Originally posted by Class A It was exactly in that sense that I meant "above expectations" to be understood.
I'm not sure I understand you. I was saying that the camera can only be described as "superior" if it's Live View capability was taken into account (which you are describing as an "unsatisfactory" workaround) - the other two cameras did not have Live View.
Exactly how is this taken to mean performing "above expectations"?
Originally posted by Class A I'm afraid I cannot draw much on high school physics because most of it has been overshadowed by the physics courses I took at my university.
I still don't know what relationship between colour temperature and spherical aberrations you were appealing to.
Well, I will also admit, I have forgotten most of my university physics, which I took at the honours level.
But I seem to recall (very dimly) that if you shine white light past a prism, you get a rainbow because light at different frequencies get diffracted at different angles.
What has that to do with spherical aberration? Well, I was kind of implying was that there may be a condition in which the curvature of the lens causes light at different frequencies to not be aligned when they reach the AF sensor. [Edit: I probably should have said chromatic aberration rather than spherical - but I was also thinking of spherical aberation because the problem seems to be more prominent on fast lenses wide open]
Originally posted by Class A With all due respect but I find Falk's study much more convincing than your test photos. While there is always the possibility that your K-5 behaves completely differently, at this stage it seems unlikely.
I never claimed that two photos taken in non-rigorous conditions constitutes hard evidence.
Nor am I claiming my K-5 behaves "completely differently" - but clearly there are differences in behaviour in the AF assist light for example, which Falk acknowledges, and which is also substantiated by another user (dlacouture).
My tests do not contradict Falk - they are testing for conditions that Falk never tested.
I wasn't asking you to be "convinced" by my results - indeed I would be horrified if you were. I was suggesting to Falk that the parameters of the "problem" may be a little bit more complex than the position he put forward in the paper, particularly his hypothesis of the effect of different lenses, and also the significance of the colour spectrum of the light source. He has acknowledged this and said as much in his reply.
Originally posted by Class A I think it is pretty safe to assume that he wasn't just describing the behaviour of an individual camera copy.
With all due respect I don't share your confidence that it is a safe assumption. Especially since Falk and I have confirmed that our cameras have different behaviours even though we have exactly the same firmware. dlacouture has suggested the behaviour difference can be attributed to different lenses - at this stage I don't know whether that is a plausible theory or not.
Originally posted by Class A None of the countermeasures you describe are satisfactory for a camera in this price bracket.
Isn't that for each individual to determine? Sorry, but you can't tell others whether a workaround is satisfactory or not.
Originally posted by Class A Surely there are tons of ways to enjoy a K-5 despite its current problems but that doesn't mean the front-focus problem is insignificant.
Again, isn't it up to each individual to determine whether a problem is significant to them or not? I have stated my position, others are free to draw their own conclusions. I was responding to a post by someone who said despite being disappointed by the problem, it has not stopped that person from planning a purchase. I was merely giving some workarounds to that person. Isn't it up to that person, and not yourself, to determine whether those workarounds are satisfactory or not?