Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-25-2011, 05:05 AM   #16
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,955
QuoteOriginally posted by PentaxPoke Quote
A "tad" slower? At EV3, it is 60% slower than the entry-level T2i! Pentax seems to have only improved the AF speed over the K-7 by about 12%

Again, time for SAFOX to be upgraded.
You are right in terms of relative numbers, but the actual difference is ~.2 seconds at EV3. To me, that says that it is just as likely that the differences are lens related as due to differences in auto focus modules.

03-03-2011, 08:10 PM   #17
Loyal Site Supporter
eaglem's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 25,685
Got an email from Sony today which I found interesting, here is the part of most interest:

This month, don't miss out on your chance to get 15%* off a range of selected accessories available to all MySony members. Choose from some of our most popular product categories including VAIO, Handycam, Cyber-shot and more! Hurry, offer ends 31st March, 2011.

Also featured is the Sony 55 DSLR, which has just been awarded the prestigious "2010 Camera of the Year" by Popular Photography. To discover more and experience firsthand the incredible features this innovative camera has to offer, check it out online or visit one of our Sony Centre stores today.
03-03-2011, 09:23 PM   #18
Veteran Member
mtroute's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Portland OR
Posts: 532
QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote
It's interesting that we have quite a few reviews now and none of them have raised the issue of FF in low light conditions.

The K-5 even wins the battle against it's peers and the comment was the AF was "speedy even in low light situations":
Battle of the Flagships: Olympus E-5, Pentax K5, Canon 7D, Nikon D300s: Which is Better? at The Phoblographer

The detailed review even comments on the reviewer spending a whole day a wedding shooting in low light conditions without a single misfocused picture:
Field Review: The Pentax K-5 (Day 3) at The Phoblographer

I must admit, I haven't seen a single instance of my K-5 FF in real life low light conditions either - apart from running jolepp's three batteries test which does show a few mm of FF at around EV 1.

Obviously some people have had problems, and judging by the photos they have posted, quite severe problems.

Wonder what the issue could be - it certainly does not seem to be affecting *all* units, or maybe reviewers get a specially hand selected unit that's free of defects? :-)
You mean that anecdotal evidence reported on a Pentax forum by those who have problems not by those that don't have problems may not be representative of the actual data? Shocking!
03-04-2011, 12:07 AM   #19
Pentaxian
awaldram's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hampshire
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 720
QuoteOriginally posted by PentaxPoke Quote
A "tad" slower? At EV3, it is 60% slower than the entry-level T2i! Pentax seems to have only improved the AF speed over the K-7 by about 12%

Again, time for SAFOX to be upgraded.
Given this is the same magazine that copied its k10d figures and published them as the k20d results I would not base any ideas on what they have written.

The most interesting and accurate thing in the web version is you can buy Air jordan(1-24)shoes for $30

Lab Test: Pentax K-5 | Photography - PopPhoto.com Offers Camera Reviews and Exclusive Photo Tips

03-04-2011, 08:46 AM   #20
Veteran Member
Smeggypants's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,536
QuoteOriginally posted by mtroute Quote
You mean that anecdotal evidence reported on a Pentax forum by those who have problems not by those that don't have problems may not be representative of the actual data? Shocking!
1] the anecdotal evidence ( or lack of it ) presented by reviewers has no more weight than the anecdotal evidence presented by someone on a forum.

2] in fact if we are talking numbers then the amount of people reporting the now proven FF fault exceeds the number of reviews by a huge magnitude.
03-04-2011, 09:17 AM   #21
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,769
QuoteQuote:
2] in fact if we are talking numbers then the amount of people reporting the now proven FF fault exceeds the number of reviews by a huge magnitude.
The difference being, the people on the forum are comparing the camera to some idealized notion of what the camera should be, while the reviewer in at least one instance is comparing real cameras from other manufacturers, all of whom have had some issues with front focusing. As well with the focussing speed, they compared actual use not lab tests, and didn't find a lot of difference. (Insert your favorite dissertation on the value of lab tests here, preferably the one that points out how seemingly large and significant differences in the lab, don't always translate in to significant differences in the field.)
03-04-2011, 09:32 AM   #22
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,769
I read the review, along with the many others. I think the review was good, and put the K5 in a good position, but I have to ask this question.....

If you were a wedding or portrait photographer and bought the K5 based on this review, would you be happy? In light of the overwhelming evidence we have seen here and the documentation in Falc's report, it is hard to imagine a yes answer.

If you are mainly a landscaper or wildlife shooter,then you would most likely be thrilled. If you are wide ranging, you might have a big problem.

I don't depend too much on any review, the best answers always come from actual users...good or bad. It is why the freedom that has been allowed on this site to post results and opinions renders this site more credible than any review on earth.

