Relevant news re malfunctioning AF under artificial light

Urkeldaedalus · 01-13-2011, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by bjan

Dear Jolepp , In case a person uses the camera only in daylight the relevance is not there at all. It would be the same though to have the following situation:

You buy a JEEP but with this JEEP you can only drive on tarmac. In case you go offroad your car will get stuck !!!!!!!
How many people do you think will buy this JEEP ? For most of the consumers of JEEPS these days the off road capabilities are not very relevant but you want to KNOW that it can take you throug terain in case it is needed.
A K5 owner wants to be sure that in case he or she takes a pic under artificial light with wide apertures that the focus is correct as the camera is valued as a "king of the dark" in APSC size by us photographers . Wide apertures and low light go together very well as you know.
I don`t know why your postings are all directed towards "softening" the issue and not in forcing PENTAX to act towards an UNACCEPTABLE issue. Maybe you should put your tamron 17-55 once more on your K5 at 2.8 aperture and shoot a bit in your living room or wherever the artificial light is on. I bet with you that with this aperture hardly any of your pics are in focus . (having the settings unchanged compared to proper daylight shooting)

I want to ask you kindly you being a Moderator to help us shooters that experience high relevance with the issue to bring it towards PENTAX attention rather than trying to smooth the matter.

Using your jeep analogy. Isn't there at some point as a motorist where you have to accept the limitations of your vehicle in reference to what terrain you're going to drive on? No matter how good a vehicle is, there are going to be some places you can't go. If you insist on only driving in the worst mud, you are going to get stuck. And when you do get stuck, does that mean the vehicle is terribly flawed all the time, or that it just couldn't handle that particular mud?

Now it seems as if Pentax has indicated that there is a problem under certain conditions, and they are working on it. I think this is heartening news. Where I think we differ is that in my view point this fix would just make an already very good camera better. From your view point, it sounds like it would make a terribly flawed camera usable. Half empty versus half full.

In reference to reporting on the problem, I had reported previously that I thought my camera may have had problem focusing in a dark meeting room lit by tungsten light. I covered another meeting there a few nights ago and I can report that the same lens and camera combo performed very well -- it appears that I had not screwed the DA*200 on correctly, causing it to malfunction. That was at f/2.8, though, so it sounds as if that's not wide enough (aperture wise) to notice the problem either way.

Last edited by Urkeldaedalus; 01-13-2011 at 10:05 AM.

bjan · 01-13-2011, 11:01 AM

He Rupert, Very nice Jeeep you have there ! Keep it in shape as long as you can because the older the more wanted in that concours state !

Urkeldaedalus .... in case your problem with FF with K5 under artificial light is solved by turning your lens a bit more, than this miraculous movement should be tried by all of us. (ha ha ha...)
You say that PENTAX seem to have indicated that there is a problem. I hope so that this will lead to a solution that makes a flawed camera a TOP/ BEST / ULTIMATE camera in my eyes. But FLAWED it is as it is my friend even with lenses screwed on well.

Tommot1965 · 01-13-2011, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by Urkeldaedalus

That was at f/2.8, though, so it sounds as if that's not wide enough (aperture wise) to notice the problem either way.

yes it is...but it will depend greatly on the DOF that extends around the Subject, if you have a very limited DOF { 40mm and under} you will see it

the short comings of the K5 in Low light can be overcome, if your prepared to do that..keep the body..if not don't,

reading this thread, and the last { the one that was closed} Id have to say most are keeping theirs...

what alternatives do you have in this price range...The D7000 has its issues to, FF/BF, over exposure. etc .... sometimes its case of " better the devil you know",,not a perfect solution I know...but last time I looked not much in this world is

Wheatfield · 01-13-2011, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by bjan

Dear Jolepp , In case a person uses the camera only in daylight the relevance is not there at all. It would be the same though to have the following situation:

You buy a JEEP but with this JEEP you can only drive on tarmac. In case you go offroad your car will get stuck !!!!!!!
How many people do you think will buy this JEEP ? For most of the consumers of JEEPS these days the off road capabilities are not very relevant but you want to KNOW that it can take you throug terain in case it is needed.

