New K7 firmware! (v1.10.20.26)
Posted 04/10/2010 - 20:42
Link
And what did they improve this time?
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Posted 05/10/2010 - 10:39
Link
Anvh wrote:
And what did they improve this time?
Damned if I know! But I've upgraded nonetheless .And what did they improve this time?
EDIT : one thing I've noticed is that with auto-iso and flash, the camera restricts itself to reasonable sensitivities, whereas before (from memory) it had a tendency to ignore the flash and go to full iso if needed, leading to noisy flash picture (the Kx is still doing this, BTW).
Posted 05/10/2010 - 11:55
Link
Quote:
EDIT : one thing I've noticed is that with auto-iso and flash, the camera restricts itself to reasonable sensitivities, whereas before (from memory) it had a tendency to ignore the flash and go to full iso if needed, leading to noisy flash picture (the Kx is still doing this, BTW).
But the K7 has always had a choice of ISO approach - Slow, Normal, and Fast.EDIT : one thing I've noticed is that with auto-iso and flash, the camera restricts itself to reasonable sensitivities, whereas before (from memory) it had a tendency to ignore the flash and go to full iso if needed, leading to noisy flash picture (the Kx is still doing this, BTW).
I'll do a diff on the two files
Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)
(For gallery, tips and links)
Posted 05/10/2010 - 12:26
Link
MattMatic wrote:
But the K7 has always had a choice of ISO approach - Slow, Normal, and Fast.
Yep, but the behavior is then the same with or without flash... So with flash you ended with the same crappy iso than if you shot ambient only... Except that in bright ambient you'll be stuck to 1/180.But the K7 has always had a choice of ISO approach - Slow, Normal, and Fast.
I experienced this with my Kx this very Sunday : with a bounced Sigma 530, it choose to use 6400 iso nevertheless... Sure spares the batteries, but image was trashed right away... I had to use a fixed iso to solve the problem.
Could someone test this with the v1.10.00.25 firmware before updating?
Posted 05/10/2010 - 12:50
Link
dlacouture wrote:
Strange that they went from 1.10.00.25 to 1.10.20.26
Why?Strange that they went from 1.10.00.25 to 1.10.20.26
It will depend on the software numbering format they use. Could be based on major.minor.build.revision or major.minor.revision.build or one of many others and the 20 may not be the twentieth but second version/attempt &c
.
K20D, *istD, MZ-S, Super-A, ME Super, MX
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, DA* 300,
DA 50-200, FA 24-90, FA 20-35,
M 400-600, A 50 f1.4, A 28 f2.8, A 70-210, M 35-80, M 50 f1.7
A x2S teleconverter and a few others ...
K20D, *istD, MZ-S, Super-A, ME Super, MX
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, DA* 300,
DA 50-200, FA 24-90, FA 20-35,
M 400-600, A 50 f1.4, A 28 f2.8, A 70-210, M 35-80, M 50 f1.7
A x2S teleconverter and a few others ...
Posted 05/10/2010 - 13:00
Link
polchraine wrote:
It will depend on the software numbering format they use. Could be based on major.minor.build.revision or major.minor.revision.build or one of many others and the 20 may not be the twentieth but second version/attempt &c
If you have a look to Pentax' firmware history, you'll see that only two models (*istD and K-m) ever had anything other than 00 for this 3rd number, and it was 01, so it was still pretty logical...
dlacouture wrote:
Strange that they went from 1.10.00.25 to 1.10.20.26
Why?Strange that they went from 1.10.00.25 to 1.10.20.26
It will depend on the software numbering format they use. Could be based on major.minor.build.revision or major.minor.revision.build or one of many others and the 20 may not be the twentieth but second version/attempt &c
Posted 05/10/2010 - 13:58
Link
Just did a diff. There are some subtle differences in the two files. Interesting that they both have the same date & time too!
Upgraded my K7.
Checked flash + ISO - definitely follows the ISO choice of "Slow", "Normal", and "Fast"
Doh! Should've checked before I upgraded to see if there was a real difference
Matt
Upgraded my K7.
Checked flash + ISO - definitely follows the ISO choice of "Slow", "Normal", and "Fast"
Doh! Should've checked before I upgraded to see if there was a real difference
Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)
(For gallery, tips and links)
Posted 05/10/2010 - 14:53
Link
MattMatic wrote:
Just did a diff. There are some subtle differences in the two files. Interesting that they both have the same date & time too!
Yeah, they are so discreet about their silent updates, it's verging on paranoia... Seems like they are almost ashamed of it...Just did a diff. There are some subtle differences in the two files. Interesting that they both have the same date & time too!
MattMatic wrote:
Upgraded my K7.
Checked flash + ISO - definitely follows the ISO choice of "Slow", "Normal", and "Fast"
Well, OK, but do you have the same values with and without flash? I don't (which is a good thing!), and I'm pretty sure it was the case before (meaning that values were identical).Upgraded my K7.
Checked flash + ISO - definitely follows the ISO choice of "Slow", "Normal", and "Fast"
MattMatic wrote:
Doh! Should've checked before I upgraded to see if there was a real difference
Told you...
Doh! Should've checked before I upgraded to see if there was a real difference
Posted 27/10/2010 - 10:10
Link
Looks like the same July update (8/07/2010) to me. What am I missing?
Posted 27/10/2010 - 10:19
Link
dlacouture wrote:
EDIT : one thing I've noticed is that with auto-iso and flash, the camera restricts itself to reasonable sensitivities, whereas before (from memory) it had a tendency to ignore the flash and go to full iso if needed, leading to noisy flash picture (the Kx is still doing this, BTW).
Perhaps its instaled a countdown device and the camera stops working after a hundred more shots, then you have to buy a K5
Anvh wrote:
And what did they improve this time?
Damned if I know! But I've upgraded nonetheless .And what did they improve this time?
EDIT : one thing I've noticed is that with auto-iso and flash, the camera restricts itself to reasonable sensitivities, whereas before (from memory) it had a tendency to ignore the flash and go to full iso if needed, leading to noisy flash picture (the Kx is still doing this, BTW).
Posted 27/10/2010 - 12:03
Link
sledger wrote:
Looks like the same July update (8/07/2010) to me. What am I missing?
No body knows that... but it's a newer version though
Looks like the same July update (8/07/2010) to me. What am I missing?
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Posted 31/10/2010 - 09:43
Link
A definite change.
I now find I have to use flash W/B to get good colors, but in the past I had to use AWB with flash to stop the colors from being washed out. (as detailed in the article on flash use in the final Pentax magazine) This is using the built in flash by the way.
A possible change
Also 1600 iso looks less noisy or maybe i was just lucky, peps with more experience would have a better idea.
Jim
I now find I have to use flash W/B to get good colors, but in the past I had to use AWB with flash to stop the colors from being washed out. (as detailed in the article on flash use in the final Pentax magazine) This is using the built in flash by the way.
A possible change
Also 1600 iso looks less noisy or maybe i was just lucky, peps with more experience would have a better idea.
Jim
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
37 posts
17 years
This one is 1.10.20.26, MD5 is f6a4c771c0d4caf9e264f4ab0c6a9d4b...
Strange that they went from 1.10.00.25 to 1.10.20.26