[MMVIII]

Just a remark. Okay, Pentax uses the RGB-metering sensor to identify objects that are tracked by the CAF.
In difference to dpreview the bike test with pentaxklub included a red scarf. Maybe this helped the system?

[BigMackCam]

Because it should have been in the K-1 in the first place.

How so? It hadn't even been developed then. Ricoh offered the best AF it could at the time of the K-1's release. People had the choice to buy it untested, or wait for reviews and decide whether its performance was what they needed...

Maybe it wouldn't have failed so miserably then in dpreviews swerving bike test. Fujifilm understands this well and gives its users real improvements through Firmware updates.

The Mk.1 Jaguar E-type *should* have had a full-syncromesh gearbox instead of the Moss unit. If it had, maybe owners wouldn't have had so much crunching and grinding changing in and out of first gear. A full-syncro box was released for the Mk.2 model. Jaguar didn't offer free gearbox upgrades to owners of the Mk.1. Those owners bought what they'd bought, and it was the best the company could offer at the time. "Caveat emptor"...

[D1N0]

How so? It hadn't even been developed then.

This is not a technological development but a logical application of developments already in the camera.


The jaguar could not be helped with a software update. Today ca manufacturers do update car software. Some even adding new features like Tesla. Companies should get stuck in twentieth century hardware mentality and regular updates should be factored in the price of the product. It is much easier to update software than hardware so use that fact.

[D1N0]

How so? It hadn't even been developed then.

This is not a technological development but a logical application of developments already in the camera.


The jaguar could not be helped with a software update. Today ca manufacturers do update car software. Some even adding new features like Tesla. Companies should get stuck in twentieth century hardware mentality and regular updates should be factored in the price of the product. It is much easier to update software than hardware so use that fact.

[BigMackCam]

This is not a technological development but a logical application of developments already in the camera.
...
Companies should get stuck in twentieth century hardware mentality and regular updates should be factored in the price of the product. It is much easier to update software than hardware so use that fact.

Well, tell that to Ricoh... maybe they'll listen. Like I said already, I'll applaud them if they offer the AF upgrade via firmware. I just see it as something they could - rather than should - do. Whatever, I'm sure they'll consider the commercial advantages and disadvantages of any actions they take.

[Paul the Sunman]

These stories are slowly bringing me round to doing the K1 upgrade. It sounds like a fairly big deal.

[Kunzite]

@D1N0 :
Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Making (non-trivial, quality) software is difficult. Making software requires a great deal of effort. Software doesn't exist until a bunch of highly qualified people spend a lot or time designing it, writing it and testing it.
Don't be fooled by how easy it is to update the firmware.

[normhead]

This is not a technological development but a logical application of developments already in the camera.

Then why hasn't everyone else done it. why aren't you asking why they haven't done it, at all, not asking why Pentax didn't do it earlier?

Just a remark. Okay, Pentax uses the RGB-metering sensor to identify objects that are tracked by the CAF.
In difference to dpreview the bike test with pentaxklub included a red scarf. Maybe this helped the system?

The exact opposite is true. Red is a much wider wavelength, it's much harder to confine a red photon to a single pixel. If you want absolute accuracy for AF, you shoot blue.

In the red spectrum on APS_c the best you can get is about 16 MP true resolution, in the blue spectrum you can get 51-100 MP.

[D1N0]

Well, tell that to Ricoh... maybe they'll listen.

Dave Etchells has already asked them. I think they listen to him better than to me


@kunzite we are talking about a few equations here used to determine where a subject is. Don't try to mystify it.

---------- Post added 17-04-18 at 14:54 ----------

Then why hasn't everyone else done it. why aren't you asking why they haven't done it, at all, not asking why Pentax didn't do it earlier?

I don't know what everyone else has to do with it. It's proprietary firmware. I can't touch it. Pentax didn't do it because they didn't think of it or didn't think it was necessary or they aren't perfect.

[normhead]

DPR at the time claimed their test was set up intentionally to stress the system, so white helmet and little/no color. At the time many commenters suggested the test was constructed with intent to fail K-1. We’ll never know.

All we have to do is see if they tested anyone else the same way, and how they did on it. If you can't find anything to compare it too, someone else wearing the same clothing, then the whole test is nonsense. If there are honest comparisons then it doesn't mean anything.

Intent or not, the test was meaningless.

[reh321]

Companies should get stuck in twentieth century hardware mentality and regular updates should be factored in the price of the product. It is much easier to update software than hardware so use that fact.

Here in the 21st Century software companies like Adobe don't give their upgrades away. Why should any other company do it?? I worked for several of those companies and I know for a fact how they struggled for existence when upgrade income was all they were bringing in.

[Kunzite]

@kunzite we are talking about a few equations here used to determine where a subject is. Don't try to mystify it.

"It's just about a few equations". "It's just a button". "Only a tiny feature". Are you a manager, by chance?

I'm not mystifying anything, this is the day to day reality. Software doesn't exist until we design it, write it, test it.
The K-1 couldn't have the new AF algorithms because they weren't designed, written in code, tested.

[normhead]

I don't know what everyone else has to do with it. It's proprietary firmware. I can't touch it. Pentax didn't do it because they didn't think of it or didn't think it was necessary or they aren't perfect.

huh?

Reread the question.

You sound like you are criticizing Pentax for not doing something, that apparently other camera companies haven't done at all, or at least you don't know they have, and if they have, their implementation isn't up to Pentax's implementation.

I fail to understand why Pentax, who actually developed this technology should be criticized for not releasing it sooner.

[stevebrot]

Ricoh should really provide this as a firmware update. It's just algorithms. Nothing hardware specific.

Which firmware? There is firmware and there is firmware. The runaway mirror fix* on affected copies of the K-3 involved a firmware reflash, but at a lower level than was accessible from the normal update mechanism. Just because something is "just algorithms" does not mean the pertinent chips expose their magic to the high level processes addressed by our normal firmware updates.

In addition, the questions of whether the "other improvements" were tied to hardware is not know. I.e. no chip...no improvement, firmware or otherwise.


Steve

(...a never-ending fantasy...the "mystical" firmware fairy...)

* For clarification, there were two fixes for the runaway mirror issue on early K-3 models. The first, done under warranty, was definitive and involved a low-level reflash of the affected components and could only be done at an authorized service facility. Those changes were also applied to production. The second was a firmware update (v1.11) that did not fix the underlying problem, but was capable of detecting the fault in real time and aborting the exposure such that damage to the camera would be minimized. At least that was how it was all explained by Ricoh at the time.

[rangercarp]

Of the three interviews (PF, DPR, IR) this one seems to be the most informative. Of particular interest to me was the question about sales of the K1 and if those sales led to an increase in sales of other Pentax products, or stole from those sales.

"So far, yes, the response toward the K-1 is very good. And as you say, we can see some halo effect -- I mean the good impact -- also on the response to the APS-C cameras. Because the K-1 is more dedicated to the users especially for landscape photography or in tough situations like bad weather. Since these are communicated well to the customers, they’re aware that Pentax is very much dedicated on landscape photography or tough situations. And since people started to know about that, it’s also positively affecting the sales of the rest of our product lineup."