Perhaps as a shooter, you shouldn't continue to try to whip up hysteria.
Your comparison is laughably invalid.
Had I not promised the mods to maintain a polite level of discourse, I would have much stronger words regarding how inane, insane and silly your comparison is.
You started this thread with, apparently, some intention to be relevant, you need to keep up your end of the deal.

azimuthal · 01-13-2011, 05:29 PM

When someone identifies a problem with a product they are not the enemy. I wish people would stop saying it is not a big deal, it IS a big deal, comparable cameras do not seem to suffer from this issue. Although if they did, I imagine the manufacturer would at least acknowledge it.

filorp · 01-13-2011, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

Your comparison is laughably invalid.

Its just metaphore and as any metaphore is able to catch just a little of reality exagarating or diminishing in some moments, depends what was supposed to be told over. We bought a camera with ability to take a picture in pitch black but we cant take an advantage of it with AF ability. We just bought toy jeep, its still jeep, mabe even very good but ''as if''.

falconeye · 01-13-2011, 06:19 PM

The thread was created for relevant news.

I only see 66 off topic posts here. Incl. the OP which wasn't a relevant news either.

I am sure that any relevant news should it ever emerge wull be pisted elsewhere.

- unsubsribed

Wheatfield · 01-13-2011, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by filorp

Its just metaphore and as any metaphore is able to catch just a little of reality exagarating or diminishing in some moments, depends what was supposed to be told over. We bought a camera with ability to take a picture in pitch black but we cant take an advantage of it with AF ability. We just bought toy jeep, its still jeep, mabe even very good but ''as if''.

A metaphor should have a basis in reality. A better metaphor would have been you can't drive your Jeep off the tarmac and submerged in water unless you add a snorkel to the air intake.
Even if they are able to make the camera perform exactly to the claimed specification (100% accurate AF down to -1 EV), you will still be able to make usable hand held pictures 2-4 EV lower than that.
And another whiny thread will be started because of it.
I'm with Falk on this one. Another useless thread going nowhere.

Tommot1965 · 01-13-2011, 07:41 PM

Gee. I can see this thread heading to the "I'm closed" bin !!

Rupert · 01-13-2011, 09:21 PM

I plead guilty...but I did get in a shot of my Jeep! That was worth something.....more than this thread has turned out to offer..........
Best Regards!

bjan · 01-14-2011, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

I would have much stronger words regarding how inane, insane and silly your comparison is.

I am with the posters that conclude that several postings are off topic BUT.... it seems that there is a certain need to express dissapointment / emotion and hope about the issue concerned. This is also very relevant for many of us. No one ever forces you to enter this thread nor participate.
Hope that for some other posters the issue and the RELEVANT emotions and facts around this are valid enough to continue this thread.
I ask the administrator to keep it going unless to many people are going to use words like
Wheatfield is using in the qoute. It is maybe better to skip posters out of the forum rather than threads. To use the word INSANE , INSANE does not fit this forum in my opinion.
I wish everybode a good place to express his or her feelings about the FF issue and it seems like this platform is well needed according to the amount of postings all together worldwide on the internet.

Gimbal · 01-14-2011, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

Even if they are able to make the camera perform exactly to the claimed specification (100% accurate AF down to -1 EV), you will still be able to make usable hand held pictures 2-4 EV lower than that.
And another whiny thread will be started because of it.

No, expecting the top of the line camera to AF at EV4 is not being unreasonable, (especially when they claim that it does AF to EV-1). This problem needs to be poked at until they fix it, pretending it doesn't exist is not a solution.

Tommot1965 · 01-14-2011, 02:02 AM

Guys

I think the best bit of advise I can give, is to wait until the next firmware update before we get too out of hand.

I think these threads have served their intended purpose, and that's to inform us { K5 owners} that we are not alone with out faulty device , and to offer useful remedies for " here and Now" use...
its also { hopefully} bought it to Pentax's notice and they are { hopefully} working on a solution for us.

I see no useful purpose in slagging off each other , all that does is make the PF a place of division and unfriendly to visit

Bjan

I don't think Jolepp was trying to smooth things over. to me he seem just as interested as you in finding a solution and getting pentax to offer us a Fix...so IMHO you were off in your assumption there..

