How to adjust/calibrate auto level

Hound Tooth · 08-31-2011, 10:58 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Rupert

I've never used it.....may or may not work on my K5. I level everything in processing, since I am a habitual cropper, cropping 99.9% of everything I shoot....whether it needs it or not.

Regards!

Oh good, then you have nothing to contribute to this thread. Thanks for clearing that up.

**Oso** · 10-01-2011, 10:42 AM

I have noticed that the level on my K5 sometimes seems to be "right on" and at others is seemingly off by a couple degrees, as the image appears in the viewfinder and how the camera feels "level" in my hand. Holding the camera level, the level indicator indicates not level. I recently thought that maybe that because the sensor is "floating" on it's stabilization hardware, maybe the level indicator is indicating sensor level versus camera level. Is this a possible explanation for what we are seeing here? If you hold the camera crooked to get a correct indicated level, does the image come out straight or crooked?

Hound Tooth · 10-01-2011, 12:56 PM

Sometimes your perspective to a subject might make it seem like it's not straight in the viewfinder, and relying on the electronic level in such a situation would make that subject appear crooked. But this does not reflect the electronic level's accuracy. It's an occurrence that's even older than photography itself. The only real way to tell if your electronic level is off is with either an external level that you know is completely accurate, or by using a water horizon (ie huge lake, the ocean, etc). Mine's accuracy never changed from picture to picture. First it was always accurate, and then it suddenly became always wrong.

ChrisA · 11-12-2011, 04:01 AM

One of the reasons my first K-5 went back was the electronic level indicating a lean when it wasn't. Not that I use it much, but it annoys me when something doesn't work. It also seemed to be getting worse with time - though at the time I put that down to my imagination.

When I went to the store for the replacement, the first one out of the box was worse than the one I had, but I checked the second one very carefully, and again when I got it home, and it was fine. One of the guys in the store also had a careful look, and agreed with me that it was level.

Obviously, you can compensate for a platform that might itself not be level, by noting a lean in the opposite direction if you turn the camera round. I did this carefully, on several different platforms, and it was exactly right.

Now after having it for a couple of weeks, it's now a bit off. Not by much (just one bar on the display), but it seems to not be perfect any more.

I see that one or two have made similar observations. Is this deterioration over time a widespread thing?

I could probably get another replacement, but from the number of people with problems, it seems that it's just going to be a load of hassle with no guarantee of getting a good one.

garyk · 11-12-2011, 04:41 AM

This is an analog to digital conversion. Easy to fix ( calibrate ) via software. Actually I am surprised they are not all off to some extent. Cannot be a very pricey part.
But I agree stupid not to let the end user calibrate it. Saving umpteen dollars in repairs. They could of easily provided a variable in the algorithm for user calibration. Same as lens calibration. Good thread I never thought about even using it. My shooting it is not important but I can see how some would want it.
My previous life was spent in Analog to digital. And designing software to support it by the end user. Many time I would include a variable embedded in the algorithm for end user to calibrate or change a set point. Strange.

Really with that silly thing being so small. I assume? And the range of 4 x 90 for 360 degrees. And an output of 0-5 vdc. That would be .0555vdc/degree.
If that is even close. And I am guessing at the device.

Brain farting. who frigging knows. LOL Does anyone know the device used?

ChrisA · 11-12-2011, 05:38 AM

Of course, it's not just the level that doesn't work if the zero point isn't horizontal. Horizon correction presumably won't either.

Hound Tooth · 11-12-2011, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by ChrisA

Of course, it's not just the level that doesn't work if the zero point isn't horizontal. Horizon correction presumably won't either.

Yep, that's right. If you try to use Horizon Correction, then every picture comes out crooked regardless of how straight the camera was when you took the picture.

It should be noted that my K-7 was deadly accurate with its electronic level the entire time I owned it. And I never heard of the K-7 losing its calibration over time. Only the odd initial mis-calibration. The K-5 is an improvement in many ways over the K-7, but sometimes it seems like corners were cut compared to the K-7.

I wonder if the 645D's electronic level is as unreliable.

Last edited by Hound Tooth; 11-12-2011 at 10:14 AM.

mikeSF · 11-12-2011, 10:28 AM

all my pics are looking kinda skewed:

philbaum · 11-12-2011, 01:52 PM

The level on my K5 is working fine, 9 months old at this point. I occasionally find it useful on the tripod, but most importantly it saves me time PP. I pp all my photos, that i use, but not doing that additional step is time saving. altho i don't think it can auto level over a certain amount, like the above pic is beyond what it can fix

mikeSF · 11-12-2011, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by philbaum

... like the above pic is beyond what it can fix

you understand the above pic is skewed as a result of the auto level function in the camera right? That is a single frame from a large pano where i set the level and shot all the pics. when i got home, i saw how badly out of calibration the camera is.

philbaum · 11-13-2011, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by mikeSF

you understand the above pic is skewed as a result of the auto level function in the camera right? That is a single frame from a large pano where i set the level and shot all the pics. when i got home, i saw how badly out of calibration the camera is.

