K-7 Example Images

**RuiC** · 05-22-2009, 04:06 PM

I wonder why would Pentax publish example images supposedly taken by the K-7 camera with Firmware v0.20. That is supposed to be still underdeveloped to warrant a perfect rendition of the true capabilities of the camera. In my opinion those photos stink.
Open the images in PhotoMe and check tag-ID(0027,0028) and see the firmware version. Also tag-ID(0131) shows ver 1.00 . That means that the exif was edited to show v1.00, as in the description along the images in the K-7 Special Site.

Please explain.

Last edited by RuiC; 05-23-2009 at 03:04 AM. Reason: tag-id(0131)

Rickster · 05-23-2009, 07:22 AM

I noticed that too. I think it best to wait until PhotoMe has released a version officially supporting the K7 before jumping to conclusions.

Rick

**RuiC** · 05-23-2009, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by Rickster

I noticed that too. I think it best to wait until PhotoMe has released a version officially supporting the K7 before jumping to conclusions.

Rick

Rick, OK about PhotoMe not supportting k-7 yet, but why did it read firmware v0.20? How did he know?

Rui

RiceHigh · 05-23-2009, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by Rickster

I noticed that too. I think it best to wait until PhotoMe has released a version officially supporting the K7 before jumping to conclusions.

Rick

If it is a PhotoMe problem, why it is so "coincidently" showing DSP/CPU firmware version 0.20 instead of all other possible version numbers???

And, for those who has not checked yet, here is the link:-

http://www.pentax.jp/japan/imaging/digital/slr/k-7/ex.html

RiceHigh · 05-23-2009, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by RuiC

Please explain.

You want who to explain?? :-)

Thesorus · 05-23-2009, 08:08 AM

Pentax should start to push out good, hell, exceptional sample images.

I cannot believe the firmware is so far from production that they cannot do that in controled environment.

I looked at the sample images from the Sigma DP2 that came out way before the official release, and they are simply awsome. (have a look at Sample Photo Gallery | SIGMA DP2 : Special Contents )

joakimfors · 05-23-2009, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by RuiC

That means that the exif was edited to show v1.00, as in the description along the images in the K-7 Special Site.

Please explain.

Or it's just like with all beta software, a bug. Better start looking at the images in a hex editor, might find some hidden messages like 0xdeadbeef which clearly show that the photo was taken by a deceased bovine .

**RuiC** · 05-23-2009, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by RiceHigh

You want who to explain?? :-)

Maybe, ... ehrr, maybe Pentax for a start.

nosnoop · 05-23-2009, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Thesorus

Pentax should start to push out good, hell, exceptional sample images.

But what's the hurry? Does anyone here base their buying decision on official sample images? I, for one, don't! And they won't put out high ISO samples anyways even after production version is completed.

jaad75 · 05-23-2009, 02:07 PM

It was confirmed by John C Pentax on DPreview forum that the latest firmware available was 0.34 and these samples were shot a month ago with "a hand selected unit specifically for this purpose to provide the best quality at the time".

**RuiC** · 05-23-2009, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by jaad75

It was confirmed by John C Pentax on DPreview forum that the latest firmware available was 0.34 and these samples were shot a month ago with "a hand selected unit specifically for this purpose to provide the best quality at the time".

This is his business and who am I to tell him how to run it. One thing is for sure, I never saw anyone here asking urgently for sample photos. Nothing more to say.

Rui

Edvinas · 05-23-2009, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by jaad75

It was confirmed by John C Pentax on DPreview forum that the latest firmware available was 0.34 and these samples were shot a month ago with "a hand selected unit specifically for this purpose to provide the best quality at the time".

It seems that Pentax firmware developers are having tough race against the time...

Hopefuly they won't make many bugs in such hurry.

knoxploration · 05-23-2009, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by jaad75

It was confirmed by John C Pentax on DPreview forum that the latest firmware available was 0.34 and these samples were shot a month ago with "a hand selected unit specifically for this purpose to provide the best quality at the time".

Actually, what he said was:

"There are no cameras around (except maybe with the engineers in Japan) that have final image quality or firmware. I have the latest and it is still version 0.34."

Source: It most certainly is: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

In other words, the Japanese engineers may well have access to newer firmware than John C currently does. Given that the hand picked camera was used to create sample photos for the Japanese website, and that Pentax is a Japanese company, it seems likely that the hand-picking was done in Japan. If that's the case, you'd rather have to expect them to be using the best (and hence, latest) firmware available in Japan at the time - and that could well have been far newer than what is currently available to John C, even as long as a month ago.

