[Michaelina2]

Pentax is in the process of getting me a K-5. Both Pentax and me are curious to see if that nasty problem was solved. So far, nobody seems to have a problem

Interesting...

I do not recall your report ever describing YOUR alleged issue as "nasty" or even a "problem." Instead, it was characterized more like a minor product personality quirk associated with a narrow set of conditions quite possibly found to some degree in DSLRs built by all manufacturers. Plus, the work around is easy.

May I ask why you risk the independence and integrity of your testing procedure by using a sample offered specifically to you by the manufacturer? Why don't you just buy one from random stock, quickly run your "test" before the return period expires, then return it for credit, if need be, or keep it for your own use? Your giving a free pass to a provided unit will not resolve any doubts for those who wish to exploit the issue.

Also, given the huge number of "no problem" reports from other users of the K-X and K-7 regarding your inquiry, why would Pentax indulge your urge to "test" with a new model showing no reported issues, then run the risk of having a hidden flaw in your procedure cloud their reputation?

Something does not add up. Help me understand...

---

Last edited by Michaelina2; 10-30-2010 at 03:55 AM.

[Class A]

That is unfair, why getting you a camera for testing something most people did not notice at all...

1. Whether *most poeple* notice it, is irrelevant for the existence of a problem.
2. Maybe Falk is trusted with testing cameras (he already was an alpha-tester for the K-7) because he doesn't jump to conclusions like some here.

Plus, the work around is easy.

You mean by avoiding the relevant shutter speed range? You may want to call that "workaround", I call it serious limitation.

May I ask why you risk the independence and integrity of your testing procedure by using a sample offered specifically to you by the manufacturer?

May I ask what makes you assume the camera is going to be a gift? I reckon he has to return it after having had a good look at it. I might be wrong, but I'm not making assumptions and start to accuse/question people based on speculations.

Regarding the potential of the manufacturer selecting a specific sample:

1. Pentax (UK) didn't manage to send DPRreview one single copy of a DA* 55/1.4 that didn't have an optical problem. Three attempts, three failures even though the recipient was known.
2. If Pentax can manufacture one camera that doesn't have the problem than that's just dandy. Everyone having an issue then will then be able to refer to that copy and say "I want a defect-free one as well". Where is the issue?

Also, given the huge number of "no problem" reports from other users of the K-X and K-7 regarding your inquiry, why would Pentax indulge your urge to "test" with a new model showing no reported issues, then run the risk of having a hidden flaw in your procedure cloud their reputation?

Perhaps because Pentax acknowledged the problem? Don't you know that Pentax specifically agreed that Falk and his team go public with there observations? There is no doubt that at least some copies (if not all) of the K-7 had the problem. That not all users noticed the problem doesn't say anything.

Have you read Falk's article about the shutter blur issue? Would you like to care to point out to us where the "hidden flaw" might be?

[falconeye]

That is unfair

The real unfairness is that I will have to return the camera when I'm done with some tests while everybody else here can keep her K-5. There's no free lunch

[adamfogerty]

Adam, I may be over thinking things indeed

But Pentax isn't even fully utilizing SDHC writing speeds and SDXC support won't increase writing speed. Look up the SDXC spec. Increased writing speeds would require a hardware modifiation.

I generally stick to the principle to keep things as simple as possible -- but no simpler. Applies to my thinking as well

I was of course just playing devils advocate - I bow to your superior technical knowledge on all things camera related. As someone else mentioned if you needed to use an SDXC card to take advantage of the buffer increase Pentax would probably have mentioned it in the announcment.

Without wanting to take this too much off-topic, I'm surprised you say support for the increased write speeds of SDXC would require a hardware mod. - I had assumed Pentax's annoucement of upcoming SDXC support meant that the neccessary hardware was already built into the camera? Surely they'd be stretching the true if the K-5 only partially supported the SDXC standard?

All that is a long-winded way for me to hold out hope that when the SDXC support comes down the line that it might increase the FPS throughput even higher than 20 or am I just dreaming?

Adam

[Rite]

But only at ISO 100. Which is of course still a limitation (like Ron Hendriks said: what about sports at night or indoor?)