Wheaty

Id say your just as interested in a fix...but Id say you have enough experience to work through these teething issues. and find it hard to accept that others cant.....you have to realise that some of us are quite new to this and cant always see things as you do...I for one was ready to get shot of my K5 once I found this issue...but after educating myself a bit better,, I find that I will be able to still shoot in Low light as long as Im wary of DOF limits...So for me its turned from being a pile of crap..to a very good camera, with some teething issues...

Falcon....you crack me up ole son...Id love to have a beer with you...we are very very different streets , but Im sure we would get along...take it easy mate, and keep testing for us..

be cool guys..lifes too short..

bjan · 01-14-2011, 02:19 AM

Thanks Tommot. My intention is indeed not to create a hysteria but to bring the issue towards PENTAX by letting them hear a far cry for support. Everybody has the same intention but chooses an other way to express this and I hope we have all contributed to the solution in a way.

Pentax already promised me a revised K5 for free with FW 1.03 next week because I tributed so well to bringing up the problem hence making their products better ! ( this is a joke Wheatfield so don`t jump on me again please)

jolepp · 01-14-2011, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by bjan

... it seems that there is a certain need to express dissapointment / emotion and hope about the issue concerned. This is also very relevant for many of us.

I quite agree: it is quite a letdown to discover your top-of-the-line K-5 has a problem which the "basic" k-x didn't have, in particular when it interferes with the key strength of your new pride&joy. IMO forums like this are about sharing the experience as well as the relevant facts :-)

01-13-2011, 05:38 PM	#66
filorp Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Aberdeen Scotland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 398	Originally posted by Wheatfield Your comparison is laughably invalid. Its just metaphore and as any metaphore is able to catch just a little of reality exagarating or diminishing in some moments, depends what was supposed to be told over. We bought a camera with ability to take a picture in pitch black but we cant take an advantage of it with AF ability. We just bought toy jeep, its still jeep, mabe even very good but ''as if''. Last edited by filorp; 01-13-2011 at 05:46 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Help! K7 malfunctioning	samski_1	Pentax DSLR Discussion	9	07-11-2010 03:24 PM
Probably not relevant or welcome here	climbertrev	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	4	05-24-2010 05:15 AM
camera based sensorcleaning how relevant is it.	hein	Pentax DSLR Discussion	13	09-13-2009 12:26 PM
Light fluff but news.. sort of	jeffkrol	Pentax News and Rumors	8	12-30-2008 06:30 PM

01-13-2011, 09:58 AM	#61
Urkeldaedalus Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Iowa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,369	Originally posted by bjan Dear Jolepp , In case a person uses the camera only in daylight the relevance is not there at all. It would be the same though to have the following situation: You buy a JEEP but with this JEEP you can only drive on tarmac. In case you go offroad your car will get stuck !!!!!!! How many people do you think will buy this JEEP ? For most of the consumers of JEEPS these days the off road capabilities are not very relevant but you want to KNOW that it can take you throug terain in case it is needed. A K5 owner wants to be sure that in case he or she takes a pic under artificial light with wide apertures that the focus is correct as the camera is valued as a "king of the dark" in APSC size by us photographers . Wide apertures and low light go together very well as you know. I don`t know why your postings are all directed towards "softening" the issue and not in forcing PENTAX to act towards an UNACCEPTABLE issue. Maybe you should put your tamron 17-55 once more on your K5 at 2.8 aperture and shoot a bit in your living room or wherever the artificial light is on. I bet with you that with this aperture hardly any of your pics are in focus . (having the settings unchanged compared to proper daylight shooting) I want to ask you kindly you being a Moderator to help us shooters that experience high relevance with the issue to bring it towards PENTAX attention rather than trying to smooth the matter. Using your jeep analogy. Isn't there at some point as a motorist where you have to accept the limitations of your vehicle in reference to what terrain you're going to drive on? No matter how good a vehicle is, there are going to be some places you can't go. If you insist on only driving in the worst mud, you are going to get stuck. And when you do get stuck, does that mean the vehicle is terribly flawed all the time, or that it just couldn't handle that particular mud? Now it seems as if Pentax has indicated that there is a problem under certain conditions, and they are working on it. I think this is heartening news. Where I think we differ is that in my view point this fix would just make an already very good camera better. From your view point, it sounds like it would make a terribly flawed camera usable. Half empty versus half full. In reference to reporting on the problem, I had reported previously that I thought my camera may have had problem focusing in a dark meeting room lit by tungsten light. I covered another meeting there a few nights ago and I can report that the same lens and camera combo performed very well -- it appears that I had not screwed the DA200 on correctly, causing it to malfunction. That was at f/2.8, though, so it sounds as if that's not wide enough (aperture wise) to notice the problem either way. Last edited by Urkeldaedalus; 01-13-2011 at 10:05 AM.*

