Real photos (not test shots) showing the "string of pearls" stains?

Rainer Dynszis · 12-07-2010, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by MrPetkus

That is unacceptable. I assume you're initiating a replacement?

I remembered this picture as an illustration for obnoxious smudges visible in "real" pictures as requested by the OP, but fortunately the camera isn't mine.

Thanks for the concern, anyway

wll · 12-07-2010, 03:12 PM

For me, that camera would be going back so fast it would never touch the ground, that shows up bigtime !

wll

Originally posted by Rainer Dynszis

While no "SOP" in the narrower sense, these here are supposedly stains that are impossible to get rid off. Doesn't look like dust to me either.

johnmflores · 12-07-2010, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Rainer Dynszis

I remembered this picture as an illustration for obnoxious smudges visible in "real" pictures as requested by the OP, but fortunately the camera isn't mine.

Thanks for the concern, anyway

I'm chatting with the owner of said camera on Flickr:

Flickr: Discussing Dirty sensor! in Pentax K-5 Fan Club

This is not a string-of-pearls example, but it is a real world issue. Sounds like it is being handled under warranty.

wll · 12-07-2010, 03:14 PM

Yes, I agree !

BTW How is the DS working out ;- )

wll

Originally posted by telfish

You are right though some have reported it being visible at f11, the exception is macro photography where you tend to stop down to f22 or more in order to get better DOF. These tend to be a bit specialized in nature and the subjects tend to have a lot of contrast and detail which may mask the problem.

I am guessing if you took a light colored flower picture at these apertures they would show up.

The issue is though having spent $1500 on a camera do you expect it to have non cleanable dust sandwiched in the sensor array? I don't.

secateurs · 12-07-2010, 03:57 PM

I keep hearing how the "string of pearls" stain will be visible and problematic in real-life macro photography, but no-one has yet posted an example.

What gives?

**NaClH2O** · 12-07-2010, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by secateurs

I keep hearing how the "string of pearls" stain will be visible and problematic in real-life macro photography, but no-one has yet posted an example.

What gives?

For most of us today (12/7/10) is the first time we have heard of this.
There aren't a lot of K-5s out there
There are even less K-5 owners willing or have time or some other reason not to do macro

Why are you expecting a huge amount of evidence after only one day?

NaCl(sheesh!)H2O

johnmflores · 12-07-2010, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by NaClH2O

For most of us today (12/7/10) is the first time we have heard of this.
There aren't a lot of K-5s out there
There are even less K-5 owners willing or have time or some other reason not to do macro

Why are you expecting a huge amount of evidence after only one day?

NaCl(sheesh!)H2O

It will be interesting to see what photos show up here over the next week or so. Hopefully it will help afflicted owners what situations they are likely to see the problem appear in...

JayBee · 12-07-2010, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by johnmflores

I'm in the market for a K-5 (or Panny GH-2, but that's another story) and want to get a sense for how the "string of pearls" stains is affecting photos.

No test shots please - there are other threads for that.

Real videos (not test videos) demonstrating the impact of the "string of pearl" stains appreciated as well.

Thanks.

As requested. All shots with DA 12-24mm (no, it's not the lens. Also shows up with my others). All shots at 12mm, f22, ISO 80-100 Bright, sunny day. I could have gone to larger aperture to make the 'string of pearls' vanish, but thought - why? I may not need that option, but I did pay for it.

Based on these shots, I have decided that I will send the camera for replacement. I was undecided up til now. The flaw is much more apparent in the original, full-size images.

MrPetkus · 12-07-2010, 06:37 PM

That is indeed the SOP.

Originally posted by JayBee

As requested. All shots with DA 12-24mm (no, it's not the lens. Also shows up with my others). All shots at 12mm, f22, ISO 80-100 Bright, sunny day. I could have gone to larger aperture to make the 'string of pearls' vanish, but thought - why? I may not need that option, but I did pay for it.

