[Erik]

This just sucks. I sent my K-5 in for repair yesterday for FF issues but now I'm scared nothing can be done. I have some serious shootings coming up and was going to get a flash for those, and apparently the K-5 has trouble metering with flash too. Great. I want to use this camera but these things could be dealbreakers.

[betaPhoto]

With so many posts blaming some sort of user error for these shots, it must be quite irritating that your level of competence can be insulted so bad.

If these are 2 bad shots out of a larger series of good shots, I'd say sure maybe/probably user error, but I suspect you wouldn't have shown only 2 bad shots with many other good ones. It seems obvious to me (please correct me if I'm wrong) these 2 bad shots are shown here because you have many bad shots and are frustrated with a $1500 camera!

If the above is correct, it is also obvious to me you have a bad camera. Send it back to the retailer and save yourself the hassles. If you get another one that is performing the same, send it back and get your money back and wait for a fix.

If you absolutely want/need a camera now, that's a tough spot to be in (maybe get a K-x?). But do you really want to own a K-5 that may never have a fix?

[bxf]

With so many posts blaming some sort of user error for these shots, it must be quite irritating that your level of competence can be insulted so bad.

If these are 2 bad shots out of a larger series of good shots, I'd say sure maybe/probably user error, but I suspect you wouldn't have shown only 2 bad shots with many other good ones. It seems obvious to me (please correct me if I'm wrong) these 2 bad shots are shown here because you have many bad shots and are frustrated with a $1500 camera!

If the above is correct, it is also obvious to me you have a bad camera. Send it back to the retailer and save yourself the hassles. If you get another one that is performing the same, send it back and get your money back and wait for a fix.

If you absolutely want/need a camera now, that's a tough spot to be in (maybe get a K-x?). But do you really want to own a K-5 that may never have a fix?

Although I would never claim to be particularly artistically inclined, and I know that I'm no great photographer, I am a reasonable technician. I understand F-stops, shutter speeds, DOF, etc, etc. The pedantic fool whose earlier post in this thread implies that I was submitting these images as examples with any artistic merit can be ignored. Also, I don't think I'm suddenly making the types of errors that I've somehow managed to avoid in the previous 35 years, going back to my old reliable Pentax K2DMD. Your first paragraph is absolutely correct, and I'm waiting to get back home so that I can do some tests using a tripod, try some focus adjustments, and see if any of that helps, or at least see if I will be able to pin things down to some specific, definable situations. Otherwise, your advice about returning the camera will necessarily be taken, since I take many of my shots in the kind of lighting that appears to be problematic for this camera. Pity, since in other respects this camera is truly impressive.

[Zugzwang]

Your pics. are exactly the same results I experienced. Do yourself a favour and return that POS and get a K7. Pentax should rename the K5 to K9 because its such a dog in low light. Hopefully the next camera will address the AF problem.

[Ray Pulley]

Although I would never claim to be particularly artistically inclined, and I know that I'm no great photographer, I am a reasonable technician. I understand F-stops, shutter speeds, DOF, etc, etc. The pedantic fool whose earlier post in this thread implies that I was submitting these images as examples with any artistic merit can be ignored. Also, I don't think I'm suddenly making the types of errors that I've somehow managed to avoid in the previous 35 years, going back to my old reliable Pentax K2DMD. Your first paragraph is absolutely correct, and I'm waiting to get back home so that I can do some tests using a tripod, try some focus adjustments, and see if any of that helps, or at least see if I will be able to pin things down to some specific, definable situations. Otherwise, your advice about returning the camera will necessarily be taken, since I take many of my shots in the kind of lighting that appears to be problematic for this camera. Pity, since in other respects this camera is truly impressive.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/134215-lumolabs-pentax...published.html

Your K5 is likely suffering from the same affliction that apparently affects every K5. It is a front Focus condition as the light level is reduced.

Using a Flash does not help because the auto-focus module works with whatever light is available before the flash goes off.

The only real work-arounds are:

Try and calibrate your lenses to compensate (you can calibrate and adjust your lenses a bit in the menu). This might not work as there may not be enough adjustment and it also might make the camera Back-Focus in higher light. Of course, you could set the adjustment when shooting in low light and set it back when not doing so. A pain, but it might work.

Use Live View focusing, which seems to be spot on. It can be awkward to frame and hold the camera depending upon what lens you have on, but it focuses much better.

It is rumored that Pentax is working on a fix for this issue as the Kr has a similar problem. Note that the rumor has not yet been confirmed by Pentax.

Let's hope that it is true.