01-13-2011, 11:01 AM	#62
bjan Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 116 Original Poster	He Rupert, Very nice Jeeep you have there ! Keep it in shape as long as you can because the older the more wanted in that concours state ! Urkeldaedalus .... in case your problem with FF with K5 under artificial light is solved by turning your lens a bit more, than this miraculous movement should be tried by all of us. (ha ha ha...) You say that PENTAX seem to have indicated that there is a problem. I hope so that this will lead to a solution that makes a flawed camera a TOP/ BEST / ULTIMATE camera in my eyes. But FLAWED it is as it is my friend even with lenses screwed on well.

01-13-2011, 01:28 PM	#63
Tommot1965 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Perth Western Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,026	Originally posted by Urkeldaedalus That was at f/2.8, though, so it sounds as if that's not wide enough (aperture wise) to notice the problem either way. yes it is...but it will depend greatly on the DOF that extends around the Subject, if you have a very limited DOF { 40mm and under} you will see it the short comings of the K5 in Low light can be overcome, if your prepared to do that..keep the body..if not don't, reading this thread, and the last { the one that was closed} Id have to say most are keeping theirs... what alternatives do you have in this price range...The D7000 has its issues to, FF/BF, over exposure. etc .... sometimes its case of " better the devil you know",,not a perfect solution I know...but last time I looked not much in this world is

01-13-2011, 04:47 PM	#64
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,987	Originally posted by bjan Dear Jolepp , In case a person uses the camera only in daylight the relevance is not there at all. It would be the same though to have the following situation: You buy a JEEP but with this JEEP you can only drive on tarmac. In case you go offroad your car will get stuck !!!!!!! How many people do you think will buy this JEEP ? For most of the consumers of JEEPS these days the off road capabilities are not very relevant but you want to KNOW that it can take you throug terain in case it is needed. Perhaps as a shooter, you shouldn't continue to try to whip up hysteria. Your comparison is laughably invalid. Had I not promised the mods to maintain a polite level of discourse, I would have much stronger words regarding how inane, insane and silly your comparison is. You started this thread with, apparently, some intention to be relevant, you need to keep up your end of the deal.

01-13-2011, 05:29 PM	#65
azimuthal Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: reno Posts: 70	When someone identifies a problem with a product they are not the enemy. I wish people would stop saying it is not a big deal, it IS a big deal, comparable cameras do not seem to suffer from this issue. Although if they did, I imagine the manufacturer would at least acknowledge it.

01-13-2011, 06:19 PM	#67
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	The thread was created for relevant news. I only see 66 off topic posts here. Incl. the OP which wasn't a relevant news either. I am sure that any relevant news should it ever emerge wull be pisted elsewhere. - unsubsribed

01-13-2011, 06:34 PM	#68
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,987	Originally posted by filorp Its just metaphore and as any metaphore is able to catch just a little of reality exagarating or diminishing in some moments, depends what was supposed to be told over. We bought a camera with ability to take a picture in pitch black but we cant take an advantage of it with AF ability. We just bought toy jeep, its still jeep, mabe even very good but ''as if''. A metaphor should have a basis in reality. A better metaphor would have been you can't drive your Jeep off the tarmac and submerged in water unless you add a snorkel to the air intake. Even if they are able to make the camera perform exactly to the claimed specification (100% accurate AF down to -1 EV), you will still be able to make usable hand held pictures 2-4 EV lower than that. And another whiny thread will be started because of it. I'm with Falk on this one. Another useless thread going nowhere.

