[CypherOz]

Latest PENTAX K-1 Firmware Update : Software Downloads | RICOH IMAGING

K-1 Firmware Changes to V1.20

• Corresponded to [KAF4 lens mount] that is equipped with an electromagnetic diaphragm control system.
  Enable new lens HD PENTAX-DA 55-300mmF4.5-6.3ED PLM WR RE to shoot stable by updating firmware.
• Improved stability for general performance.

---

Last edited by CypherOz; 08-04-2016 at 12:16 AM.

[rawr]

Improved stability for general performance.

I always love that. Could hide a multitude of useful things.

[clackers]

I always love that. Could hide a multitude of useful things.

Yeah, as somebody who has to deal with software upgrades, there can be lots of embarrassing little oversights that a vendor covers simply by saying 'General performance enhancements' in the change log.

[Simen1]

I always love that. Could hide a multitude of useful things.

I always thought those where empty words.

I really hope the KAF4 updates will come for older cameras too. Its a pitty if their updates service are as short as it currently is.

[Reed]

I always thought those where empty words.

Not realy- i had two lenses that was constant missfocusing with even +10 correction on K-30 with 1.00 firmware, but got to working perfectly with that body on "0" adjustment after firmware update(brnad new DA50-still working at "0" on my current K-s2, and older FA series zoom). Also some unusable sd cards started to work nicely.

[Barry Pearson]

I really hope the KAF4 updates will come for older cameras too. Its a pitty if their updates service are as short as it currently is.

I've seen two different explanations: first, that it also needs hardware that wasn't built in to earlier cameras; second, that it needs larger firmware that won't fit earlier cameras.

I don't know if either is true. It would be interesting to find out, although I've now installed the new firmware in my main cameras.

[Igor123]

I've seen two different explanations: first, that it also needs hardware that wasn't built in to earlier cameras; second, that it needs larger firmware that won't fit earlier cameras.

I don't know if either is true. It would be interesting to find out, although I've now installed the new firmware in my main cameras.

(Being in a software company) I consider a third explanation, which I think is the most plausible: It costs to create a project/plan/design/code/test/document/package/market/translate/ship/support new software. Some of these items are admittedly small for a firmware, but do exist and take time to do, and taking time costs money...

[Barry Pearson]

(Being in a software company) I consider a third explanation, which I think is the most plausible: It costs to create a project/plan/design/code/test/document/package/market/translate/ship/support new software. Some of these items are admittedly small for a firmware, but do exist and take time to do, and taking time costs money...

Yup! My career was as an engineer in the computer industry, and I agree with you. And, of course, there is a residual risk that the new firmware introduces a new bug!

This is partly a matter of where the line drawn, for example should the *istD firmware be updated?

But also, it is a matter of whether there are alternatives. Ricoh have introduced one new lens so far, a 55-300mm lens, and are keeping its predecessor 55-300mm in their current (June 2016) line-up.

[jimr-pdx]

I always thought those where empty words.

I really hope the KAF4 updates will come for older cameras too. Its a pitty if their updates service are as short as it currently is.

Doesn't the new lens have an extra contact? I think that is the issue, more contacts on the lens than on the elder bodies. I see no gap between certain pins that was there before..

[Timd]

Doesn't the new lens have an extra contact? I think that is the issue, more contacts on the lens than on the elder bodies. I see no gap between certain pins that was there before..

Looks just the same as the DFA 28-105: same number of pins (was the closest modern lens I could find without getting off my bed...)

[Barry Pearson]

Doesn't the new lens have an extra contact? I think that is the issue, more contacts on the lens than on the elder bodies. I see no gap between certain pins that was there before..

I believe they simply use an existing contact - see Wikipedia.

Looks just the same as the DFA 28-105: same number of pins (was the closest modern lens I could find without getting off my bed...)

I think the pins are the same, see above. But, of course, the mechanical aperture-stop-down would be at 3-o'clock in the photo of the mount.

[CypherOz]

I always love that. Could hide a multitude of useful things.

And (working in the software game) I often tweak code, and sometimes re-factor, for a whole bunch of good reasons (speed, simplification, maintainability, etc.).
When working on a new feature or fix it can pay to improve related modules etc. in a release cycle.
As long as testing, including regression testing, is done well it is usually very low risk.

Only the internal change log has all the gory details, the public release notes don't (mainly as to not confuse people not clued in).

[SteveD]

Is there anyone who could repeat one of their autofocus tests and see if the "improved stability for general performance" might include autofocus? Or is it unlikely that they can improve that?

[CypherOz]

Is there anyone who could repeat one of their autofocus tests and see if the "improved stability for general performance" might include autofocus? Or is it unlikely that they can improve that?

Any improvements will be small and incremental; it is mostly governed by hardware performance.

[DSLRnovice]

Just wondering, has anyone found a performance improvement in the new firmware, other than the ones specifically stated? Do most owners update even when they found no need to?