I emphasise this because it seems a bit silly to act like there's some conspiracy, and that Pentax isn't playing straight. Even if unintentionally, that is essentially what is being suggested by claiming Pentax has edited the EXIF data to change the number after the images were captured. What possible reason would they even have for doing so, especially given that it is entirely Pentax's own decision as to when the firmware is suitable for public samples / final production, and how to operate their firmware numbering schema?

For that matter, why does anybody believe it is even a requirement that the version numbers have to match? Perhaps there are multiple parts of the firmware with separate version numbers, and some parts *are* considered final, while others aren't. Alternatively, perhaps the firmware guys simply missed updating the version numbering in a couple of places before compiling the firmware. If one can assume they forgot to edit the numbers while editing the EXIF, it is not exactly a huge leap of faith to suggest they could've forgotten the exact same thing while compiling firmware for internal use.

Also, remember that just because this firmware is listed as "v1.0" doesn't necessarily even mean that it is the final version that will ship in production cameras. It could just imply Pentax feels the image quality will equal that of the final version, whatever revision number that may be. We're still at least 1-5 weeks away from the Japanese launch goal of "June 2009", and firmware is often being revised by manufacturers until almost the last second before product starts shipping to distributors.

Generally, the simplest answer is the correct one, and I have a feeling some combination of the above scenarios is far more likely than Pentax having edited the EXIF data to change the version numbers before posting to the web.

**RuiC** · 05-24-2009, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by knoxploration

Actually, what he said was:

"There are no cameras around (except maybe with the engineers in Japan) that have final image quality or firmware. I have the latest and it is still version 0.34."

Source: It most certainly is: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

In other words, the Japanese engineers may well have access to newer firmware than John C currently does. Given that the hand picked camera was used to create sample photos for the Japanese website, and that Pentax is a Japanese company, it seems likely that the hand-picking was done in Japan. If that's the case, you'd rather have to expect them to be using the best (and hence, latest) firmware available in Japan at the time - and that could well have been far newer than what is currently available to John C, even as long as a month ago.

I emphasise this because it seems a bit silly to act like there's some conspiracy, and that Pentax isn't playing straight. Even if unintentionally, that is essentially what is being suggested by claiming Pentax has edited the EXIF data to change the number after the images were captured. What possible reason would they even have for doing so, especially given that it is entirely Pentax's own decision as to when the firmware is suitable for public samples / final production, and how to operate their firmware numbering schema?

For that matter, why does anybody believe it is even a requirement that the version numbers have to match? Perhaps there are multiple parts of the firmware with separate version numbers, and some parts *are* considered final, while others aren't. Alternatively, perhaps the firmware guys simply missed updating the version numbering in a couple of places before compiling the firmware. If one can assume they forgot to edit the numbers while editing the EXIF, it is not exactly a huge leap of faith to suggest they could've forgotten the exact same thing while compiling firmware for internal use.

Also, remember that just because this firmware is listed as "v1.0" doesn't necessarily even mean that it is the final version that will ship in production cameras. It could just imply Pentax feels the image quality will equal that of the final version, whatever revision number that may be. We're still at least 1-5 weeks away from the Japanese launch goal of "June 2009", and firmware is often being revised by manufacturers until almost the last second before product starts shipping to distributors.

Generally, the simplest answer is the correct one, and I have a feeling some combination of the above scenarios is far more likely than Pentax having edited the EXIF data to change the version numbers before posting to the web.

Well, sorry, I have already contributed to that "Fund Raising". You have to look somewhere else. As for your text I only ask you to read it again and tell me if you believe in all you have written

knoxploration · 05-24-2009, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by RuiC

Well, sorry, I have already contributed to that "Fund Raising".

I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Originally posted by RuiC

You have to look somewhere else. As for your text I only ask you to read it again and tell me if you believe in all you have written

Yes, I believe every word. Apparently, given that you failed to refute a single point or offer a single suggested reason why Pentax would need to edit the EXIF data when it controls the firmware and selects the firmware numbering schema itself, you believe every word too.

05-22-2009, 04:06 PM	#1
RuiC Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Lisboa - The best destination in Europe Posts: 633	K-7 Example Images I wonder why would Pentax publish example images supposedly taken by the K-7 camera with Firmware v0.20. That is supposed to be still underdeveloped to warrant a perfect rendition of the true capabilities of the camera. In my opinion those photos stink. Open the images in PhotoMe and check tag-ID(0027,0028) and see the firmware version. Also tag-ID(0131) shows ver 1.00 . That means that the exif was edited to show v1.00, as in the description along the images in the K-7 Special Site. Please explain. Last edited by RuiC; 05-23-2009 at 03:04 AM. Reason: tag-id(0131)