===================================

That little qualifier doesn't seem to be registering.

[Rite]

Pentax (UK) didn't manage to send DPRreview one single copy of a DA* 55/1.4 that didn't have an optical problem. Three attempts, three failures even though the recipient was known.

================================

Wow!

Where is the renown QUALITY CONTROL Pentax has been famous for over the past four decades?

[Michaelina2]

Would you like to care to point out to us where the "hidden flaw" might be?

Are you suggesting that the tons of 'no problem' or 'problem sometimes reported, then sometimes not...' field reports explained away as 'sample variation' removes all questions and somehow validates the report's findings?

Is it possible that the author's attempt to replicate the prior study with the K-5 and K-R might fail to point out certain critical variables treated differently and in subtle ways that could produce more questionable outcomes?

Can you please point out another independent study that validates the test procedure and confirms the author's alleged results on any other manufacturer's DSLRs? Until that happens, is it not possible that readers are being presented with mumbo-jumbo? Any B grade sophomore statistics student learns studies like this are an art form, full of trade-offs and easy to write. The gullible, unknowingly in over their heads with a DSLR, buy into the clever jargon, implied precision, colorful charts, squawk "Me, too!!!" and it's off to the races for trolls.

Given these possibilities, how can you not agree there are good reasons to be skeptical of the peat and repeat?

[kittykat46]

I think this is a sentence that everyone wants to be able to say truthfully I know i would

Usually such field test units are officially "On-Loan", in the beginning at least.

But after the tests are done, the manufacturers often say "Oh...you can can keep it" .....hey, they can even get a tax break for it under development costs...

[Fl_Gulfer]

I just don't see how they can double the speed with a firmware update and keep any kind of quality at that speed. I mean it not like in Movie mode with the shutter up or is it?. Also seems like it would decrease the life of the shutter.
I think someone should flush the toilet........lol

[dankoBanana]

I just don't see how they can double the speed with a firmware update and keep any kind of quality at that speed. I mean it not like in Movie mode with the shutter up or is it?. Also seems like it would decrease the life of the shutter.
I think someone should flush the toilet........lol

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/120228-announced-firmw...ml#post1242808

falk explained it and it does seem very plausible

[Gimbal]

I just don't see how they can double the speed with a firmware update and keep any kind of quality at that speed. I mean it not like in Movie mode with the shutter up or is it?. Also seems like it would decrease the life of the shutter.
I think someone should flush the toilet........lol

They are not going to change the speed.

[Lage]

PENTAX K-5? ?????????????????PENTAX

If the google translator is reliable, they plan to upgrade the 8 raw buffer to 20! How they will is beyond me... unless it was hardware-planned that way and only the rush of the Photokina presentation prevented them to be able to make the camera wrks that way since the start...

In english:
Announcement of updating firmware for PENTAX K-5

[rawr]

That little qualifier doesn't seem to be registering.

ISO 100 may be something like a CIPA guideline for presenting buffer results. Every manufacturer seems to state their buffer results as shot at ISO 100, with fine print to the effect that 'buffer performance will vary by ISO, image size, shooting conditions etc'. Just look at the spec sheets for the D7000 and 7D.

Most people would recognise that the buffer numbers they see around the place reflect this practice.

[Rite]

ISO 100 may be something like a CIPA guideline for presenting buffer results. Every manufacturer seems to state their buffer results as shot at ISO 100, with fine print to the effect that 'buffer performance will vary by ISO, image size, shooting conditions etc'. Just look at the spec sheets for the D7000 and 7D.

Most people would recognise that the buffer numbers they see around the place reflect this practice.

==============================

OK, thanks.

I'm already unhappy the K5 is overpriced, and get even madder when a firmware upgrade is already out for it and it hasn't even been on the market a week yet.

I'm planning on getting one, but continue to observe with caution.

[jeffshaddix]

================================

Wow!

Where is the renown QUALITY CONTROL Pentax has been famous for over the past four decades?

It left when they started outsourcing their production. I am however, very impressed with the news of this update. Bravo Pentax!