Best Regards
03-04-2011, 11:43 AM   #23
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,769
QuoteQuote:
If you were a wedding or portrait photographer and bought the K5 based on this review, would you be happy? In light of the overwhelming evidence we have seen here and the documentation in Falc's report, it is hard to imagine a yes answer.
This isn't an issue I've followed, so I haven't seen the "overwhelming evidence" maybe you could point me to it.

Falc's study said you may or may not have issues.

The fact that you assume a wedding photographer would have issues doesn't mean it would be true.
Most of the wedding photographers I have known preferred medium format cameras, so yes, they would be unhappy with the K-5 for any number of reasons. But they wouldn't buy this sensor size to start with so it wouldn't be an issue.

A single study of a single camera does not establish that a problem is confined to one camera . Other cameras may be just as bad. Studying one camera, for all you know, it may be best in class.

03-04-2011, 02:19 PM   #24
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Prince George, BC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,255
Rupert, your post also assumes that all wedding photogs are AF shooters. This is likely not the case.

Jack
03-04-2011, 03:36 PM   #25
Veteran Member
Smeggypants's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,536
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The difference being, the people on the forum are comparing the camera to some idealized notion of what the camera should be,
No they are not. The people here are comparing the camera to the reasonably expected performance of such a camera. A performance that their K10/K20/K7 had but K-5 doest not have.

QuoteQuote:
while the reviewer in at least one instance is comparing real cameras from other manufacturers, all of whom have had some issues with front focusing. As well with the focussing speed, they compared actual use not lab tests, and didn't find a lot of difference. (Insert your favorite dissertation on the value of lab tests here, preferably the one that points out how seemingly large and significant differences in the lab, don't always translate in to significant differences in the field.)
Show me even one report from a 'reviewer' that even mentions the K-5s low light front focussing issue, never mind comparing it with any low light front focussing issues that may or may not be affecting cameras from other manufacturers and 'not finding a lot of difference'

The fact you choose to create some 'difference' between the people here and 'reviewers' is quite insulting really. There's no logic whatsover to say a 'reviewer' is more or less skilfull/knowledgeable than anyone on this forum.
03-04-2011, 03:40 PM   #26
Veteran Member
Smeggypants's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,536
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
This isn't an issue I've followed, so I haven't seen the "overwhelming evidence" maybe you could point me to it.
So you're making noise about something which you don't even know much, if anything, about?



QuoteQuote:
A single study of a single camera does not establish that a problem is confined to one camera . Other cameras may be just as bad. .
Whether or not other cameras exhibit a front focussing in low light fault is nothing to do with the K-5. And if another cameras does have a similar fault it certainly doesn't excuse it.
03-04-2011, 05:06 PM   #27
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,769
What I'm saying Smeggypants is, whatever the technical issues are, much of what has been said is speculation.

1. That Pentax has been ignoring the problem, internally, is speculation, and slanderous speculation at that.
2. That the problem affects all K-5 cameras is speculation, and pretty much proven false.
3. That there is a fix other than a complete redesign of the hardware is speculation.
4. That there is some other course of action to fix the problem that Pentax hasn't embarked on is also speculation. What would be the point of putting in an fix for a few, if it broke everyone else's camera?

I know everyone thinks they are so smart they should be able to tell Pentax what to do. Well there is a possibility that the engineers at Pentax are way out in front on this and that if nothing has been done, it's because there is no workable solution that won't cause other problems. I know you low light shooting guys depend on this function to make your living, (cough) but, you can still get a lot of money for those cameras. I shoot in low light and under tungsten so infrequently being able to get a second hand body with those problems would be very attractive. There are lots of choices out there. And there is absolutely no guarantee this problem is ever going to be solved on a K-5.

It may be physically impossible. Hopefully it will mean that the problem will be fixed in the next body. But if that's the case, how much of their resources should Pentax expend on a problem like this?

I'd almost be happier if they gave you a discount on the next body (that hopefully isn't affected by the issue).

I'd also be happier if I didn't know that the problem is not unique to Pentax. It's one of those problems DSLRs can have. Everyone should be perfect... but name someone who is?

I'm not excusing Pentax, but, I'm willing to bet the Pentax shame at Pentax headquarters has already been spread around. Are you guys hoping some engineer is going to come on here and say 'I got my ass kicked over this?" Maybe you guys are just mean.

Personally I probably won't buy a K-5 until Henry's knocks $300 off the price to clear old inventory before the next great Pentax is rolled out. I don't get so many surprises that way. Of course I won't get in on any of they "hey, I have my new K-5 and you don't" threads, or any of the "I don't want to see your pictures unless you have the latest and greatest body." threads, but hey, I can live with that. I'm still in great position to miss the K-5 altogether if I so choose.

