[ChipB]

A lot of work well done! Thanks.

Any thought as to using the new PLM technology?

[bdery]

If true, will that spur users to (finally) voluntarily abandon legacy lenses and build a modern Pentax system bag? Would that be good or bad for Pentax?

My answer to your question is that having users upgrade to newer glass is an excellent thing. First, it brings more money to the company. Second, it releases more lenses on the market for people who wouldn't or couldn't have purchased new glass anyway, so it's a way to keep them in the family.

Will Disconfirming Pentax Reports test with modern lenses in future, or stick to film-era screwdrive?

The best is to test them all I'd say (and that's what I did )

Thanks bdery

This is a great set of test reports. It is a good example of why many of us value Pentax Forums so much.

A pleasure!

How was the focusing time measured?

Like when we test lenses, by recording sound.

Any thought as to using the new PLM technology?

I don't have the 55-300 PLM on hand to test (these tests are performed with my own lenses, for better or worse).

[kiwi_jono]

Thanks bdery, great test method and results presentation!

[TedH42]

Excellent test, with clean results. Good data for making one's decisions. Thanks.

[funktionsfrei]

An interesting addition would be a similar comparison of a K-1 with pre-1.50 firmware and a K-1 with 1.50 firmware, as there are some hints that the update might have improved things.

Lots of tedious work, I'm well aware ...

[Mikesul]

An interesting addition would be a similar comparison of a K-1 with pre-1.50 firmware and a K-1 with 1.50 firmware, as there are some hints that the update might have improved things.

Lots of tedious work, I'm well aware ...

I could do this because I have not upgraded yet. But I won't. I decided long ago that if careful use and observation of results does not show a clear difference the difference does not matter. I suspect there may be some improvemtnt but if it is not clear from normal use it does not matter. This similar to how surprised we sometimes are when we look at a striking picture in our collection and then realize we took it with what now seems a very inferior camera. Handling and clear results are all that matters.

[Rondec]

I could do this because I have not upgraded yet. But I won't. I decided long ago that if careful use and observation of results does not show a clear difference the difference does not matter. I suspect there may be some improvemtnt but if it is not clear from normal use it does not matter. This similar to how surprised we sometimes are when we look at a striking picture in our collection and then realize we took it with what now seems a very inferior camera. Handling and clear results are all that matters.

I agree.

In point of fact, if Pentax had done anything to auto focus performance with the most recent firmware upgrade, they would probably note it. On the other hand, it is not unusual that people will subjectively claim faster auto focus with every firmware upgrade but when measured, there is no discernible difference. Pentax is not upgrading K-1 cameras to the K-1 II level of auto focus performance, although we cannot say if this is because they can't (it needs accelerator chip to do so) or because they won't (the desire to get people to buy K-1 IIs or upgrade their current cameras).

Currently owning both, I would say that the differences aren't huge but are real.

[Mikesul]

The placebo effect is actually a nice thing.

[MightyMike]

I could do this because I have not upgraded yet. But I won't. I decided long ago that if careful use and observation of results does not show a clear difference the difference does not matter. I suspect there may be some improvemtnt but if it is not clear from normal use it does not matter. This similar to how surprised we sometimes are when we look at a striking picture in our collection and then realize we took it with what now seems a very inferior camera. Handling and clear results are all that matters.

However one must ask the question, when has normal use (AF) ever been something Pentax is deficient on? No point in testing for improvement on something Pentax already does well. however testing for improvement where Pentax historically struggles is very meaningful.

[Mikesul]

Mike,

I really appreciate the work you have been doing testing. I just meant by my message that I am too lazy and not overly critical of performance. When others want to put time into testing I am always interested to see what they find. However, I treat all data and conclusions as provisional, including my own. Each new observation goes into the hopper and over time understanding will emerge. You can tell I am not an engineer!

[MightyMike]

Mike,

I really appreciate the work you have been doing testing. I just meant by my message that I am too lazy and not overly critical of performance. When others want to put time into testing I am always interested to see what they find. However, I treat all data and conclusions as provisional, including my own. Each new observation goes into the hopper and over time understanding will emerge. You can tell I am not an engineer!

I think i misunderstood what you were trying to say. sorry about that

[Mikesul]

I think i misunderstood what you were trying to say. sorry about that

No the problem was my haste in writing. Please keep sharing your experiments.

[TerryL]

Same here. I would rather buy glass.
Terry

[matroxication]

I just received my Pentax K1 and Sigma 35mm lens after sending it for calibration three times. I do not want to upgrade to MK2 and then start the process all over again if it requires another calibration Am happy with my K1 and I still have lot more to explore on this camera.

I would also be interested to know the comparison post 1.5 firmware upgrade. I did experience the autofocus to be more precise post upgrade with my 77 limited lens in low light condition. Am not sure if precise is the right term to use or faster autofocus to lock on target.