05-23-2009, 07:34 PM	#13
knoxploration Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Knoxville, Tennessee Posts: 846	Originally posted by jaad75 It was confirmed by John C Pentax on DPreview forum that the latest firmware available was 0.34 and these samples were shot a month ago with "a hand selected unit specifically for this purpose to provide the best quality at the time". Actually, what he said was: "There are no cameras around (except maybe with the engineers in Japan) that have final image quality or firmware. I have the latest and it is still version 0.34." Source: It most certainly is: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review In other words, the Japanese engineers may well have access to newer firmware than John C currently does. Given that the hand picked camera was used to create sample photos for the Japanese website, and that Pentax is a Japanese company, it seems likely that the hand-picking was done in Japan. If that's the case, you'd rather have to expect them to be using the best (and hence, latest) firmware available in Japan at the time - and that could well have been far newer than what is currently available to John C, even as long as a month ago. I emphasise this because it seems a bit silly to act like there's some conspiracy, and that Pentax isn't playing straight. Even if unintentionally, that is essentially what is being suggested by claiming Pentax has edited the EXIF data to change the number after the images were captured. What possible reason would they even have for doing so, especially given that it is entirely Pentax's own decision as to when the firmware is suitable for public samples / final production, and how to operate their firmware numbering schema? For that matter, why does anybody believe it is even a requirement that the version numbers have to match? Perhaps there are multiple parts of the firmware with separate version numbers, and some parts are considered final, while others aren't. Alternatively, perhaps the firmware guys simply missed updating the version numbering in a couple of places before compiling the firmware. If one can assume they forgot to edit the numbers while editing the EXIF, it is not exactly a huge leap of faith to suggest they could've forgotten the exact same thing while compiling firmware for internal use. Also, remember that just because this firmware is listed as "v1.0" doesn't necessarily even mean that it is the final version that will ship in production cameras. It could just imply Pentax feels the image quality will equal that of the final version, whatever revision number that may be. We're still at least 1-5 weeks away from the Japanese launch goal of "June 2009", and firmware is often being revised by manufacturers until almost the last second before product starts shipping to distributors. Generally, the simplest answer is the correct one, and I have a feeling some combination of the above scenarios is far more likely than Pentax having edited the EXIF data to change the version numbers before posting to the web.

05-24-2009, 08:10 AM	#14
RuiC Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Lisboa - The best destination in Europe Posts: 633 Original Poster	Originally posted by knoxploration Actually, what he said was: "There are no cameras around (except maybe with the engineers in Japan) that have final image quality or firmware. I have the latest and it is still version 0.34." Source: It most certainly is: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review In other words, the Japanese engineers may well have access to newer firmware than John C currently does. Given that the hand picked camera was used to create sample photos for the Japanese website, and that Pentax is a Japanese company, it seems likely that the hand-picking was done in Japan. If that's the case, you'd rather have to expect them to be using the best (and hence, latest) firmware available in Japan at the time - and that could well have been far newer than what is currently available to John C, even as long as a month ago. I emphasise this because it seems a bit silly to act like there's some conspiracy, and that Pentax isn't playing straight. Even if unintentionally, that is essentially what is being suggested by claiming Pentax has edited the EXIF data to change the number after the images were captured. What possible reason would they even have for doing so, especially given that it is entirely Pentax's own decision as to when the firmware is suitable for public samples / final production, and how to operate their firmware numbering schema? For that matter, why does anybody believe it is even a requirement that the version numbers have to match? Perhaps there are multiple parts of the firmware with separate version numbers, and some parts are considered final, while others aren't. Alternatively, perhaps the firmware guys simply missed updating the version numbering in a couple of places before compiling the firmware. If one can assume they forgot to edit the numbers while editing the EXIF, it is not exactly a huge leap of faith to suggest they could've forgotten the exact same thing while compiling firmware for internal use. Also, remember that just because this firmware is listed as "v1.0" doesn't necessarily even mean that it is the final version that will ship in production cameras. It could just imply Pentax feels the image quality will equal that of the final version, whatever revision number that may be. We're still at least 1-5 weeks away from the Japanese launch goal of "June 2009", and firmware is often being revised by manufacturers until almost the last second before product starts shipping to distributors. Generally, the simplest answer is the correct one, and I have a feeling some combination of the above scenarios is far more likely than Pentax having edited the EXIF data to change the version numbers before posting to the web. Well, sorry, I have already contributed to that "Fund Raising". You have to look somewhere else. As for your text I only ask you to read it again and tell me if you believe in all you have written