Based on these shots, I have decided that I will send the camera for replacement. I was undecided up til now. The flaw is much more apparent in the original, full-size images.

johnmflores · 12-07-2010, 07:32 PM

Thanks for sharing JayBee.

secateurs · 12-07-2010, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by JayBee

Based on these shots, I have decided that I will send the camera for replacement. I was undecided up til now. The flaw is much more apparent in the original, full-size images.

What are you talking about? That's a UFO, not a stain on your sensor!

Oh, and Saltwater, has it really only been 1 day?!?! It seems like forever! Ok, i'll be patient.

Zav · 12-08-2010, 12:15 AM

Thx for sharing JayBee.

simico · 12-08-2010, 05:20 AM

Originally posted by telfish

I am guessing if you took a light colored flower picture at these apertures they would show up.

They do show up. This is exactly how I discovered it, it appeared in all of my flower macro shots. I'll check at home if I still have the pics, I didn't bother to develop them (and deleted most).

simico · 12-08-2010, 12:51 PM

Ok, not so good shots, but this is what I've found with a quick search. Cropped the center of the frame where the 2 rows of stain spots are (the bottom row is stronger and easier to notice). Each pic shows a downsized to 33% size crop of the center and the same crop in 100%.
First pic, second pic.

On white petal macro shots the spot rows were so disturbing that I deleted the pics. At that time I though it was just some weird pattern of normal dust that I would blow off later and re-take shots...

mokey · 12-08-2010, 03:06 PM

Mine's got it too. Pentax Canada hasn't gotten back to me yet, but my retailer will help me out if Pentax doesn't step up. Here is a shot with the "pearls" visible plus a crop. Their above the branch hanging over the mountain. Can't figure out how to add arrows.

12-07-2010, 04:04 PM	#21
NaClH2O Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bronx NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,631	Originally posted by secateurs I keep hearing how the "string of pearls" stain will be visible and problematic in real-life macro photography, but no-one has yet posted an example. What gives? For most of us today (12/7/10) is the first time we have heard of this. There aren't a lot of K-5s out there There are even less K-5 owners willing or have time or some other reason not to do macro Why are you expecting a huge amount of evidence after only one day? NaCl(sheesh!)H2O

12-07-2010, 04:53 PM	#22
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361 Original Poster	Originally posted by NaClH2O For most of us today (12/7/10) is the first time we have heard of this. There aren't a lot of K-5s out there There are even less K-5 owners willing or have time or some other reason not to do macro Why are you expecting a huge amount of evidence after only one day? NaCl(sheesh!)H2O It will be interesting to see what photos show up here over the next week or so. Hopefully it will help afflicted owners what situations they are likely to see the problem appear in...

12-07-2010, 06:28 PM	#23
JayBee Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Manitoba Photos: Gallery Posts: 119	Originally posted by johnmflores I'm in the market for a K-5 (or Panny GH-2, but that's another story) and want to get a sense for how the "string of pearls" stains is affecting photos. No test shots please - there are other threads for that. Real videos (not test videos) demonstrating the impact of the "string of pearl" stains appreciated as well. Thanks. As requested. All shots with DA 12-24mm (no, it's not the lens. Also shows up with my others). All shots at 12mm, f22, ISO 80-100 Bright, sunny day. I could have gone to larger aperture to make the 'string of pearls' vanish, but thought - why? I may not need that option, but I did pay for it. Based on these shots, I have decided that I will send the camera for replacement. I was undecided up til now. The flaw is much more apparent in the original, full-size images. Attached Images Last edited by JayBee; 01-19-2011 at 06:58 PM.

12-08-2010, 03:06 PM	#30
mokey Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: BC Posts: 219	Mine's got it too. Pentax Canada hasn't gotten back to me yet, but my retailer will help me out if Pentax doesn't step up. Here is a shot with the "pearls" visible plus a crop. Their above the branch hanging over the mountain. Can't figure out how to add arrows. Attached Images

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Showing "Lens" Info in EXIF Data	twokatmew	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	4	02-24-2010 01:27 PM
"Test" shots with my new DA*60-250 f4	Lance B	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	06-18-2009 12:58 AM
Vivitar "Series1" 70-210 f/3.5 Test shots	hinman	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	02-06-2008 09:04 PM
First "real" photos taken with the K100D	seymop	Post Your Photos!	2	11-28-2007 07:19 PM
String stabilizer "monopod"	ve2vfd	General Talk	3	10-16-2007 07:20 PM

