Firmware v1.12.23.20

glanglois · 01-12-2012, 11:08 AM

Has anyone done rigorous testing on the flash problem? These firmware updates seem to contain a great deal of placebo code.

fuf · 01-12-2012, 01:21 PM

The bounce flash overexposure problem is still unfixed -- just have tested it.

bobbouv · 01-12-2012, 01:37 PM

I checked the firmware of my new K5 and it was 1.01 so I did the upgrade. Does anyone know what improvements have been made since 1.01?

KansasHorizons.com · 01-12-2012, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by Gimbal

Has anyone seen the main problem "a band of light green noise" this firmware is fixing?

Yep:

Now if it would just fix the fact that the OGPS1 units wont track stars like you pay $250 for them to do I would be more impressed.

Mehlsack · 01-12-2012, 02:15 PM

I tested a bit and didnt got any extrem overexposures, maybe i was just lucky ;(

Bredoteau · 01-12-2012, 02:18 PM

3 major problem:
1. AF frontfocus - don't fixed
2. Flash overexp. - don't fixed
3. wireless (remote) flash problem - fixed (but no stable)

chipvn · 01-12-2012, 06:18 PM

Just updated last night and did some testing. This is my updates:

1. The bouce flash P-TTL mode (using Metz 48AF-1) works well without any overexpose
2. The Wireless P-TTL flash mode (built-in flash control Metz 48AF-1) works well without any overexpose.

Staffan · 01-12-2012, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by chipvn

Just updated last night and did some testing. This is my updates:

1. The bouce flash P-TTL mode (using Metz 48AF-1) works well without any overexpose
2. The Wireless P-TTL flash mode (built-in flash control Metz 48AF-1) works well without any overexpose.

Hello, I am also happy now! I do not understand how the effect of new firmware may differ like it does, comparing the various reports by other K-5 owners. It is very odd, indeed. Personally I have two K-5 bodies, and both have lost their bad flash behaviour with overexposure when bouncing the flash (tilting it). The wireless issue has never been observed by me so I do not know if something has happened in that respect as well. Anyway, for me this 1.12 firmware is a large "hurray"!

Staffan · 01-12-2012, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by glanglois

Has anyone done rigorous testing on the flash problem? These firmware updates seem to contain a great deal of placebo code.

Testing straight flash, 45 degrees tilted flash and 90 degrees tilted flash, with ISO as high as 640, and then seeing histograms not shifting too much to the right as earlier is evidence enough. At least for me. Such a result had been impossible before the 1.12 firmware. And I have two K-5 bodies which have been corrected in this way.

Docrwm · 01-13-2012, 06:51 AM

Took the plunge and upgraded last night. First attempts seem to support that the flash issue has been addressed by this upgrade.

pscl57 · 01-13-2012, 07:49 AM

I have made many tests and i confirm the correction of the overexposure with bounce flash after upgrade from V1.03 to V1.12 (K5 + AF 540 FGZ P-TTL).

Before V1.12 i had to reduce flash power between -1 and -2 with bounce flash (no correction when used directly)..

With v1.12 applied exposure is good with flash bounced. There is a slight exposure attenuation when i compare to direct flash. That's seems normal behavoir.

fuf · 01-13-2012, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by pscl57

I have made many tests and i confirm the correction of the overexposure with bounce flash after upgrade from V1.03 to V1.12 (K5 + AF 540 FGZ P-TTL).

Before V1.12 i had to reduce flash power between -1 and -2 with bounce flash (no correction when used directly)..

With v1.12 applied exposure is good with flash bounced. There is a slight exposure attenuation when i compare to direct flash. That's seems normal behavoir.

How did you test? Which settings, what lenses? I found out that with the older firmware the over/underexposures greatly depended on the lens used: overexporuse with FA31, FA77, bad underexposure with DA15, DA21.