Ray

[bxf]

I'm not sure what to think at this stage. There are posts in various threads that indicate that this problem is not unique to the K5, and has existed in earlier models, including the K20D. At the same time, I understand that the K7s do not have this problem. In particular, since apparently not all K5s suffer from this problem, it's impossible to reach a conclusion. Software (firmware) is all the same, and one would assume that the hardware is all the same, so how is it that some units have a problem and others do not? Difficult to understand. A camera that performs well at high ISO but cannot focus in low light, can be viewed as a cruel joke. I'm not going to assume the worst, but I am concerned. Let's wait and see what, if anything, Pentax comes up with as a solution.

[dragonfly]

I tend to use the ae-l button for focusing. That keeps the shutter trigger from re-focusing while I'm waiting for the right shot.

If you are in af-c mode, the lens might be hunting around while you are shooting and you might think you took a sharp pic but you didn't. Consider trying AF-s mode.

[bxf]

I tend to use the ae-l button for focusing. That keeps the shutter trigger from re-focusing while I'm waiting for the right shot.

If you are in af-c mode, the lens might be hunting around while you are shooting and you might think you took a sharp pic but you didn't. Consider trying AF-s mode.

Thanks, but I was using AF-Sm and focus was confirmed,

[Stratman]

I think what you need to do is this...Take a LOT more photos of her, and post them here so we can all try to figure out what the problem is........

[30v iPentax]

No mistä kiikastaa.

[awaldram]

Perhaps I'm missing something they appeared to me to be soft due to resizing without sharpening.

I've applied the same PP I would to any reduced size images of mine.

The left hand image is slightly front focused (incorrect target selected) I suspect @f1.4 and my default profile that isn't geared fro portrait has overshaprened.

[Ray Pulley]

Perhaps I'm missing something they appeared to me to be soft due to resizing without sharpening.

I've applied the same PP I would to any reduced size images of mine.

The left hand image is slightly front focused (incorrect target selected) I suspect @f1.4 and my default profile that isn't geared fro portrait has overshaprened.

The handle on the door to the right of the picture on the left is clearly the zone where the camera focused and it is well in front of the subject. I fail to see how the wrong target was selected with the subject taking up most of the center of the frame, but maybe the OP could chime in and explain how he focused on the door handle at the right edge of the frame.

With no foreground, you cannot tell if there is signifcant FF on the right-hand picture or not.

Either way, as you say, the sharpening you applied to try and save the image is way over-done IMO, and looks terrible, also IMO.

Ray

[awaldram]

The handle on the door to the right of the picture on the left is clearly the zone where the camera focused and it is well in front of the subject.Ray

Follow the door fame down to the floor and then use the floor line to keep you straight the door handle you mention bisects the ladies feet and is roughly in line with her knees.

She is stood stooped slightly backwards.

The shot is taken from 4-5ft and @f1.4 DoF is just under 1 inch !!
Even slight decentering in the lens would produce and image that looks like this.

I fail to see how the wrong target was selected with the subject taking up most of the center of the frame,

I was being polite to the ladies dignity it is obvious on what the camera was focussed (look straight up from the agreed focal plane )

but maybe the OP could chime in and explain how he focused on the door handle at the right edge of the frame.,

He didn't it happens to be the same distance from the lens as her feet,knees and other appendages.

With no foreground, you cannot tell if there is signifcant FF on the right-hand picture or not.

Either way, as you say, the sharpening you applied to try and save the image is way over-done IMO, and looks terrible, also IMO.,

You can always tell if and image is focussed or just blurred.

Yes the sharpening was overdone as I used my normal profile for raw conversion and I always shoot low light with strong post NR so additional sharpening is required.

Yep it look terrible (especially the left one) but does show where the focal plane of the lens was and I see no FF in either image.

I could make comment on the IQ of the lens (left) but the is obvius to see and well know the fa50 doesn't cut it at f1.4 for short range portraits f5.6 or f8 would have been appropriate here.

[bxf]

...for not responding to any of the posts, which have been helpful and certainly appreciated. As I mentioned previously, I was away on holiday, with limited internet access and limited time and facilities (e.g. no tripod) for doing any valid tests. I just got back home after a very long day traveling. It is possible that I have neglected to take into consideration just how shallow the DOF is at the apertures used for the two samples I posted. Over the next couple of days I intend to take some test shots under more controlled conditions, using various lenses and lighting conditions. Let's see what the tests will show.

[Parallax]

Here it is after using Focus Magic. OOF blur 1pxl radius, 75%