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-7 iso 3200 images: No NR, yet the faces look plastic. (11 images)	pcarfan	Pentax DSLR Discussion	43	08-31-2010 08:13 AM
How to see images vertical images after download as vertical ?	netuser	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	8	08-28-2009 03:48 PM
A variety of images with FA* 200/4 Macro (no bugs) - VLF competition images	Marc Langille	Post Your Photos!	28	08-22-2008 07:28 PM
High ISO concert images with Tam 28-300 (Images)	jsundin	Post Your Photos!	2	07-05-2007 08:19 AM
A few K10D tourist images of Italy (9 images, about 200kb each)	volosong	Post Your Photos!	2	04-24-2007 04:29 AM

05-23-2009, 07:22 AM	#2
Rickster Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: SE Idaho - Rocky Mtns Photos: Gallery Posts: 580	I noticed that too. I think it best to wait until PhotoMe has released a version officially supporting the K7 before jumping to conclusions. Rick

05-23-2009, 07:43 AM	#3
RuiC Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Lisboa - The best destination in Europe Posts: 633 Original Poster	Originally posted by Rickster I noticed that too. I think it best to wait until PhotoMe has released a version officially supporting the K7 before jumping to conclusions. Rick Rick, OK about PhotoMe not supportting k-7 yet, but why did it read firmware v0.20? How did he know? Rui

05-23-2009, 07:55 AM	#4
RiceHigh Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,934	Originally posted by Rickster I noticed that too. I think it best to wait until PhotoMe has released a version officially supporting the K7 before jumping to conclusions. Rick If it is a PhotoMe problem, why it is so "coincidently" showing DSP/CPU firmware version 0.20 instead of all other possible version numbers??? And, for those who has not checked yet, here is the link:- http://www.pentax.jp/japan/imaging/digital/slr/k-7/ex.html

05-23-2009, 07:58 AM	#5
RiceHigh Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,934	Originally posted by RuiC Please explain. You want who to explain?? :-)

05-23-2009, 08:08 AM	#6
Thesorus Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Montreal (Canada) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 200	Pentax should start to push out good, hell, exceptional sample images. I cannot believe the firmware is so far from production that they cannot do that in controled environment. I looked at the sample images from the Sigma DP2 that came out way before the official release, and they are simply awsome. (have a look at Sample Photo Gallery \| SIGMA DP2 : Special Contents )

05-23-2009, 09:14 AM	#7
joakimfors Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Lund, Sweden Posts: 237	Originally posted by RuiC That means that the exif was edited to show v1.00, as in the description along the images in the K-7 Special Site. Please explain. Or it's just like with all beta software, a bug. Better start looking at the images in a hex editor, might find some hidden messages like 0xdeadbeef which clearly show that the photo was taken by a deceased bovine .

05-23-2009, 11:50 AM	#8
RuiC Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Lisboa - The best destination in Europe Posts: 633 Original Poster	Originally posted by RiceHigh You want who to explain?? :-) Maybe, ... ehrr, maybe Pentax for a start.

05-23-2009, 01:29 PM	#9
nosnoop Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,299	Originally posted by Thesorus Pentax should start to push out good, hell, exceptional sample images. But what's the hurry? Does anyone here base their buying decision on official sample images? I, for one, don't! And they won't put out high ISO samples anyways even after production version is completed.

05-23-2009, 02:07 PM	#10
jaad75 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Cracow Posts: 457	It was confirmed by John C Pentax on DPreview forum that the latest firmware available was 0.34 and these samples were shot a month ago with "a hand selected unit specifically for this purpose to provide the best quality at the time".

05-23-2009, 05:59 PM	#11
RuiC Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Lisboa - The best destination in Europe Posts: 633 Original Poster	Originally posted by jaad75 It was confirmed by John C Pentax on DPreview forum that the latest firmware available was 0.34 and these samples were shot a month ago with "a hand selected unit specifically for this purpose to provide the best quality at the time". This is his business and who am I to tell him how to run it. One thing is for sure, I never saw anyone here asking urgently for sample photos. Nothing more to say. Rui

05-23-2009, 06:58 PM	#12
Edvinas Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kaunas Posts: 1,458	Originally posted by jaad75 It was confirmed by John C Pentax on DPreview forum that the latest firmware available was 0.34 and these samples were shot a month ago with "a hand selected unit specifically for this purpose to provide the best quality at the time". It seems that Pentax firmware developers are having tough race against the time... Hopefuly they won't make many bugs in such hurry.

05-24-2009, 09:00 AM	#15
knoxploration Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Knoxville, Tennessee Posts: 846	Originally posted by RuiC Well, sorry, I have already contributed to that "Fund Raising". I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Originally posted by RuiC You have to look somewhere else. As for your text I only ask you to read it again and tell me if you believe in all you have written Yes, I believe every word. Apparently, given that you failed to refute a single point or offer a single suggested reason why Pentax would need to edit the EXIF data when it controls the firmware and selects the firmware numbering schema itself, you believe every word too.