Interesting Blog Articles re: ff

abcdave · 03-01-2011, 09:25 AM

This post is some suggested internet reading nestled in a big serving of my opinion. Replies of your opinion is assumed, so I'd like to also invite you to follow up with other suggested internet reading.

This forum is a wealth of information, but a few subjects are still unanswered in my mind. I have found these answers and discovered that they answer more than one question.

Question #2: For FF warranty, why is Pentax requiring the body AND all lenses returned to the repair facility? Exactly what is it that they are doing when they get them?

I believe the answer is found on this page at PentaxBody (This article also makes fun of "fanboys" which I quite enjoyed.)

tldr: Individual bodies and a lenses can be slightly off yet still within spec. This will either cancel each other out, or create a significant cumulative problem at a shallow depth of field.

Briefly, "Within spec" from the factory may be a range from -2 to +2 for each the body AND for the lens. If you have a perfect 0 body and a perfect 0 lens, you will be spot on. If you have a -2 body and a +2 lens, you will balance out and even though the focus on BOTH parts are not perfect, you can still achieve perfect results. If you have a -2 body and a -2 lens (or +2, +2) you will be WAY out of focus. This also explains to me why some people may have an issue while others will not.

Pentax is receiving conflicting reports from the users: it seems that there is just as much passion around denying the problem as there is confirming the problem. If Pentax isn't receiving a majority consensus from the users that a problem exists, then the issue seems to be more variance related than systemic. After reading this article and looking at the FF issue from a troubleshooting perspective, I now believe that Pentax wasn't exactly denying that there was a problem. They were simply following time-tested troubleshooting steps and required time to analyze the few individual instances that they could get their hands on and generate enough data to validate the issue.

It also seems to me that the K-r USERS were hindering a timely solution to this problem!

This is going to get me into a lot of trouble:

If
Those who are unaffected by the problem (due to not shooting in the problem conditions) would have been interested (and community minded) enough to sincerely attempt to reproduce the problem, intellectually honest enough to admit the problem was real if they uncovered it

And if
Those who experienced the problem would have sent their camera in right away instead of waiting for "the fix" (I am guilty of this)

Then maybe Pentax would have issued a firmware fix much earlier

I feel that I have not contributed to the solution therefore I can't exactly condemn Pentax for their lack of timeliness. I believe that Pentax is working on an updated firmware and that it will address the ff issue. I check back here every day looking for news of a release date. Not only will I then own a world-class camera, I call also give the FLAOs a big huge "I TOLD YOU SO!!!! ! ! ! !! !!!" I can't decide which will be more satisfying.

So what was Question #1? It wasn't really a question. I just needed more validation that the FF issue is systemic with the K-r and not just my copy.

About a month ago, RiceHigh also did an interesting comparison between SAFOX VII, VIII, and IX (v7, v8, and v9) and can demonstrate that the yellow light focus a v7 .ist can mildly outperform the yellow light focus on v8 (Kx) and can dramatically outperform the focus on a v9 (K-r). It blows my mind that as auto-focus speed progressively improved, portions of auto-focus quality progressively worsened.

I also believe that Falk had accelerated the troubleshooting process by overstepping the problem validation phase, had the skill to scientifically troubleshoot and communicate useful data, and the clout to quickly get the information to the right people.

elho_cid · 03-01-2011, 09:57 AM

After finding the low light FF problem, I went to Pentax service (15min from my office, I'm lucky) and gave them K-5 with some lenses with which the problem was most apparent (more than -10 adjustment in red/low light). I told them that the lenses work well with my K10D, and I want only the body adjusted. It took almost one week but accuracy improved a lot.

Still not perfect, so I do hope for FW to bring improvement, but a lot better. Even FA*85 is usable wide open in low light.