Just saying.
03-04-2011, 05:27 PM   #28
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Northern California
Posts: 475
Time To Update Your Info

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
This isn't an issue I've followed, so I haven't seen the "overwhelming evidence" maybe you could point me to it.

Falc's study said you may or may not have issues.

The fact that you assume a wedding photographer would have issues doesn't mean it would be true.
Most of the wedding photographers I have known preferred medium format cameras, so yes, they would be unhappy with the K-5 for any number of reasons. But they wouldn't buy this sensor size to start with so it wouldn't be an issue.

A single study of a single camera does not establish that a problem is confined to one camera . Other cameras may be just as bad. Studying one camera, for all you know, it may be best in class.

The medium format statment might have been true in the 1980's, but not now.

The Canon 5D and Nikon D700 rule the wedding world by a long shot, and most seem pretty happy with them.

Given that many weddings are shot indoors under dim lighting where flash is not allowed, I would say that the propensity of the 3 K5 bodies I had in my possession to badly FF in this type of light would be a real problem. I certainly would not use it for any wedding or indoor shots, which is why I returned all 3.

I think perhaps a little judicious searching of the forums on your part might be called for. You might even find some folks that have reported focus issues with the K5 while shooting a wedding...

Ray
03-04-2011, 06:21 PM   #29
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,769
QuoteQuote:
I think perhaps a little judicious searching of the forums on your part might be called for. You might even find some folks that have reported focus issues with the K5 while shooting a wedding...
How judicious? I typed "K-5 wedding" and got one guy raving about how the daynamic range should be fantastic for weddings, and this guy..

Field Review: The Pentax K-5 (Day 3) at The Phoblographer

QuoteQuote:
Handling

The Pentax K-5 is a smooth handling camera with controls that are intuitive and that can be easily customized. I appreciate the prominent placement of the camera’s ISO and White Balance controls as well as it’s easy way of switching between auto and manual focus.

This particular wedding was an intimate and quiet event, and was held in a reverberating church that seemed to amplify every sound. The K-5’s exceptionally smooth and quiet sound was a useful advantage (a much more discreet sound than the prominent CLAP of my Nikon D3). Together with the camera’s unassuming size, the sound helped me to be less of a distraction during the service. The volume of the autofocus confirmation beep can also be adjusted or disabled, as can the unique green autofocus assist lamp.

The camera had no trouble autofocusing, even in a dimly lit church. Perhaps other cameras will more fluidly track a couple whirling on a dark dance floor, but the K-5is not far behind the best in the game. The automatic exposure did a great job making selections in both program and aperture priority modes. It seems to prefer preventing highlight blowout to delivering amped up mid tones, which is a good strategy and one that the K-5 follows with awesome predictability and consistency. The exposure compensation control is placed for quick adjustments and a handy warning icon in the viewfinder is a nice reminder when it’s in use.
Now you're going to say I'm not "judicious", I know how this works.

So, I have my witness wedding photographer... your witness counsel.
03-04-2011, 06:47 PM   #30
Veteran Member
Smeggypants's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,536
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
.
2. That the problem affects all K-5 cameras is speculation, and pretty much proven false.
.
But that doesn't prove the fault 'false'

You admitted you haven't been following this issue and also admitted you don't even own a K-5

Those of use who do own a K-5, have found the fault with the camera an have been following the issue closely have never claimed ALL k-5s have the problem.

Not all SDM lenses have been faulty either but the SDM fault is very real and widespread. I won a DA* 50-135 which works perfectly, but I would never try and minimised the SDM fault issue. Even a serial number database for the 16-50 was created on it's behalf in order to try and help the issue.

The K-5 has a low light front focus issue. Period. This has been proven both by the widespread reporting of such by people who actually own a k-5 AND by Falc's excellent testing.

I'm more than happy with my K-5. It surpasses my K20D and K10D in IQ on many levels and I'm almost ready to buy a 2nd K-5 body.

I just want the K-5's Low light front focussing fault fixed.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, canon, dslr, ev, k-5, k-5 ii, k-5 iis, k5, pentax k-5, reference, results, test, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Popular Photography (May 2010) Lab test of 100/2.8 Macro WR jhaji Pentax DSLR Discussion 9 04-15-2010 09:10 AM
Pentax in 4/09 Popular Photography smf Photographic Technique 0 03-16-2009 01:46 PM
Pentax K20 test at Popular Photography Clem Nichols Pentax News and Rumors 14 12-21-2008 02:34 PM
k20d test in popular photography magazine hll Pentax DSLR Discussion 4 04-04-2008 01:16 PM
slrgear.com test results: Tamron 28-75 f2.8: best lens... ever (even full frame). 123K10D Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 22 11-15-2007 08:06 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:01 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top