With FA31, aperture set to 2.0, P-TTL with 540 with 90 bounce, ISO 200, Av mode and subject (a person) cca. 2m away I'm getting overexporuse with firmware 1.12. When I tested in an empty room the exposure was okayish.

**jpzk** · 01-13-2012, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by fuf

How did you test? Which settings, what lenses? I found out that with the older firmware the over/underexposures greatly depended on the lens used: overexporuse with FA31, FA77, bad underexposure with DA15, DA21.

With FA31, aperture set to 2.0, P-TTL with 540 with 90 bounce, ISO 200, Av mode and subject (a person) cca. 2m away I'm getting overexporuse with firmware 1.12. When I tested in an empty room the exposure was okayish.

I am hoping someone will be able to explain this behavior which is quite similar to what I am experiencing with at least two of the lenses you mention:
FA 31mmLtd and DA 15 Ltd.

If the new firmware supposedly takes care of the flash (tilted) overexposure problem, how is it that it still shows with those lenses?

JP

Mark D · 01-13-2012, 10:48 AM

Correctly exposing a Flash exposure at 2m using f2 may be asking a bit much. How does it behave if you close down to f4 ( the max appature of the DA15)?

Quicksand · 01-13-2012, 12:29 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Mark D

Correctly exposing a Flash exposure at 2m using f2 may be asking a bit much.

Why should it be? Isn't that the whole point of P-TTL pre-flashes?

01-12-2012, 01:21 PM	#32
fuf Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 51	Bounce flash still unfixed The bounce flash overexposure problem is still unfixed -- just have tested it.

01-13-2012, 07:49 AM	#41
pscl57 Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Lille, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 27	I have made many tests and i confirm the correction of the overexposure with bounce flash after upgrade from V1.03 to V1.12 (K5 + AF 540 FGZ P-TTL). Before V1.12 i had to reduce flash power between -1 and -2 with bounce flash (no correction when used directly).. With v1.12 applied exposure is good with flash bounced. There is a slight exposure attenuation when i compare to direct flash. That's seems normal behavoir. Last edited by pscl57; 01-13-2012 at 08:03 AM.

01-13-2012, 08:24 AM	#42
fuf Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 51	Originally posted by pscl57 I have made many tests and i confirm the correction of the overexposure with bounce flash after upgrade from V1.03 to V1.12 (K5 + AF 540 FGZ P-TTL). Before V1.12 i had to reduce flash power between -1 and -2 with bounce flash (no correction when used directly).. With v1.12 applied exposure is good with flash bounced. There is a slight exposure attenuation when i compare to direct flash. That's seems normal behavoir. How did you test? Which settings, what lenses? I found out that with the older firmware the over/underexposures greatly depended on the lens used: overexporuse with FA31, FA77, bad underexposure with DA15, DA21. With FA31, aperture set to 2.0, P-TTL with 540 with 90 bounce, ISO 200, Av mode and subject (a person) cca. 2m away I'm getting overexporuse with firmware 1.12. When I tested in an empty room the exposure was okayish. Last edited by fuf; 01-13-2012 at 08:48 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New K-x firmware?	shoebox	Pentax DSLR Discussion	12	04-12-2010 08:45 PM
Firmware	Pentastic	Pentax DSLR Discussion	8	03-17-2010 07:49 PM
KX Firmware HELP!	kparkypark	Pentax DSLR Discussion	6	02-27-2010 01:37 PM
Firmware 1.03	K7er	Pentax DSLR Discussion	44	02-25-2010 04:07 PM
K-7 firmware 1.03	Jadran	Pentax DSLR Discussion	3	02-17-2010 10:19 AM

01-12-2012, 11:08 AM	#31
glanglois Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Madison, Wis., USA Posts: 1,506	Has anyone done rigorous testing on the flash problem? These firmware updates seem to contain a great deal of placebo code.

01-12-2012, 01:37 PM	#33
bobbouv Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Cape Coral, Florida Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5	I checked the firmware of my new K5 and it was 1.01 so I did the upgrade. Does anyone know what improvements have been made since 1.01?

