[dgaies]

Just a few months after the mob here was bashing people for wondering whether it was finally safe to buy a K-5... I haven't really checked my silver, but certainly will before the end of my warranty.

Yeah, it's certainly unfortunate. I honestly thought I was pretty safe buying a Silver K-5 with a manufacturing date well after what was suppose to be the cut-off. I guess not. I'm torn between returning it and sending it away to be fixed. I have a feeling it will be away for a while, and I had intended to sell my black K-5 in the meantime to help finance the silver one. Guess that plan isn't going to work out...

[Paunel]

To be more explicit I show there a hand made sketch (sorry, I'm not at home now) with a section of three layers (from many) in the front of the sensor. The extended fountains are oldest, the little ones are newest.
But, retain: it is my supposition about the phenomenon denominated there "string of pearls".
The alignment of the pores can be on a micro-crack created on maneuvering the plastic layer, over bending it in assemblage.
Oldest fountains can dry only in the air contact but not in the sealed place of their origin and, partially, in the channels, creating a cork. But the evolution of this process must be observed in the reality because I "create" only a model.

[rawr]

No Deming Prize for Pentax then.

[Jasvox]

limited edition and higher price or not, its probably assembled right alongside the standard black model an thus subject to anything that may affect the other cameras rolling off the assembly line. of course that doesn’t change anything in regards to the issue, or possibly QC problems, but I think its unreasonable in modern times to expect anything more in this regard for a higher priced ‘limited’ model. these aren’t hand assembled ‘al a carte’ leicas, regardless of how they are presented. just some fancy paint and a few individual ‘accessory touches’ crammed into different boxes. people put far too much emphasis on such marketing terms so often used today, such as ‘limited’ ‘limited edition’ special’ etc.

either way, I’m sorry about your stain, as I’m sure the silver body wasn’t the easiest to come by.

I figured as much regarding no extra attention spent on special editions or limited items. My gripe was more at the fact that all these months later and after all the Pentax promises about this sensor issue that we are STILL seeing stains on the K-5 sensors. I am ready to pull the plug on a new K-5 now that the prices seem in line, but this pretty much has discouraged me from that purchase decision.

Funny, with all the talk about the K-7 being a bomb, at least there were never stain issues issues, mirror flops, buttons falling off en-masse with that model, nevermind the sub-par sensor inside.

Pentax needs to do better.

Jason

[mickey]

I don't think that QC in the factories should be any more strict than with the Silver K-5's than the blacks.
Fact is, the number of faults on the number of bodies that is being reported does seem unacceptable.

[ukwoody]

I don't see how it can be an actual sensor fault. It has to be something unique to Pentax assembly.
The same sensor is used by Sony and Nikon, and the chances are they are just produced by the 1000s irrespective of who the eventual company is they will end with, and certainly in this case the production line will not be using different products for different camera manufacturers.

It is also higly unlikely Pentax have buried their heads in the sand over this, it costs them too much to keep repairing the cameras both financially and reputation. i would guess they also thought the problem was resolved. Now question is, Are the replacement units going to fail in a few months again as well, or are they coming from a slightly different production line etc?
Woody

[Wheatfield]

I don't think that QC in the factories should be any more strict than with the Silver K-5's than the blacks.
Fact is, the number of faults on the number of bodies that is being reported does seem unacceptable.

Watch it Bub, I said the same thing in another thread and got squirrel poop fed to me on a spoon. There are some things you just can't say around here. Dissing the K5 is one of those topics.

[rawr]

I don't see how it can be an actual sensor fault. It has to be something unique to Pentax assembly.

Well, I am not sure that the verdict is completely in on that yet.

There are a few threads like this describing similar sounding stain issues on the D7000 floating around the web:

Flickr: Discussing Oil droplets on my lowpass filter in NIKON D7000 CLUB

[RonHendriks1966]

To be more explicit I show there a hand made sketch (sorry, I'm not at home now) with a section of three layers (from many) in the front of the sensor. The extended fountains are oldest, the little ones are newest.
But, retain: it is my supposition about the phenomenon denominated there "string of pearls".
The alignment of the pores can be on a micro-crack created on maneuvering the plastic layer, over bending it in assemblage.
Oldest fountains can dry only in the air contact but not in the sealed place of their origin and, partially, in the channels, creating a cork. But the evolution of this process must be observed in the reality because I "create" only a model.

Still wonder if this the story? It's just outside my knowledge.

[Paunel]

To "rawr"
Those spots of the Nikon 7000 sensor are not like the specific "string of pearls" of K5 sensor. They are aligned like string, they are little ones and contoured and the central "point" is more a point than a central zone (case of the Nikon sensor). Maybe the liquid layer is particular to Sony sensor and the mounted layers from fabrication process of Nikon or Pentax produced faulty effects specific for there mounting process. If there is more force applied in this assembling, more flaws can appear in time.
To RonHendriks1966
My knowledge embrace the Nondestructive Testing of materials (NDT) and I can say certainly about alignment of the pores: their origin stays on a crack (microscopic one).
The photo test, at F22 or F32 setting on the lens, produced a specular light (non diffuse). This light pass through optic layers including the flows and the sensor is the screen of revelations. Any difference in optic index or absorption coefficient in the layers in front of the sensor are reveled if they are larger than the pixel dimension. A good ensemble is optic homogenous and this must be the condition of passing the Quality Control of this.

[Paunel]

But the causes of the defects are required only by manufacturer feedback for improving his technology, not for us,.
For us, the users, it is important to use the machine parameters specified in technical data, certified by the company.
But even sensor defects in the high class (pretended) model , shows that the quality of K5 (silver or not) is similar.
Defects apparition in time (not only in the sensor) of K5, correlated with the rush to sell (proved by the great reduction of the price) clearly shows that product quality is not durable.
Sorry to say that because I love this model conception, but not its implementation in reality. And, of coarse, I have this model.
Those who believe that they can sell their camera after 2-3 years to save their money for a new one, they are wrong.
Those who extensively use their device (as professionals) are only favored: they make money from it.
But fans who hope a longer use are those who lose.