Tethered support fo Pentax Cameras through Lightroom?

rawr · 08-31-2010, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by knoxploration

...The point was simply that, as stands, there's nothing that even third-party software can hook into to activate tethering on the K-7. It would require a firmware update from Pentax or a third-party, before the K-7 could offer tethering with *any* software.

Hmmm. I'm not sure. Playing around with several of those freeware tethering applications for Nikon and other brands got me thinking that perhaps the issue may very well be just at the client end, for some if not all tethering features. I'm not a programmer, but it almost looked like all that was causing some of those apps to fail was that they were looking for a Nikon identifier in the data coming back from the camera.

knoxploration · 08-31-2010, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by rawr

Hmmm. I'm not sure. Playing around with several of those freeware tethering applications for Nikon and other brands got me thinking that perhaps the issue may very well be just at the client end, for some if not all tethering features. I'm not a programmer, but it almost looked like all that was causing some of those apps to fail was that they were looking for a Nikon identifier in the data coming back from the camera.

I can't speak for the K-x as I never bothered to try PTP / tethering with it, knowing it wasn't supported in the K-7. I did try it with the K-7 though, and when there's a PTP connection, all imaging functionality of the camera shuts down. (LCD displays all switch off, buttons all stop functioning, shutter cannot be remotely triggered with any software.)

At least, that was the case last I checked. Haven't checked again since the latest K-7 firmware update.

I think all this was covered earlier in this thread by myself and others, or perhaps in a different thread. Either way, we've been over it and the consensus is that tethering is impossible with the current K-7 firmware, leaving Eye-Fi cards as the only option.

I'd *love* to be proven wrong, though. ;-)

falconeye · 08-31-2010, 09:36 AM

I am not sure. But isn't it necessary even for a Nikon to first turn PTP into a remote control mode or so? On the camera, I mean. As PTP is meant to transfer images first of all.

knoxploration · 08-31-2010, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

I am not sure. But isn't it necessary even for a Nikon to first turn PTP into a remote control mode or so? On the camera, I mean. As PTP is meant to transfer images first of all.

I believe the base PTP standard doesn't include any functionality for remote camera control, but this is achieved through vendor extensions. Like Canon, Nikon, and others, Pentax has its own vendor extension code and can hence add whatever it likes to the base PTP functionality.

International Imaging Industry Association PTP

No idea if this is how Pentax achieved past remote control functionality, nor if there's any cost to Pentax (beyond its own development cost) for making changes to its vendor extension feature set, though.

mikro · 08-31-2010, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by Russell-Evans

Can you show me where it says Pro in the spec? Can you show me where is says Pro anywhere in the literature put out by Pentax? So where did you get Pro from then?

Thank you
Russell

Can you show me where it says "Reply back with all your smart assed ignorant comments please" in my original post?

Dont automatically think that my post is in raving anger. I was being quite jocular.

Some of you people on message boards are only here looking for a fight it seems.

**Aristophanes** · 08-31-2010, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by Russell-Evans

Can you show me where it says Pro in the spec? Can you show me where is says Pro anywhere in the literature put out by Pentax? So where did you get Pro from then?

Thank you
Russell

Does it matter?

It's a camera unsuitable for a Grade 11 photo/film class I know about. They tether to learn animation and time lapse. Pentax not invited.

But 4 year-old consumer Canon's worth 1/3 the K-7 price can be used. It's a cheap software feature that Pentax did not implement. Not classy, therefore not in class.

knoxploration · 08-31-2010, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

Does it matter?

It's a camera unsuitable for a Grade 11 photo/film class I know about. They tether to learn animation and time lapse. Pentax not invited.

But 4 year-old consumer Canon's worth 1/3 the K-7 price can be used. It's a cheap software feature that Pentax did not implement. Not classy, therefore not in class.

I think we're in agreement that it's a feature we personally would have used, but I don't know that any of us are qualified to claim it to be "cheap". If it was truly a cheap feature, it seems pretty unlikely it wouldn't have been included, nor added after the fact once enough people had told Pentax they felt it to be a necessary feature.

From that, you can draw two possible conclusions (or possibly both, depending on how you look at it.) Either Pentax doesn't believe the demand is sufficient to merit the cost, or it's not as cheap as you might think to code the software, test it to an acceptable degree, and release it. (Note that an acceptable degree of testing might well be rather involved -- it seems the previous software bundled with the K10D and K20D didn't have a great reputation due to OS issues, etc.)

Russell-Evans · 08-31-2010, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by mikro

Can you show me where it says "Reply back with all your smart assed ignorant comments please" in my original post?

Dont automatically think that my post is in raving anger. I was being quite jocular.

Some of you people on message boards are only here looking for a fight it seems.

