[TerryL]

Updated to v1.5 and I find the focus in low light is indeed improved. Checked with 77mm limited and it nails the focus considerably faster in low light situation. Yet to test with my 100mm macro which hunts during the low light scenario.

I have that lens, too. I wasn't going to do the update since I don't plan on getting the new 50mm. That's one expensive 50mm. Sounds like I should, anyway.
Terry

[mbukal]

-installed 1.50 at K1 and from the window of the house tried out with FA80-320 / 4.5-5.6 without a tripod out of hand
-assumptions:
f = 4.5
iso = 400
focal leight = 153mm
Shutter speed = 1/160
mod=TAV
af mode=af.s
af active area=select 33
af.s setting=focus priority
hold af status=high


my impression with the upgrade is that focusing has become more decisive (good for the old kit lens), locked from the first = 100% safe in focus,
i did not notice any acceleration of the focus-only that real security in the focus point

[alvaro_garcia]

Installed it two weeks ago. I don't know what the upgrade is in addition to improve compatibility with the new 50mm lens and the performance in general. I just did it.

[peterh337]

Focusing seems better. I get more or less instant focus on subjects dim enough to make the camera want way past ISO 200000.

[hyyz]

I didn't notice difference on AF.

[Pen-A]

Updated from 1.40 to 1.50, tested AF in low light with 77ltd. No difference..

[bretth]

Yep - I went from 1.40 direct to 1.50 and havent noticed any AF difference.

[cyberjunkie]

Each FW release seems to have same file number - i use a MAc and I have to delete the previous unzipped bin file from my downloads folder before I unzip the new one or the mac changes the file name adding a 1 or 2 etc... Also formatting the sd card in camera always installs a DCIM folder on card... so once you have unzipped a one and only bin file: they are all fwdc228b.bin - load it onto formatted sc card but also delete the DCIM folder. Then load card into camera and you wont have any problems.

You don' have to delete the DCIM folder.
The update process works just fine if the folder is sill there.
Just updated my K-1 to firmware version 1.50 and everything is just fine.
Would be nice to now which other improvements have been included on top of the new D FA 50mm compatibility.
Firmware updates are taken a little more into consideration by Ricoh. Hoya used to care much less, but we are sill quite far from an ideal situation.
Some firmware updates for old cameras would contribute to the perception of reliability of the brand, and its loyal commitment to its customers.
I worked for long time with computer hardware, I'm not a programmer but I'm well aware that some huge IT companies would be long dead, or languishing, if they had not turned (at least partially) to free software with published source code.
I understand that Ricoh can't disclose all their API's and firmware source code, but I'm sure that if they can overcome the typical japanese approach they would find some enthusiasts who would be happy to cooperate on a non disclosure basis.
From my personal point of view i find Ricoh/Pentax still quite competitive under an elecro-mechanical point of view, bu still lacking in the software department. Predictive AF (just an example) needs very complex algorithms. I guess Ricoh has not enough manpower/patens/R&D funds to be really competitive. A change of mentality, and an involvement of the community, would be one of the few zero-cost options on the table.
With the recent/incoming commitment of the Canikon field to the mirrorless field, Ricoh is in the enviable position to concentrate its efforts on the shrinkink reflex market, and potentially be the leader in the future niche marke of cameras with an optical viewfinder. I believe it's not so niche, for some time to come a good number of enthusiasts would be glad to pay the price of a larger form factor, to get in exchange a nice OVF.
To make all that reality, in my opinion Ricoh has to continue to do what it does well (make robust, WR cameras with good ergonomics and nice menus), and also step up their efforts where they are behind (everything that has to do with software).
I might be wrong, I don't have any info that's not available on Google, but I believe that for quite long time the hardware development has gone first, followed by firmware development. I think that Sony is going the other way, software R&D dictates hardware implementation. Not depending on third party hardware, it's a huge advantage on their side.
Giving space to community-based project (firmware updates for old models, Wi-Fi apps, tethered control, etc) would offload, a leas a little, the pressure on a limited amount of developers. All the time saved could be dedicated to what's needed the most.

[tax]

Would be nice to now which other improvements have been included on top of the new D FA 50mm compatibility.