01-13-2011, 07:41 PM	#69
Tommot1965 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Perth Western Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,026	Gee. I can see this thread heading to the "I'm closed" bin !!

01-13-2011, 09:21 PM	#70
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	I plead guilty...but I did get in a shot of my Jeep! That was worth something.....more than this thread has turned out to offer.......... Best Regards!

01-14-2011, 12:00 AM	#71
bjan Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 116 Original Poster	Originally posted by Wheatfield I would have much stronger words regarding how inane, insane and silly your comparison is. I am with the posters that conclude that several postings are off topic BUT.... it seems that there is a certain need to express dissapointment / emotion and hope about the issue concerned. This is also very relevant for many of us. No one ever forces you to enter this thread nor participate. Hope that for some other posters the issue and the RELEVANT emotions and facts around this are valid enough to continue this thread. I ask the administrator to keep it going unless to many people are going to use words like Wheatfield is using in the qoute. It is maybe better to skip posters out of the forum rather than threads. To use the word INSANE , INSANE does not fit this forum in my opinion. I wish everybode a good place to express his or her feelings about the FF issue and it seems like this platform is well needed according to the amount of postings all together worldwide on the internet.

01-14-2011, 12:40 AM	#72
Gimbal Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,106	Originally posted by Wheatfield Even if they are able to make the camera perform exactly to the claimed specification (100% accurate AF down to -1 EV), you will still be able to make usable hand held pictures 2-4 EV lower than that. And another whiny thread will be started because of it. No, expecting the top of the line camera to AF at EV4 is not being unreasonable, (especially when they claim that it does AF to EV-1). This problem needs to be poked at until they fix it, pretending it doesn't exist is not a solution.

01-14-2011, 02:02 AM	#73
Tommot1965 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Perth Western Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,026	Guys I think the best bit of advise I can give, is to wait until the next firmware update before we get too out of hand. I think these threads have served their intended purpose, and that's to inform us { K5 owners} that we are not alone with out faulty device , and to offer useful remedies for " here and Now" use... its also { hopefully} bought it to Pentax's notice and they are { hopefully} working on a solution for us. I see no useful purpose in slagging off each other , all that does is make the PF a place of division and unfriendly to visit Bjan I don't think Jolepp was trying to smooth things over. to me he seem just as interested as you in finding a solution and getting pentax to offer us a Fix...so IMHO you were off in your assumption there.. Wheaty Id say your just as interested in a fix...but Id say you have enough experience to work through these teething issues. and find it hard to accept that others cant.....you have to realise that some of us are quite new to this and cant always see things as you do...I for one was ready to get shot of my K5 once I found this issue...but after educating myself a bit better,, I find that I will be able to still shoot in Low light as long as Im wary of DOF limits...So for me its turned from being a pile of crap..to a very good camera, with some teething issues... Falcon....you crack me up ole son...Id love to have a beer with you...we are very very different streets , but Im sure we would get along...take it easy mate, and keep testing for us.. be cool guys..lifes too short..

01-14-2011, 02:19 AM	#74
bjan Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 116 Original Poster	Thanks Tommot. My intention is indeed not to create a hysteria but to bring the issue towards PENTAX by letting them hear a far cry for support. Everybody has the same intention but chooses an other way to express this and I hope we have all contributed to the solution in a way. Pentax already promised me a revised K5 for free with FW 1.03 next week because I tributed so well to bringing up the problem hence making their products better ! ( this is a joke Wheatfield so don`t jump on me again please)

01-14-2011, 06:59 AM	#75
jolepp Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Finland Photos: Albums Posts: 3,196	Originally posted by bjan ... it seems that there is a certain need to express dissapointment / emotion and hope about the issue concerned. This is also very relevant for many of us. I quite agree: it is quite a letdown to discover your top-of-the-line K-5 has a problem which the "basic" k-x didn't have, in particular when it interferes with the key strength of your new pride&joy. IMO forums like this are about sharing the experience as well as the relevant facts :-)