Yikes, i thought it was a joke - sorry

as others have said, the function is very useful but needs ability to cal. within cam.

pentup · 11-13-2011, 07:32 PM

I haven't even bothered to check mine, since I don't want to become dependent on it if it goes off; my K-7 had a level that seemed correctly callibrated until suddenly it wasn't.
All they need to make this feature work for everyone is to let users calibrate it themselves.

At what point does a feature that the company touts in its advertising constitute fraud when it's basically useless for so many users, over two successive models now?

Hound Tooth · 11-13-2011, 07:38 PM - **1 Like**

Oh boy, here we go with complete misinterpretations of law by non-lawyers... what's next, claims of "false advertisement"?

It sucks that this touted feature is so frustratingly unreliable, but Pentax's refusal to let us calibrate it ourselves is nothing more than poor quality and customer service. There are no legal issues to be invented here.

pentup · 11-13-2011, 08:21 PM

Ease up on the unwarranted sarcasm, man. I asked a question, I didn't make an assertion.

Originally posted by Hound Tooth

It sucks that this touted feature is so frustratingly unreliable, but Pentax's refusal to let us calibrate it ourselves is nothing more than poor quality and customer service.

Yeah, we agree.

As for "false advertisement" -- if the feature were completely unreliable to, say, 99.9% of purchasers (which obviously isn't the case!) would one then have the right to claim that touting the feature constituted false advertising? At some point are even non-lawyers entitled to exclaim "there oughta be a law..."?

Or is your point that anything goes when it comes to companies squeezing out a quick buck?

Hound Tooth · 11-13-2011, 08:30 PM

Nope, just that you're not a lawyer and I'm not a lawyer and any attempt by us at turning this into some kind of legal injustice serves no good purpose other than to inflame the uninformed masses and turn this into a thread that I will immediately unsub from if those kinds of allegations go any further. You're gonna start drawing low-brow idiots with that kind of talk.

11-12-2011, 04:41 AM	#35
garyk Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 488	This is an analog to digital conversion. Easy to fix ( calibrate ) via software. Actually I am surprised they are not all off to some extent. Cannot be a very pricey part. But I agree stupid not to let the end user calibrate it. Saving umpteen dollars in repairs. They could of easily provided a variable in the algorithm for user calibration. Same as lens calibration. Good thread I never thought about even using it. My shooting it is not important but I can see how some would want it. My previous life was spent in Analog to digital. And designing software to support it by the end user. Many time I would include a variable embedded in the algorithm for end user to calibrate or change a set point. Strange. Really with that silly thing being so small. I assume? And the range of 4 x 90 for 360 degrees. And an output of 0-5 vdc. That would be .0555vdc/degree. If that is even close. And I am guessing at the device. Brain farting. who frigging knows. LOL Does anyone know the device used? Last edited by garyk; 11-12-2011 at 05:45 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Focus test with split screen-Do I need to calibrate?	GibbyTheMole	Pentax DSLR Discussion	4	02-25-2011 06:56 PM
Can anyone help me calibrate my new MacBook Pro 13" Screen?	Student	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	4	02-08-2011 12:45 AM
K5 auto focus adjust	joelovotti	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	11-26-2010 10:55 PM
Anyone calibrate a hand-held meter?	Wombat	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	4	11-06-2010 06:09 AM
How to calibrate a lens if not on K-7 or K20D?	bymy141	Pentax DSLR Discussion	8	05-24-2010 04:22 PM

08-31-2011, 10:58 AM - 1 Like	#31
Hound Tooth Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Williston, VT Posts: 268	Originally posted by Rupert I've never used it.....may or may not work on my K5. I level everything in processing, since I am a habitual cropper, cropping 99.9% of everything I shoot....whether it needs it or not. Regards! Oh good, then you have nothing to contribute to this thread. Thanks for clearing that up.

10-01-2011, 10:42 AM	#32
Oso Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Vermont Photos: Albums Posts: 128	I have noticed that the level on my K5 sometimes seems to be "right on" and at others is seemingly off by a couple degrees, as the image appears in the viewfinder and how the camera feels "level" in my hand. Holding the camera level, the level indicator indicates not level. I recently thought that maybe that because the sensor is "floating" on it's stabilization hardware, maybe the level indicator is indicating sensor level versus camera level. Is this a possible explanation for what we are seeing here? If you hold the camera crooked to get a correct indicated level, does the image come out straight or crooked?

10-01-2011, 12:56 PM	#33
Hound Tooth Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Williston, VT Posts: 268	Sometimes your perspective to a subject might make it seem like it's not straight in the viewfinder, and relying on the electronic level in such a situation would make that subject appear crooked. But this does not reflect the electronic level's accuracy. It's an occurrence that's even older than photography itself. The only real way to tell if your electronic level is off is with either an external level that you know is completely accurate, or by using a water horizon (ie huge lake, the ocean, etc). Mine's accuracy never changed from picture to picture. First it was always accurate, and then it suddenly became always wrong.