It would be nice to know what prevents Ricoh from including into their K-1 firmware updates the same improved AF algorithms they provide with K-1 II?
Does that additional accelerator unit have to do anything with SAFOX 12 AF sensor module's improved auto focus in K-1 II?
K-1 has the same SAFOX 12 AF sensor module. Why K-1 owners cannot have improved AF algorithms then?

[awscreo]

It would be nice to know what prevents Ricoh from including into their K-1 firmware updates the same improved AF algorithms they provide with K-1 II?
Does that additional accelerator unit have to do anything with SAFOX 12 AF sensor module's improved auto focus in K-1 II?
K-1 has the same SAFOX 12 AF sensor module. Why K-1 owners cannot have improved AF algorithms then?

Did anyone notice a real difference between the two bodies? The one youtube vid I saw on af speed showed almost identical results.

As per reasons for not updating K-1, I'm guessing they want every advantage for K-1 II they can have. Although at this point its silly to expect some groundbreaking enhancements via firmware for either camera.

[derekkite]

Did anyone notice a real difference between the two bodies? The one youtube vid I saw on af speed showed almost identical results.

As per reasons for not updating K-1, I'm guessing they want every advantage for K-1 II they can have. Although at this point its silly to expect some groundbreaking enhancements via firmware for either camera.

The autofocus on the Mark II is substantially better. With the K1 I would shoot birds in flight if they were going across in front of me, and as long as the distance stayed the same I could get shots. If the distance changed, it would be sharp in the viewfinder but out of focus in the exposure.

The Mark II is much better. The AF experience of any K1 owners who upgraded to Mark II? - PentaxForums.com

I got a shot yesterday of a Prairie Falcon coming towards me. It was in focus and sharp. They move very quickly, I had trouble following it over my head and lost focus. My experience is that if the shot is in focus in the viewfinder, it is in the exposure. Most birds are slower than that, and most situations are not directly towards the camera, and those are consistently good.

The K1 with the 1.5 firmware was better, it was more consistent. But to do the calculations and data io to predict location requires a bit more horsepower.

I shoot with the 150-450 and am very impressed.

The other changes such as the image processing I haven't seen anything negative as yet in my shooting. As the dark winter approaches we will see. The K1 is remarkable in low light, and if the Mark II is no worse then I am happy.

[sbh]

It would be nice to know what prevents Ricoh from including into their K-1 firmware updates the same improved AF algorithms they provide with K-1 II?
Does that additional accelerator unit have to do anything with SAFOX 12 AF sensor module's improved auto focus in K-1 II?
K-1 has the same SAFOX 12 AF sensor module. Why K-1 owners cannot have improved AF algorithms then?

When upgrading from mkI to mkII they will replace the entire motherboard (or so). Maybe the new hardware allows for better or faster processing of algorithms...

[awscreo]

The autofocus on the Mark II is substantially better. With the K1 I would shoot birds in flight if they were going across in front of me, and as long as the distance stayed the same I could get shots. If the distance changed, it would be sharp in the viewfinder but out of focus in the exposure.

The Mark II is much better. The AF experience of any K1 owners who upgraded to Mark II? - PentaxForums.com

I got a shot yesterday of a Prairie Falcon coming towards me. It was in focus and sharp. They move very quickly, I had trouble following it over my head and lost focus. My experience is that if the shot is in focus in the viewfinder, it is in the exposure. Most birds are slower than that, and most situations are not directly towards the camera, and those are consistently good.

The K1 with the 1.5 firmware was better, it was more consistent. But to do the calculations and data io to predict location requires a bit more horsepower.

I shoot with the 150-450 and am very impressed.

The other changes such as the image processing I haven't seen anything negative as yet in my shooting. As the dark winter approaches we will see. The K1 is remarkable in low light, and if the Mark II is no worse then I am happy.

I'll take your word for it! I used caf maybe twice, just to test it lol.

I believe the youtube test was for normal af speed and accuracy.

[derekkite]

Speed and accuracy improved in my experience with the 1.5 firmware. It seemed more consistent. With the Mark II I can focus on something as small as the focus point reliably. That wasn't the case with the K1 earlier firmwares. I don't remember if the 1.5 changed that.