SRS Open Day - 9th October

Gwyn,

How much smaller and lighter is the K-r compared to the K5 :

they are all PEF. On reflection I should have shot JPG+RAW not RAW.

DCU will let me look at them, but won't save them (either as DNG or JPG). It just gives me the dialogues, closes the window and does...nothing. at all. nada. oi! program, do something!

Lightroom just won't open them at all (at least it gives a message saying it can't).

Even more intersting, my Kx will let me preview shots taken on a 645D...


(actually I know why, having looked at the SD card, its because they save a JPG to go with the PEF...)

Simply convert the PEF to standard DNG and then shoot that way from now on. The Adobe RAW Converter (free download) will do this for you. I do hope it supports the K-7; I used it for K-x images with no problem.

I don't see the point of PEF at all. They are not even appreciably smaller.

That's the problem. I can't convert from PEF to DNG. Adobe RAW won't recognise the K5. Pentax DCU is refusing to save DNG's.

That's the Problem like Flossie says.

Every Pentax camera model use an unique PEF file, so the PEF from a K20D are different then a PEF from a K7.
The RAW converter therefore needs to support the PEF for that model of camera.
Because the K5 and the Kr aren't out yet there aren't any converters that support them.

You could try and see at Adobe Labs if the new DNG converter is open for beta, if so it might support the newer cameras.

PS. flossie, there is software that allows you to extract the JPG preview that's in a RAW file, maybe they work on the PEF file then at least you would have a fullsize JPG.

I think there is a misunderstanding. I am not referring to Adobe Camera RAW but instead Adobe DNG Converter, which is a different programme. It supports the K-7 and even the 645D, though I don't have either camera to test this claim. It certainly supports the K-x which, as we know, is a newer camera than the K-7.

The pictures were taken on a K-5.

Flossie, try Fastone Image Viewer (it's free). It's a tad more basic when it comes to processing RAW files but i've never had a file it can't understand. There's always a first time of course!

You'll probably have to wait for someone to come up with a K5 converter.
AFAICT the K5 has a 14-bit RAW output, as opposed to the 12-bit of every other PEF format. In the past you could just hand edit the PEF descriptor in a hex editor (i.e. saying it's a K7), but this approach probably won't work because of the bit depth change.

...but I'm sure someone will come up with a change soon...

In the meantime you could always extract the embedded thumbnail JPG using exiftool.

Matt

After much swearing and shaking of sticks, I've managed to get Irfanviewer to batch-covert the K5 files. Fastone would, once again, let me view the pictures but only produced faulty files when asked to save them.


I suspect that part of the reason this is "pre-release" firmware in the K5 is because it includes a buggy RAW format!

Will post a new thread with pictures if they are any good.

EDIT: There's no EXIF data with the K5 shots, so in order to find out the values I have to review the shots on the Kx. How deeply tedious...

Aaarrghhh it has been defeated!

Bump

Gwyn,

I have looked up the sizes and weights but I am interested in how you found the K-r at Photokina in terms of weight and size :

Sorry Hyram, didn't see your earlier request.

I didn't handle the K-r. It was on a separate stand to the K5 . They had plenty behind glass, but only a couple of examples, which were by the compacts strangely enough.

What I saw of it it looks great, very small, but usable. A young man next to me at the K5/645D stand had one in his giant hands, but was totally enamoured with it. He had tried the K5 too but like the size and weight of the K-r more.

Now Pentax have addressed things like visible focus points I think the K-r will be a great camera. If I was on a tighter budget than I am I would probably have gone for it rather than the K5.

It does seem to have been overshadowed by the K5 hype somewhat, which is a pity.

Many thanks Gwyn.

Anyone try the 18-135?
I'd like to know how that performs.