BTW I give no credit to RiceHigh as source of information. Not only he is absurdely negative and spreads all the negative rumors. That was the old RH which I could stand. But lately he lies too.

abcdave · 03-01-2011, 01:43 PM

I haven't any experience with RiceHigh, so your advice is noted. I will dial up my BS detectors an extra notch when reading that site in the future.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax Photography Articles	Russell-Evans	Site Suggestions and Help	4	11-25-2009 01:03 AM
Interesting Blog Article about Macs	Damn Brit	General Talk	6	08-08-2008 05:42 AM
Some Interesting Articles	Adam	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	07-22-2008 12:31 PM
Interesting Blog RH	benjikan	Photographic Technique	25	07-17-2008 04:20 AM
Interesting Photography Blog site	J.Scott	General Talk	2	01-07-2008 11:42 AM

03-01-2011, 09:25 AM	#1
abcdave Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Bartlesville, OK Posts: 57	Interesting Blog Articles re: ff This post is some suggested internet reading nestled in a big serving of my opinion. Replies of your opinion is assumed, so I'd like to also invite you to follow up with other suggested internet reading. This forum is a wealth of information, but a few subjects are still unanswered in my mind. I have found these answers and discovered that they answer more than one question. Question #2: For FF warranty, why is Pentax requiring the body AND all lenses returned to the repair facility? Exactly what is it that they are doing when they get them? I believe the answer is found on this page at PentaxBody (This article also makes fun of "fanboys" which I quite enjoyed.) tldr: Individual bodies and a lenses can be slightly off yet still within spec. This will either cancel each other out, or create a significant cumulative problem at a shallow depth of field. Briefly, "Within spec" from the factory may be a range from -2 to +2 for each the body AND for the lens. If you have a perfect 0 body and a perfect 0 lens, you will be spot on. If you have a -2 body and a +2 lens, you will balance out and even though the focus on BOTH parts are not perfect, you can still achieve perfect results. If you have a -2 body and a -2 lens (or +2, +2) you will be WAY out of focus. This also explains to me why some people may have an issue while others will not. Pentax is receiving conflicting reports from the users: it seems that there is just as much passion around denying the problem as there is confirming the problem. If Pentax isn't receiving a majority consensus from the users that a problem exists, then the issue seems to be more variance related than systemic. After reading this article and looking at the FF issue from a troubleshooting perspective, I now believe that Pentax wasn't exactly denying that there was a problem. They were simply following time-tested troubleshooting steps and required time to analyze the few individual instances that they could get their hands on and generate enough data to validate the issue. It also seems to me that the K-r USERS were hindering a timely solution to this problem! This is going to get me into a lot of trouble: If Those who are unaffected by the problem (due to not shooting in the problem conditions) would have been interested (and community minded) enough to sincerely attempt to reproduce the problem, intellectually honest enough to admit the problem was real if they uncovered it And if Those who experienced the problem would have sent their camera in right away instead of waiting for "the fix" (I am guilty of this) Then maybe Pentax would have issued a firmware fix much earlier I feel that I have not contributed to the solution therefore I can't exactly condemn Pentax for their lack of timeliness. I believe that Pentax is working on an updated firmware and that it will address the ff issue. I check back here every day looking for news of a release date. Not only will I then own a world-class camera, I call also give the FLAOs a big huge "I TOLD YOU SO!!!! ! ! ! !! !!!" I can't decide which will be more satisfying. So what was Question #1? It wasn't really a question. I just needed more validation that the FF issue is systemic with the K-r and not just my copy. About a month ago, RiceHigh also did an interesting comparison between SAFOX VII, VIII, and IX (v7, v8, and v9) and can demonstrate that the yellow light focus a v7 .ist can mildly outperform the yellow light focus on v8 (Kx) and can dramatically outperform the focus on a v9 (K-r). It blows my mind that as auto-focus speed progressively improved, portions of auto-focus quality progressively worsened. I also believe that Falk had accelerated the troubleshooting process by overstepping the problem validation phase, had the skill to scientifically troubleshoot and communicate useful data, and the clout to quickly get the information to the right people.

03-01-2011, 09:57 AM	#2
elho_cid Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Prague Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,199	After finding the low light FF problem, I went to Pentax service (15min from my office, I'm lucky) and gave them K-5 with some lenses with which the problem was most apparent (more than -10 adjustment in red/low light). I told them that the lenses work well with my K10D, and I want only the body adjusted. It took almost one week but accuracy improved a lot. Still not perfect, so I do hope for FW to bring improvement, but a lot better. Even FA*85 is usable wide open in low light. BTW I give no credit to RiceHigh as source of information. Not only he is absurdely negative and spreads all the negative rumors. That was the old RH which I could stand. But lately he lies too.

03-01-2011, 01:43 PM	#3
abcdave Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Bartlesville, OK Posts: 57 Original Poster	I haven't any experience with RiceHigh, so your advice is noted. I will dial up my BS detectors an extra notch when reading that site in the future.