01-12-2012, 01:51 PM	#34
KansasHorizons.com Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Kansas Photos: Gallery Posts: 183	Originally posted by Gimbal Has anyone seen the main problem "a band of light green noise" this firmware is fixing? Yep: Now if it would just fix the fact that the OGPS1 units wont track stars like you pay $250 for them to do I would be more impressed.

01-12-2012, 02:15 PM	#35
Mehlsack Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Innsbruck Posts: 283	I tested a bit and didnt got any extrem overexposures, maybe i was just lucky ;(

01-12-2012, 02:18 PM	#36
Bredoteau Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Budapest Posts: 7	3 major problem: 1. AF frontfocus - don't fixed 2. Flash overexp. - don't fixed 3. wireless (remote) flash problem - fixed (but no stable)

01-12-2012, 06:18 PM	#37
chipvn Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 37	Just updated last night and did some testing. This is my updates: 1. The bouce flash P-TTL mode (using Metz 48AF-1) works well without any overexpose 2. The Wireless P-TTL flash mode (built-in flash control Metz 48AF-1) works well without any overexpose.

01-12-2012, 10:59 PM	#38
Staffan Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Posts: 36	Originally posted by chipvn Just updated last night and did some testing. This is my updates: 1. The bouce flash P-TTL mode (using Metz 48AF-1) works well without any overexpose 2. The Wireless P-TTL flash mode (built-in flash control Metz 48AF-1) works well without any overexpose. Hello, I am also happy now! I do not understand how the effect of new firmware may differ like it does, comparing the various reports by other K-5 owners. It is very odd, indeed. Personally I have two K-5 bodies, and both have lost their bad flash behaviour with overexposure when bouncing the flash (tilting it). The wireless issue has never been observed by me so I do not know if something has happened in that respect as well. Anyway, for me this 1.12 firmware is a large "hurray"!

01-12-2012, 11:07 PM	#39
Staffan Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Posts: 36	Originally posted by glanglois Has anyone done rigorous testing on the flash problem? These firmware updates seem to contain a great deal of placebo code. Testing straight flash, 45 degrees tilted flash and 90 degrees tilted flash, with ISO as high as 640, and then seeing histograms not shifting too much to the right as earlier is evidence enough. At least for me. Such a result had been impossible before the 1.12 firmware. And I have two K-5 bodies which have been corrected in this way.

01-13-2012, 06:51 AM	#40
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Took the plunge and upgraded last night. First attempts seem to support that the flash issue has been addressed by this upgrade.

01-13-2012, 10:27 AM	#43
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251	Originally posted by fuf How did you test? Which settings, what lenses? I found out that with the older firmware the over/underexposures greatly depended on the lens used: overexporuse with FA31, FA77, bad underexposure with DA15, DA21. With FA31, aperture set to 2.0, P-TTL with 540 with 90 bounce, ISO 200, Av mode and subject (a person) cca. 2m away I'm getting overexporuse with firmware 1.12. When I tested in an empty room the exposure was okayish. I am hoping someone will be able to explain this behavior which is quite similar to what I am experiencing with at least two of the lenses you mention: FA 31mmLtd and DA 15 Ltd. If the new firmware supposedly takes care of the flash (tilted) overexposure problem, how is it that it still shows with those lenses? JP

01-13-2012, 10:48 AM	#44
Mark D Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hertfordshire UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 44	Correctly exposing a Flash exposure at 2m using f2 may be asking a bit much. How does it behave if you close down to f4 ( the max appature of the DA15)?

01-13-2012, 12:29 PM - 1 Like	#45
Quicksand Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Central Ohio (formerly SF Bay Area) Posts: 1,519	Originally posted by Mark D Correctly exposing a Flash exposure at 2m using f2 may be asking a bit much. Why should it be? Isn't that the whole point of P-TTL pre-flashes?