You people? Really?

Thank you
Russell

Russell-Evans · 08-31-2010, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

It's a camera unsuitable for a Grade 11 photo/film class I know about. They tether to learn animation and time lapse. Pentax not invited.

But 4 year-old consumer Canon's worth 1/3 the K-7 price can be used.

Same can be said about the *istD, K10D, and K20D. I think the *istD was 2003 so that's what, 6-7 years old? Yes, I agree, it is too bad Pentax didn't keep tethering in the K-7. OK, so now what?

Pentax made a decision about keeping it in or not, and personally from the way the firmware updates kept coming out for the K-7 and K-x after launch to fix problems, maybe, just maybe, that was a good call.

Thank you
Russell

**Clarkey** · 09-01-2010, 07:28 AM

Russell, I'm not sure whether all of the firmware updates for the K7/KX were/are to fix problems, but accept your point.

My original point when starting this thread was to highlight that Pentax supported DNG and was therefore maybe open to tethering through adobe/third party products. It would be nice if someone was able to provide a development framework for this and other types of controls, and harness the niche development community.

Since then it appears that this is not attainable (and in fact seems to be deliberately disabled via firmware when connecting via ptp mode). This, coupled by the lack of APS-C lens corrections in lightroom (maybe they are coming - 645 corrections now exist in LR 3.2) suggests a lesser willingness to co-operate with Adobe than I had hoped when I started the thread.

Then again, who knows! Maybe the upcoming cameras will support tethering.

thibs · 09-01-2010, 08:45 AM

Someone (don't remember who) said the tethering absence was due to hardware limitations, not software. I dunno if it is true or not and in the end it doesn't matter much: Pentax should have bundeled this in the K-7, I think we do all agree about it. But it may explain why Pentax didn't add it later by firmware update.

The presence of 645 lenses is not surprising, they do support their Pro offering better than consumer cameras. This is logical somehow but they should IMO do the same for APS-C/FF lenses. They won't do for earlier lenses, for sure, but current ones would be very nice.

mstolt · 12-01-2010, 07:46 PM

I tried out tethering my K10D to LR3 today. It worked fine. Used Pentax Remote Assitant 3.51 to capture and drop the RAW files into a "watched folder", where LR3 grabed them and displayed them. Took about 4 seconds for the images to pop-up on the screen.

falconeye · 12-02-2010, 07:36 PM

This isn't what is addressed by this thread. Of course, one always could use RA (with cameras supporting it) with LR in conjunction.

This thread is about LR tethering, where LR drives the MSC/PTP-API itself.

But maybe, it is a good idea to revive this thread. After the promising success to drive the newer cameras via the MSC/PTP-API.

IMHO, the community should exercise some pressure now to make clear to Pentax that we want LR tethering (driving the MSC/PTP-API) rather than yet another crap version of Remote Assistant.

I think the cost to make a good version of RA is what is stopping Pentax from doing it. Or even worse, they do it while we speak and we don't actually want it.

Pentax: Less is more. Fix the MSC/PTP-API just to a degree LR can use it. And you get tethering almost for free. And you make us happy.

Right? Do I speak for the community here? Or is it just me?

FullertonImages · 12-02-2010, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by falconeye

This isn't what is addressed by this thread. Of course, one always could use RA (with cameras supporting it) with LR in conjunction.

This thread is about LR tethering, where LR drives the MSC/PTP-API itself.

But maybe, it is a good idea to revive this thread. After the promising success to drive the newer cameras via the MSC/PTP-API.

IMHO, the community should exercise some pressure now to make clear to Pentax that we want LR tethering (driving the MSC/PTP-API) rather than yet another crap version of Remote Assistant.

I think the cost to make a good version of RA is what is stopping Pentax from doing it. Or even worse, they do it while we speak and we don't actually want it.

Pentax: Less is more. Fix the MSC/PTP-API just to a degree LR can use it. And you get tethering almost for free. And you make us happy.

Right? Do I speak for the community here? Or is it just me?

YESSSSS!!!!!!!!

You speak for me.

dankoBanana · 12-03-2010, 02:58 AM

yes, I totally agree!