12-07-2010, 03:00 PM	#16
Rainer Dynszis Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 27	Originally posted by MrPetkus That is unacceptable. I assume you're initiating a replacement? I remembered this picture as an illustration for obnoxious smudges visible in "real" pictures as requested by the OP, but fortunately the camera isn't mine. Thanks for the concern, anyway

12-07-2010, 03:12 PM	#17
wll Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Mission Hills, CA Posts: 773	For me, that camera would be going back so fast it would never touch the ground, that shows up bigtime ! wll Originally posted by Rainer Dynszis While no "SOP" in the narrower sense, these here are supposedly stains that are impossible to get rid off. Doesn't look like dust to me either.

12-07-2010, 03:14 PM	#18
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361 Original Poster	Originally posted by Rainer Dynszis I remembered this picture as an illustration for obnoxious smudges visible in "real" pictures as requested by the OP, but fortunately the camera isn't mine. Thanks for the concern, anyway I'm chatting with the owner of said camera on Flickr: Flickr: Discussing Dirty sensor! in Pentax K-5 Fan Club This is not a string-of-pearls example, but it is a real world issue. Sounds like it is being handled under warranty.

12-07-2010, 03:14 PM	#19
wll Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Mission Hills, CA Posts: 773	Yes, I agree ! BTW How is the DS working out ;- ) wll Originally posted by telfish You are right though some have reported it being visible at f11, the exception is macro photography where you tend to stop down to f22 or more in order to get better DOF. These tend to be a bit specialized in nature and the subjects tend to have a lot of contrast and detail which may mask the problem. I am guessing if you took a light colored flower picture at these apertures they would show up. The issue is though having spent $1500 on a camera do you expect it to have non cleanable dust sandwiched in the sensor array? I don't.

12-07-2010, 03:57 PM	#20
secateurs Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Adelaide, Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 250	I keep hearing how the "string of pearls" stain will be visible and problematic in real-life macro photography, but no-one has yet posted an example. What gives?

12-07-2010, 06:37 PM	#24
MrPetkus Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 387	That is indeed the SOP. Originally posted by JayBee As requested. All shots with DA 12-24mm (no, it's not the lens. Also shows up with my others). All shots at 12mm, f22, ISO 80-100 Bright, sunny day. I could have gone to larger aperture to make the 'string of pearls' vanish, but thought - why? I may not need that option, but I did pay for it. Based on these shots, I have decided that I will send the camera for replacement. I was undecided up til now. The flaw is much more apparent in the original, full-size images.

12-07-2010, 07:32 PM	#25
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361 Original Poster	Thanks for sharing JayBee.

12-07-2010, 09:14 PM	#26
secateurs Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Adelaide, Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 250	Originally posted by JayBee Based on these shots, I have decided that I will send the camera for replacement. I was undecided up til now. The flaw is much more apparent in the original, full-size images. What are you talking about? That's a UFO, not a stain on your sensor! Oh, and Saltwater, has it really only been 1 day?!?! It seems like forever! Ok, i'll be patient.

12-08-2010, 12:15 AM	#27
Zav Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,371	Thx for sharing JayBee.

12-08-2010, 05:20 AM	#28
simico Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Budapest Posts: 821	Originally posted by telfish I am guessing if you took a light colored flower picture at these apertures they would show up. They do show up. This is exactly how I discovered it, it appeared in all of my flower macro shots. I'll check at home if I still have the pics, I didn't bother to develop them (and deleted most).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-08-2010, 12:51 PM	#29
simico Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Budapest Posts: 821	Ok, not so good shots, but this is what I've found with a quick search. Cropped the center of the frame where the 2 rows of stain spots are (the bottom row is stronger and easier to notice). Each pic shows a downsized to 33% size crop of the center and the same crop in 100%. First pic, second pic. On white petal macro shots the spot rows were so disturbing that I deleted the pics. At that time I though it was just some weird pattern of normal dust that I would blow off later and re-take shots...