[Owltown]

depends on the specifications! I think that this isvery useful. I have spent much more for various filters of various sizes.

One can purchase variable density ND filters - which are actually two polarizers mounted together with one rotatable element. Buy a 49mm and a 52mm and you're pretty much set. Find these on The Bay.

[house]

This stuff is a really bad idea. I'm sure many people working at Pentax feel the same way but are forced to implement anything that has the potential of making the company some money. Pentax brand loyalty comes from their history of decent decisions and well designed gear. It's very dangerous to wear this legacy down with small time money grabbing.

Implementing this kind of stuff in firmware also means additional relatively complex software that adds no benefit to users but introduce great possibility of bugs. (every line of code does) Once it's done I'm sure they'll continue exploiting the pay for firmware method. If it significantly reduced the price of a bare bones model it makes some sense. If i can save 50 bucks by removing the astro tracer I would.

[wm_brant]

Looks interesting to me. Like others have noted, the 15-30 is a big honker, and while ND grads are available for it, they're neither a) cheap, nor b) convenient and they're also c) bulky. If Pentax's add-in works well (and is reasonably easy to use and priced fairly), I'll seriously consider giving it a try.

I recently bought a ND grad kit for my more mundane lenses (i.e., not my 15-30). I consider the price I had to pay for the kit to be - frankly - significantly more than it should cost, but it was either pony up the $$$ or do without. I chose to put down my money and now I have another bag to remember to bring, pack and carry - this bag containing just the filter holder, lens adapter rings, polarizer, and various ND and ND grad filters... Ugh.

I also find the ND grads to be a PITA to use. I don't live anywhere near a large body of water, so given that I always have to deal with trees, uneven terrain, and man-made obstacles, determining exactly where to position the graduated area is often... a guess. Often made in a) a hurry, and b) in less-than-optimal lighting conditions.

Given a reasonably easy to use and effective IN CAMERA solution that works for all lenses I attach to the camera, I would be strongly tempted to buy into it. Others feel differently, and I understand that. I got along without ND grads for a long time, but I really like the idea of having the CHOICE to choose from any of the following: a) doing nothing, b) buying a firmware add-in function or c) buying an lens mounted filter system.

[bspn]

Yeah well, last time I checked we could use the machine's software in more than one computer. From what I gather, if my K-1 croaks and I have to buy another one, I lose the functionality. If that is the case, that's just grand.

Serkevan, I think you misunderstood, these are controls, built onto the machine tools, not separate computers. If the control goes, or any other part, it's replace for a price, or scrap the machine.

[Serkevan]

Serkevan, I think you misunderstood, these are controls, built onto the machine tools, not separate computers. If the control goes, or any other part, it's replace for a price, or scrap the machine.

Ah, our machines have the software installed into PCs - the machine itself has no controller unless plugged to the software.

[Kevin B123]

Implementing this kind of stuff in firmware also means additional relatively complex software that adds no benefit to users but introduce great possibility of bugs. (every line of code does) Once it's done I'm sure they'll continue exploiting the pay for firmware method. If it significantly reduced the price of a bare bones model it makes some sense. If i can save 50 bucks by removing the astro tracer I would.

You don't have to have the update, no one is forcing this on anyone and you don't have to buy the GND filters.
I don't quite understand why people are upset with having a choice on this.

[Wheatfield]

This stuff is a really bad idea. I'm sure many people working at Pentax feel the same way but are forced to implement anything that has the potential of making the company some money. Pentax brand loyalty comes from their history of decent decisions and well designed gear. It's very dangerous to wear this legacy down with small time money grabbing.

Implementing this kind of stuff in firmware also means additional relatively complex software that adds no benefit to users but introduce great possibility of bugs. (every line of code does) Once it's done I'm sure they'll continue exploiting the pay for firmware method. If it significantly reduced the price of a bare bones model it makes some sense. If i can save 50 bucks by removing the astro tracer I would.

I'm not getting the money grab part. They have put a product on the market, in this case it's a software product. You have the choice of buying it or not as you see fit, the same way you have the choice of buying any consumer good. Carrying this train of thought to the logical extreme, any new product can be viewed as a money grab no matter what it is.

[RobA_Oz]

Interesting points of view here. Those complaining about not getting something for free should talk to their employers about not charging customers for something they've been paid to produce. Even charities have to be funded to do some things.

The earlier free releases of firmware features may well have been anticipated in the original pricing of the K-1, but even so, the market wasn't in the serious decline that it is now. Six or seven years later, when someone had a good idea that required serious effort to produce (unlike the special colours in JPEG shooting) they had the choice to absorb the cost internally or charge for it. If it was your business, when every aspect of work is closely scrutinised to ensure ongoing viability in a shrinking market, what would you do? Unlike previous new features added in firmware, this one also has a user business case with a hardware alternative for comparison, to help determine whether to buy it or not.

Charges of blind loyalty to a brand are easy to make (as are that modern disease: charges of conspiracy), but if that's your opinion then you are free to exercise a choice to take your money elsewhere. Opinions, though, as someone once said are like certain sphincters: everyone has one but few people want to spend time examining them closely.

[Kunzite]

I'm not getting the money grab part.

From my point of view, this simply doesn't feel worth the money. I'm not outraged at the idea of buying "premium features", although as I said this might turn against Pentax particularly if others are implementing similar and even more complex functions in the regular firmware.

I get why the per-camera activation key, though - with a non-connected device it's difficult to transfer license keys, while if not linked to a serial number one activation key would surely leak, and be usable by anyone for free.

[Sandy Hancock]

Some spring cleaning of this thread has been needed, and some perfectly reasonable posts have been deleted because they reference other deleted posts.

No offence intended

From now on, can we keep it civil?

[bspn]

Ah, our machines have the software installed into PCs - the machine itself has no controller unless plugged to the software.

Now I understand your first reply. None of the machines I was dealing with used external computers except to upload g-code programs to machine's controller, or to 'drip feed' large g-code programs to them. The programs one of my customers used to machine molds out of aluminum to be then used for casting parts in iron took days to run.

[slartibartfast01]

Some spring cleaning of this thread has been needed, and some perfectly reasonable posts have been deleted because they reference other deleted posts.

No offence intended

From now on, can we keep it civil?

You missed another one in another thread
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/22-pentax-camera-field-accessories/325964-battery-cross-compatibility-pentax-d-li90-panasonic-blf19-post5542078.html

[Sandy Hancock]

You missed another one in another thread

That one can stay. Not all cults are necessarily bad

[ffking]

As I mentioned in a post that got spring-cleaned because of the quote it replied to, there were actually quite a lot of firmware upgrades early in the life of the K-1 - electronic shutter, sqaure crop, night-vision rear LCD, extended bulb function - to name those I remember - so I already have a more capable camera than the one I paid for. i really don't see any problem with having optional extras on a six year old camera for those who want them and were things I've done without for all that time and whose posssible future implementation had no effect on my buying decision. Just because those things were not explicitly paid for in other cameras doesn't mean that they weren't paid for - the difference is that we have the option of not having and not paying.

[Mistral75]

Funny thing is, several people here are complaining about this 'pay for additional software features' policy but nobody has complained about the upgrade not being available to K-3 Mark III.