11-12-2011, 04:01 AM	#34
ChrisA Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: London Posts: 393	One of the reasons my first K-5 went back was the electronic level indicating a lean when it wasn't. Not that I use it much, but it annoys me when something doesn't work. It also seemed to be getting worse with time - though at the time I put that down to my imagination. When I went to the store for the replacement, the first one out of the box was worse than the one I had, but I checked the second one very carefully, and again when I got it home, and it was fine. One of the guys in the store also had a careful look, and agreed with me that it was level. Obviously, you can compensate for a platform that might itself not be level, by noting a lean in the opposite direction if you turn the camera round. I did this carefully, on several different platforms, and it was exactly right. Now after having it for a couple of weeks, it's now a bit off. Not by much (just one bar on the display), but it seems to not be perfect any more. I see that one or two have made similar observations. Is this deterioration over time a widespread thing? I could probably get another replacement, but from the number of people with problems, it seems that it's just going to be a load of hassle with no guarantee of getting a good one.

11-12-2011, 05:38 AM	#36
ChrisA Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: London Posts: 393	Of course, it's not just the level that doesn't work if the zero point isn't horizontal. Horizon correction presumably won't either.

11-12-2011, 10:07 AM	#37
Hound Tooth Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Williston, VT Posts: 268	Originally posted by ChrisA Of course, it's not just the level that doesn't work if the zero point isn't horizontal. Horizon correction presumably won't either. Yep, that's right. If you try to use Horizon Correction, then every picture comes out crooked regardless of how straight the camera was when you took the picture. It should be noted that my K-7 was deadly accurate with its electronic level the entire time I owned it. And I never heard of the K-7 losing its calibration over time. Only the odd initial mis-calibration. The K-5 is an improvement in many ways over the K-7, but sometimes it seems like corners were cut compared to the K-7. I wonder if the 645D's electronic level is as unreliable. Last edited by Hound Tooth; 11-12-2011 at 10:14 AM.

11-12-2011, 10:28 AM	#38
mikeSF Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: East Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,622 Original Poster	all my pics are looking kinda skewed:

11-12-2011, 01:52 PM	#39
philbaum Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA Posts: 3,659	The level on my K5 is working fine, 9 months old at this point. I occasionally find it useful on the tripod, but most importantly it saves me time PP. I pp all my photos, that i use, but not doing that additional step is time saving. altho i don't think it can auto level over a certain amount, like the above pic is beyond what it can fix

11-12-2011, 04:16 PM	#40
mikeSF Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: East Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,622 Original Poster	Originally posted by philbaum ... like the above pic is beyond what it can fix you understand the above pic is skewed as a result of the auto level function in the camera right? That is a single frame from a large pano where i set the level and shot all the pics. when i got home, i saw how badly out of calibration the camera is.

11-13-2011, 12:53 PM	#41
philbaum Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA Posts: 3,659	Originally posted by mikeSF you understand the above pic is skewed as a result of the auto level function in the camera right? That is a single frame from a large pano where i set the level and shot all the pics. when i got home, i saw how badly out of calibration the camera is. Yikes, i thought it was a joke - sorry as others have said, the function is very useful but needs ability to cal. within cam.

11-13-2011, 07:32 PM	#42
pentup Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Flushing NY Photos: Albums Posts: 413	I haven't even bothered to check mine, since I don't want to become dependent on it if it goes off; my K-7 had a level that seemed correctly callibrated until suddenly it wasn't. All they need to make this feature work for everyone is to let users calibrate it themselves. At what point does a feature that the company touts in its advertising constitute fraud when it's basically useless for so many users, over two successive models now?

11-13-2011, 07:38 PM - 1 Like	#43
Hound Tooth Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Williston, VT Posts: 268	Oh boy, here we go with complete misinterpretations of law by non-lawyers... what's next, claims of "false advertisement"? It sucks that this touted feature is so frustratingly unreliable, but Pentax's refusal to let us calibrate it ourselves is nothing more than poor quality and customer service. There are no legal issues to be invented here.

11-13-2011, 08:21 PM	#44
pentup Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Flushing NY Photos: Albums Posts: 413	Ease up on the unwarranted sarcasm, man. I asked a question, I didn't make an assertion. Originally posted by Hound Tooth It sucks that this touted feature is so frustratingly unreliable, but Pentax's refusal to let us calibrate it ourselves is nothing more than poor quality and customer service. Yeah, we agree. As for "false advertisement" -- if the feature were completely unreliable to, say, 99.9% of purchasers (which obviously isn't the case!) would one then have the right to claim that touting the feature constituted false advertising? At some point are even non-lawyers entitled to exclaim "there oughta be a law..."? Or is your point that anything goes when it comes to companies squeezing out a quick buck?

11-13-2011, 08:30 PM	#45
Hound Tooth Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Williston, VT Posts: 268	Nope, just that you're not a lawyer and I'm not a lawyer and any attempt by us at turning this into some kind of legal injustice serves no good purpose other than to inflame the uninformed masses and turn this into a thread that I will immediately unsub from if those kinds of allegations go any further. You're gonna start drawing low-brow idiots with that kind of talk.