[derekkite]

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-5-forum/171474-firmware-v1-12-23-20-a.html

This thread describes the changes people experienced in 1.12. Some fixes, some not but definitely changes.

My comment was in response to the assertion that Pentax would publicize fixes. Obviously they don't document publicly all the changes and fixes, not by what has been experienced.

[Dice]

I'm usually a doubting thomas, yet my spidey sense is telling me they tweaked the autofocus in the firmware upgrade. No scientific proof but here is my story. Used the K-5 with 50-135 firmware 1.12 (handheld) at my son's track meet 2 weekends ago and seemed to be missing focus on quite a few of long jump and 100 meter run. Before the meet this weekend I upgraded the firmware to 1.13 same lens, same camera and same photographer, the results were markedly better. No difference in lighting as both meets were middle of the day in bright sunlight. Perhaps my technique maybe improving ....but I discount this explanation as I've not been practicing between meets. Anyway, whether the firmware is the answer or not, I was much happier this weekend than last.

[jmg257]

even though the K-5 user guide states itself that the center focus point is the circle - see image, I'd rather say it is a cross inside the circle, like in my post you're quoting.

Actually, on that page the manual designates an "AF Point" as #3. The circle #2 is called out as the "Spot Metering Frame".

The manual's pointing out that the AF Point(s) is/are the small little square(s), doesn't really convey much info on how the actual sensors extend a good bit larger.

[Quicksand]

The flash overexposure issue is still not fixed in 1.13.

That's my finding as well. Really egregious.

I'm starting to wonder if a hardware defect might be in play, since some people (like me!) report horrendous bounce flash overexposure and others simply don't.

My results, using a Pentax AF360 flash (and confirmed using a borrowed Metz 50):

Direct on-camera flash: perfect exposure

Direct wireless flash: perfect exposure

Bounce wireless flash: perfect exposure

Bounce on-camera flash: varying overexposure, sometimes +2EV or more, depending on other exposure parameters

It appears the flash fires at full power when on-camera and bounced, regardless of what the P-TTL pre-flash indicates is necessary to light the subject. When the flash is on-camera and direct (untilted), exposure is fine. Wireless flash exposure is fine regardless of how the flash is oriented and regardless of whether the built-in diffuser or bounce panel are used.

Weird. I'm contemplating sending it on a visit to the warranty camera doctors, but don't relish the idea of it being gone for 4-6 weeks.

[cbope]

This is really just anecdotal evidence at this point, I've not done any proper scientific testing, but it seems that the flash over exposure at short distances and low-light autofocusing are fixed or at least greatly improved in the 1.13 firmware. I've only taken a few snapshots at home and I've immediately noticed an improvement in both compared to 1.12.

[Lage]

That's my finding as well. Really egregious.

I'm starting to wonder if a hardware defect might be in play, since some people (like me!) report horrendous bounce flash overexposure and others simply don't.

My results, using a Pentax AF360 flash (and confirmed using a borrowed Metz 50):

Direct on-camera flash: perfect exposure

Direct wireless flash: perfect exposure

Bounce wireless flash: perfect exposure

Bounce on-camera flash: varying overexposure, sometimes +2EV or more, depending on other exposure parameters

It appears the flash fires at full power when on-camera and bounced, regardless of what the P-TTL pre-flash indicates is necessary to light the subject. When the flash is on-camera and direct (untilted), exposure is fine. Wireless flash exposure is fine regardless of how the flash is oriented and regardless of whether the built-in diffuser or bounce panel are used.

Weird. I'm contemplating sending it on a visit to the warranty camera doctors, but don't relish the idea of it being gone for 4-6 weeks.

Well, I just got K-5, flash & lens back from service. They asked me to send all in so the could try to reproduce the problem. And they managed to reproduce the flash error once with FW 1.12, but when they contact Pentax France, there is no answer on how to solve it.Then they upgraded to 1.13, "took several hundreds of pictures with no remarks". When i got it back, I had to take two(!) pictures to reproduce the error! Bloody amateurs! I,m about to change brand now, I can´t have a camera where approx. 1/3 of flash pics are useless. Too bad since it´s a great camera otherwise, and I never had this problem with my K100D Super, using the same flash (Metz 58 AF-1).

[felixkh]

Did you upgrade the firmware for the Metz 58AF-1?

[pscl57]

I don't have any problem with my K5 and AF 540FGZ with a few precautions.

Most important :

- don't use ISO AUTO with large range : K5 will have the trend to preserve ambiance and set High ISO.
- be careful with minimum distance and high ISOs. Remember that all objects before the minimum distance are burnt. This is not an error. Indoors, with high ISO the guide number is too high and the minimum distance is generally too far, then all objects wil be burnt. So, set ISO manually within a range as 100-800, not above.

- Min.distance = 1/10 Max. distance.
- Max distance = NG / Aperture at ISO 100 ( x 2 at ISO 400)

It's good to verify minimum and maximum distances wich are are displayed on the LCD at the rear of the cobra flash (before bouncing).

