[rawr]

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 see regular firmware updates as a positive, rather than a negative. The camera works OK as it is, now they are tuning up the code, fixing bugs and improving performance. With the firmware representing probably 1 million lines of code or something, tuning it could be a full-time job.

I'd be happy if Pentax rolled-out bug-stomping and feature-enhancing firmware updates monthly Kind of like MS's 'patch Tuesday' routine.

[Wheatfield]

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

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.

The price is the price. If you think it is unfair, buy a cheaper camera.
Pentax has the right to price their cameras as they see fit, you have the right to purchase or not. This is a pretty simple concept albeit one lost on a lot of Pentax customers.

The K5 at release is the same price as the K7 was when it was released, so in a year they have managed several significant performance increases while holding the price constant.

If things like firmware updates make you mad, I think you should take up a different hobby. You don't stand much chance of being happy with this hobby.

[dgaies]

The price is the price. If you think it is unfair, buy a cheaper camera.
Pentax has the right to price their cameras as they see fit, you have the right to purchase or not. This is a pretty simple concept albeit one lost on a lot of Pentax customers.

The K5 at release is the same price as the K7 was when it was released, so in a year they have managed several significant performance increases while holding the price constant.

If things like firmware updates make you mad, I think you should take up a different hobby. You don't stand much chance of being happy with this hobby.

+1

Could not have said it better myself.

[bobmaxja]

I said to same to him in a different thread as he complain about price vs 60D

[Class A]

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?

Note that the "tons of 'no problem'" reports may just indicate that the users are not looking carefully enough or are attributing the blurriness to their hand-holding or other sources. The issue doesn't render every image unusable. Other factors like hand-shake may overshadow it. The shutter-induced blur is just one of many factors that may prevent an image from having optimal sharpness. Since the extent to which the shutter-induced blur occurs on the K-7 is avoidable (as the K20D demonstrates), it should be addressed in future models.

BTW, the report contains sufficient validation. The problem has been tackled from multiple angles and the data speaks a clear language. Of course you could argue that Falk and his team had the only K-7s that have the issue and the rest of the world only owns K-7's without the problem. Possible but unlikely, in particular given the many users that reported blurry images before and after Falk and his team investigated the issue.

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?

I don't understand. A scientifically conducted experiment allows you to tell to what level of confidence you can either falsify or confirm a hypothesis. The scientific approach to question the result of an experiment is to point out concrete threads to validity. You can of course just state "It might be wrong" but it is not possible to discuss on this basis.

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?

Olympus E-P1 Blur issue.

Until that happens, is it not possible that readers are being presented with mumbo-jumbo?

If you haven't read the report yet, please do so. I have difficulty believing that anyone who has read the report will consider the possibility of having been presented "mumbo-jumbo".

Any B grade sophomore statistics student learns studies like this are an art form, full of trade-offs and easy to write.

Do you want to discredit the result of any experiment on the basis that it is possible to fool people with statistics that have been produced with an agenda? BTW, it is possible to tear such write-ups like this apart. You just point the finger at the part where statistical methods are applied inappropriately. Do that with Falk's study and we can continue to discuss.

[creampuff]

Class A, have you even owned the K-7 to begin with? I have and I didn't see any supposed issue with mine.
Perhaps it's better to upgrade you old and discontinued K100D and spend time shooting with the latest crop of cameras instead of spending time vehemently defending something that many don't believe hold much credibility.

[falconeye]

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

Michaelina2, thanks for pointing this out. Maybe, I should be a bit more cautious when it comes to this particular topic.

The issue is not a "nasty problem" for a K-7 photographer. But it may be for Pentax because it can dampen the enthusiasm for their product. From the context I thought it was more clear what I meant.

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.

You seem to think that this kind of testing pays any bills.
And to buy a product in anticipation to return it is fraud.
For reasons too early to talk about, I've no concern I may test a preselected copy.

why would Pentax indulge your urge to "test" with a new model

I did not request anything. The initiative is theirs. The reason why you don't understand everything is that Pentax knows more about this than you do.

Beyond this point, I won't discuss the "issue" in this thread. It's not the place and not the time.

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

Adam, full support for SDXC doesn't require to use its full speed. Cameras not even use full SDHC speed.

The 20 buffer limit (if it materializes exactly so) means that about ~17 images are buffered while ~3 are written within a 3s window. Even with double write speed, this would increase to 17+6.5 images within a 3.5s window or 23.5 rather than 20 images, a 17% increase of RAW buffer size for a 100% increase in writing speed.

SDXC will be required for video capacity, not speed.
Of course, the speed is nice once the card is in the card reader

[Class A]

Class A, have you even owned the K-7 to begin with?

So I have to own an apple to know that it eventually falls off a tree?

Perhaps it's better to upgrade you old and discontinued K100D and spend time shooting with the latest crop of cameras instead of spending time vehemently defending something that many don't believe hold much credibility.

1. I don't see what my K100D has to do with this. It serves me very well. I'll upgrade it in good time. I skipped the K-7 for more than one reason.
2. I don't think I defended something vehemently. I just tried to inject some rational thinking into a mostly emotional discussion.
3. My problem with the "There is no issue" camp is exactly that they believe. With some effort on their behalf they could know but they choose to believe. Fine for them as long as they acknowledge that a belief is not good enough as a counterargument against a scientifically conducted experiment.

[thibs]

Re: [Firmware update] 20 RAW buffer comming soon to K-5 :)

Isn't that clear enough?

[Rite]

That is unfair, why getting you acamera for testing something most people did not notice at all before you mentioend is and Benji and Yours Truky do NOT get one (with 18-135) for the purpose of Ben's fashionshooting or miy SR testing???

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

IMO, I wouldn't complain that Pentax was straight forward enough to allow FalconEye a test piece. Nothing but good can come out of it for those of us wanting to get first-hand impressions. I salute Pentax for doing it.

I also thank FalconEye for taking the time and effort to give us the results.

The other companies all do it, BTW.

[Rite]

Re: [Firmware update] 20 RAW buffer comming soon to K-5 :)

Isn't that clear enough?

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

Thanks for #69.

Pentax DID flub by an early release, BUT it looks like they are going to more than make up for it. There will be quite a bit of whining though by those early implementers who paid the $$$ premium for it.

Perhaps we'll see a K-5(a)?

[Rite]

Re: [Firmware update] 20 RAW buffer comming soon to K-5 :)

Isn't that clear enough?

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

Bljidar Dimitrov is quite the artist, by anyone's standards. He really knows his stuff!

Welcome to Bojidar Dimitrov's Pentax K-Mount Page

[dgaies]

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

Thanks for #69.

Pentax DID flub by an early release, BUT it looks like they are going to more than make up for it. There will be quite a bit of whining though by those early implementers who paid the $$$ premium for it.

Perhaps we'll see a K-5(a)?

I agree that the K5 release was perhaps a bit premature and done before everything was fully tweaked and tested. But why would "early implementers", such as myself, be upset or whine because Pentax is going to now fix the issue via a firmware update? I personally think it's a positive thing that Pentax is quickly releasing an update to address the issue.

[Rite]

I I personally think it's a positive thing that Pentax is quickly releasing an update to address the issue.

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

Of course it is.

[thibs]

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

Bljidar Dimitrov is quite the artist, by anyone's standards. He really knows his stuff!

Welcome to Bojidar Dimitrov's Pentax K-Mount Page

Yeah, known that website for ten years. If only he could update it a bit more frequently...