would be interesting to know if such issues have always been present in some models, but because information didn't circulate so quickly we would have been relatively unaware.
We'll never know for sure, but I'm certain this is the case.
I'm equally sure that the manufacturers have historically been relying on that lack of information to let them get away with it.
At their peril, Pentax perpetuate that attitude now.
Indeed.
The Pentax rep who said the sensor stain only affected a small number of units ought to take note lest he embarrasses himself again
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
208 posts
15 years
Surrey
Pentax K3
My Flickr