[cbope]

I don't have any problem with my K5 and AF 540FGZ with a few precautions. Most important :
- don't use ISO AUTO with large range : K5 will have the trend to preserve ambiance and set High ISO. To preserve ambiance i set ISO to 800. Not above.
- be careful with minimal distance and high ISOs. Remember that all objects before the minimal distance are burnt. This is not an error. Indoors, with high ISO the minimal distance is generally too far and all objects wil be burnt if ISO is too high. So, set ISO manually within a range as 100-800, not above.

This is quite significant I believe. I need to do some testing. Maybe it would be a good idea for people who are having flash overexposure to check the exif data of overexposed images and see what ISO was used. To be honest, I have not checked mine but now I will.

[Quicksand]

I'm using fixed ISO (400) and fixed aperture (f/4.5) on my flash test shots, in Av mode, with the subject about 4 feet away. If it were a problem with minimum distance, then DIRECT flash would be burnt out. But it's not. It's only bounce flash.

If I take two shots in sequence, one with direct flash and one with bounce flash, generally BOTH shots will be ISO400 f/4.5 1/125. The direct flash shot will adjust the flash power to achieve correct exposure. The bounce flash shot is at MUCH higher power -- I can tell just by listening to the "pop" sound the flash makes. All other exposure parameters are identical.

I feel confident in saying it's a flash power control problem.

[emalvick]

I'm using fixed ISO (400) and fixed aperture (f/4.5) on my flash test shots, in Av mode, with the subject about 4 feet away. If it were a problem with minimum distance, then DIRECT flash would be burnt out. But it's not. It's only bounce flash.

If I take two shots in sequence, one with direct flash and one with bounce flash, generally BOTH shots will be ISO400 f/4.5 1/125. The direct flash shot will adjust the flash power to achieve correct exposure. The bounce flash shot is at MUCH higher power -- I can tell just by listening to the "pop" sound the flash makes. All other exposure parameters are identical.

I feel confident in saying it's a flash power control problem.

Did you ever say what flash you are using?

I had similar problems recently with my Metz 58 AF-1, and it took an upgrade of the flash's firmware to help (not solve) the problem. There is something with that flash that behaves odd when it is aimed upward that seems to cause a miscommunication between the flash and the camera. It is not a full solve, but I think the remaining problems are truly a function of Pentax as the observed exposure issues I see now are consistent with the comments reported in other threads here for most flashes in PTTL modes. Actually, if I use my Metz in auto-mode, I get much more consistent results.

[dlacouture]

I have a sigma 530 DG super, and do not experience the overexposure syndrome... On the contrary, bounced flash is usually a tad underexposed when compared to direct flash...

[bobmaxja]

I have the Sigma also and took more than 200 photos at christmas party with bounce flashes, no issues

[Quicksand]

Did you ever say what flash you are using?

I had similar problems recently with my Metz 58 AF-1, and it took an upgrade of the flash's firmware to help (not solve) the problem. There is something with that flash that behaves odd when it is aimed upward that seems to cause a miscommunication between the flash and the camera. It is not a full solve, but I think the remaining problems are truly a function of Pentax as the observed exposure issues I see now are consistent with the comments reported in other threads here for most flashes in PTTL modes. Actually, if I use my Metz in auto-mode, I get much more consistent results.

Yeah, I mentioned upthread that it's a Pentax AF-360 FGZ. But I also confirmed the problem with a borrowed Metz 50 AF-1.

Similarly, my only modern AF/AE lens in a normal range is a Sigma 24-60 f/2.8, so I borrowed a Pentax DA-L 55-300 to see if it could be a wonky third-party lens issue, and did the test with both lenses around 60mm. Same problem.

Note: I verified the existence of the problem with both flashes and with both lenses. But I didn't try to compare the magnitude of the problem. What am I, a test lab?

I have the Sigma also and took more than 200 photos at christmas party with bounce flashes, no issues

Were you using a K-5? I ask because your sig says K-x. As far as I can tell, this is a K-5 specific problem.

[emalvick]

Note: I verified the existence of the problem with both flashes and with both lenses. But I didn't try to compare the magnitude of the problem. What am I, a test lab?

I think that is often the problem. The test labs have all the perfect conditions, and we never do. I could never really quantify the problem I had previously with my Metz 58 Af-1. I just know that when I updated its firmware, I am able to get many more usable shots out of the flash, but hardly all.

I think some of the issues relate to other environmental variables. My over-exposure problems seem to come in cases where distance is small, even with a bounce. Once I get into more normal situations, i.e. at family functions, parties, etc, my images come out much better. I don't give it much of a chance, though as once I notice one over-exposure, I switch to A mode to avoid having too many unusable images.

I've never looked at the problem with other flashes as I only have access to the one PTTL flash, but it occurs for me for all lenses and focal lengths, 20 mm to 300 mm.

The observation about the K-X would be a curious one. The problems I have with my K5, seemed to had occurred for me with my K10d before with even more erratic results.