12-01-2010, 07:46 PM	#72
mstolt Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Iowa Posts: 64	Tethering Lightroom 3 and K10d I tried out tethering my K10D to LR3 today. It worked fine. Used Pentax Remote Assitant 3.51 to capture and drop the RAW files into a "watched folder", where LR3 grabed them and displayed them. Took about 4 seconds for the images to pop-up on the screen.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lightroom 3.2 and Camera Raw 6.2 support Pentax 645D	Class A	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	2	08-10-2010 06:26 PM
Tethered Shooting With a Pentax	fwbigd	Photographic Technique	23	02-08-2010 01:02 PM
The K-X and K-7 support PTP - Doesn't PTP support tethered shooting?	Russell-Evans	Pentax DSLR Discussion	2	12-25-2009 10:04 PM
Lightroom Update version 2.6 now out. Support added for K-x	blackcloudbrew	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	0	12-22-2009 10:40 AM
tethered wireless USB shooting w/ Pentax Remote Assistant	kenyee	Pentax DSLR Discussion	3	08-17-2009 02:30 PM

08-31-2010, 08:39 AM	#61
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by knoxploration ...The point was simply that, as stands, there's nothing that even third-party software can hook into to activate tethering on the K-7. It would require a firmware update from Pentax or a third-party, before the K-7 could offer tethering with any software. Hmmm. I'm not sure. Playing around with several of those freeware tethering applications for Nikon and other brands got me thinking that perhaps the issue may very well be just at the client end, for some if not all tethering features. I'm not a programmer, but it almost looked like all that was causing some of those apps to fail was that they were looking for a Nikon identifier in the data coming back from the camera.

08-31-2010, 09:17 AM	#62
knoxploration Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Knoxville, Tennessee Posts: 846	Originally posted by rawr Hmmm. I'm not sure. Playing around with several of those freeware tethering applications for Nikon and other brands got me thinking that perhaps the issue may very well be just at the client end, for some if not all tethering features. I'm not a programmer, but it almost looked like all that was causing some of those apps to fail was that they were looking for a Nikon identifier in the data coming back from the camera. I can't speak for the K-x as I never bothered to try PTP / tethering with it, knowing it wasn't supported in the K-7. I did try it with the K-7 though, and when there's a PTP connection, all imaging functionality of the camera shuts down. (LCD displays all switch off, buttons all stop functioning, shutter cannot be remotely triggered with any software.) At least, that was the case last I checked. Haven't checked again since the latest K-7 firmware update. I think all this was covered earlier in this thread by myself and others, or perhaps in a different thread. Either way, we've been over it and the consensus is that tethering is impossible with the current K-7 firmware, leaving Eye-Fi cards as the only option. I'd love to be proven wrong, though. ;-)

08-31-2010, 09:36 AM	#63
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	I am not sure. But isn't it necessary even for a Nikon to first turn PTP into a remote control mode or so? On the camera, I mean. As PTP is meant to transfer images first of all.

08-31-2010, 10:32 AM	#64
knoxploration Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Knoxville, Tennessee Posts: 846	Originally posted by falconeye I am not sure. But isn't it necessary even for a Nikon to first turn PTP into a remote control mode or so? On the camera, I mean. As PTP is meant to transfer images first of all. I believe the base PTP standard doesn't include any functionality for remote camera control, but this is achieved through vendor extensions. Like Canon, Nikon, and others, Pentax has its own vendor extension code and can hence add whatever it likes to the base PTP functionality. International Imaging Industry Association PTP No idea if this is how Pentax achieved past remote control functionality, nor if there's any cost to Pentax (beyond its own development cost) for making changes to its vendor extension feature set, though.

08-31-2010, 10:34 AM	#65
mikro Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: North Carolina Posts: 57	Originally posted by Russell-Evans Can you show me where it says Pro in the spec? Can you show me where is says Pro anywhere in the literature put out by Pentax? So where did you get Pro from then? Thank you Russell Can you show me where it says "Reply back with all your smart assed ignorant comments please" in my original post? Dont automatically think that my post is in raving anger. I was being quite jocular. Some of you people on message boards are only here looking for a fight it seems.

08-31-2010, 03:42 PM	#66
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by Russell-Evans Can you show me where it says Pro in the spec? Can you show me where is says Pro anywhere in the literature put out by Pentax? So where did you get Pro from then? Thank you Russell Does it matter? It's a camera unsuitable for a Grade 11 photo/film class I know about. They tether to learn animation and time lapse. Pentax not invited. But 4 year-old consumer Canon's worth 1/3 the K-7 price can be used. It's a cheap software feature that Pentax did not implement. Not classy, therefore not in class.

08-31-2010, 05:00 PM	#67
knoxploration Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Knoxville, Tennessee Posts: 846	Originally posted by Aristophanes Does it matter? It's a camera unsuitable for a Grade 11 photo/film class I know about. They tether to learn animation and time lapse. Pentax not invited. But 4 year-old consumer Canon's worth 1/3 the K-7 price can be used. It's a cheap software feature that Pentax did not implement. Not classy, therefore not in class. I think we're in agreement that it's a feature we personally would have used, but I don't know that any of us are qualified to claim it to be "cheap". If it was truly a cheap feature, it seems pretty unlikely it wouldn't have been included, nor added after the fact once enough people had told Pentax they felt it to be a necessary feature. From that, you can draw two possible conclusions (or possibly both, depending on how you look at it.) Either Pentax doesn't believe the demand is sufficient to merit the cost, or it's not as cheap as you might think to code the software, test it to an acceptable degree, and release it. (Note that an acceptable degree of testing might well be rather involved -- it seems the previous software bundled with the K10D and K20D didn't have a great reputation due to OS issues, etc.)

08-31-2010, 07:36 PM	#68
Russell-Evans Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,553	Originally posted by mikro Can you show me where it says "Reply back with all your smart assed ignorant comments please" in my original post? Dont automatically think that my post is in raving anger. I was being quite jocular. Some of you people on message boards are only here looking for a fight it seems. You people? Really? Thank you Russell

08-31-2010, 07:57 PM	#69
Russell-Evans Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,553	Originally posted by Aristophanes It's a camera unsuitable for a Grade 11 photo/film class I know about. They tether to learn animation and time lapse. Pentax not invited. But 4 year-old consumer Canon's worth 1/3 the K-7 price can be used. Same can be said about the istD, K10D, and K20D. I think the istD was 2003 so that's what, 6-7 years old? Yes, I agree, it is too bad Pentax didn't keep tethering in the K-7. OK, so now what? Pentax made a decision about keeping it in or not, and personally from the way the firmware updates kept coming out for the K-7 and K-x after launch to fix problems, maybe, just maybe, that was a good call. Thank you Russell

09-01-2010, 07:28 AM	#70
Clarkey Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Brampton, ON, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,456 Original Poster	Russell, I'm not sure whether all of the firmware updates for the K7/KX were/are to fix problems, but accept your point. My original point when starting this thread was to highlight that Pentax supported DNG and was therefore maybe open to tethering through adobe/third party products. It would be nice if someone was able to provide a development framework for this and other types of controls, and harness the niche development community. Since then it appears that this is not attainable (and in fact seems to be deliberately disabled via firmware when connecting via ptp mode). This, coupled by the lack of APS-C lens corrections in lightroom (maybe they are coming - 645 corrections now exist in LR 3.2) suggests a lesser willingness to co-operate with Adobe than I had hoped when I started the thread. Then again, who knows! Maybe the upcoming cameras will support tethering.

12-03-2010, 02:58 AM	#75
dankoBanana Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Zagreb, Croatia Posts: 533	yes, I totally agree!

09-01-2010, 08:45 AM	#71
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Someone (don't remember who) said the tethering absence was due to hardware limitations, not software. I dunno if it is true or not and in the end it doesn't matter much: Pentax should have bundeled this in the K-7, I think we do all agree about it. But it may explain why Pentax didn't add it later by firmware update. The presence of 645 lenses is not surprising, they do support their Pro offering better than consumer cameras. This is logical somehow but they should IMO do the same for APS-C/FF lenses. They won't do for earlier lenses, for sure, but current ones would be very nice.

12-02-2010, 07:36 PM	#73
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	This isn't what is addressed by this thread. Of course, one always could use RA (with cameras supporting it) with LR in conjunction. This thread is about LR tethering, where LR drives the MSC/PTP-API itself. But maybe, it is a good idea to revive this thread. After the promising success to drive the newer cameras via the MSC/PTP-API. IMHO, the community should exercise some pressure now to make clear to Pentax that we want LR tethering (driving the MSC/PTP-API) rather than yet another crap version of Remote Assistant. I think the cost to make a good version of RA is what is stopping Pentax from doing it. Or even worse, they do it while we speak and we don't actually want it. Pentax: Less is more. Fix the MSC/PTP-API just to a degree LR can use it. And you get tethering almost for free. And you make us happy. Right? Do I speak for the community here? Or is it just me?

12-02-2010, 07:59 PM	#74
FullertonImages Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 883	Originally posted by falconeye This isn't what is addressed by this thread. Of course, one always could use RA (with cameras supporting it) with LR in conjunction. This thread is about LR tethering, where LR drives the MSC/PTP-API itself. But maybe, it is a good idea to revive this thread. After the promising success to drive the newer cameras via the MSC/PTP-API. IMHO, the community should exercise some pressure now to make clear to Pentax that we want LR tethering (driving the MSC/PTP-API) rather than yet another crap version of Remote Assistant. I think the cost to make a good version of RA is what is stopping Pentax from doing it. Or even worse, they do it while we speak and we don't actually want it. Pentax: Less is more. Fix the MSC/PTP-API just to a degree LR can use it. And you get tethering almost for free. And you make us happy. Right? Do I speak for the community here? Or is it just me? YESSSSS!!!!!!!! You speak for me.