sensor life K10d

kiwao · 06-08-2010, 07:42 PM

Could anybody tell me what the estimated lifespan of the K10d sensor is? I ask this because I have had my k10d for over 2 years now and my recent images don't appear to be as clean as images taken when I first got the camera.

jamesm007 · 06-08-2010, 10:58 PM

Could you explain 'what you see' why are they not as clean. More camera noise, general IQ not as good. A couple pics showing the problem would greatly help. However I think we can solve your problem in just a few posts.

alohadave · 06-09-2010, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by kiwao

Could anybody tell me what the estimated lifespan of the K10d sensor is? I ask this because I have had my k10d for over 2 years now and my recent images don't appear to be as clean as images taken when I first got the camera.

Are you comparing your pictures to pictures from newer cameras?

clmonk · 06-09-2010, 06:51 AM

Uhhh alohadave, he tells us that he is comparing them to pictures previously taken with the same camera.
OP--are you using the same post processing software and methods?

Zebooka · 06-09-2010, 08:21 AM

I must say that my wife's K10D had no Green-Magenta gradient when it was bought in 2008 May. And in 2009 it had no gradient too. Now - it has very visible GM-Gradient at iso 1600. It is even lighter than on my cam built in 2007.
Check examples here ????????. 2009 babes. ~ ???????? ???? ???????-???????

Also K10D suffers from some sort of large heat spots when doing very long exposures (like 8 mins)
... | ????? ???????
(on top (slightly left from center), and left-top + right-top which are not noticable on BW version)

Marc Sabatella · 06-09-2010, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by kiwao

Could anybody tell me what the estimated lifespan of the K10d sensor is? I ask this because I have had my k10d for over 2 years now and my recent images don't appear to be as clean as images taken when I first got the camera.

Can you post sample pictures of then versus now - same scene, same lighting, same lens, same white balance, same exposure, same camera settings, same PP workflow? If not, then I'd wager one or more of those other variables is responsible for whatever difference you might be seeing between any two completely different images.

That is to say, a sensor might eventually fail completely, or develop a bunch of dead pixels or some other particular artifacts, but it's extremely unlikely to somehow just gradually get slightly less good.

kiwao · 06-09-2010, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

Can you post sample pictures of then versus now - same scene, same lighting, same lens, same white balance, same exposure, same camera settings, same PP workflow? If not, then I'd wager one or more of those other variables is responsible for whatever difference you might be seeing between any two completely different images.

That is to say, a sensor might eventually fail completely, or develop a bunch of dead pixels or some other particular artifacts, but it's extremely unlikely to somehow just gradually get slightly less good.

Thanks for all the replies. It seems I have yet again asked another silly question

You are probably correct when you say the difference in noise is coming from other factors.

I was looking through my images taken over the past 2 years and comparing iso 100 raw files taken at similar exposures in similar conditions. I noticed that images taken now appear to be noisier than images taken then. So I thought I would ask the question REGARDING THE LIFESPAN OF THE SENSOR but perhaps the shutter is more likely to fail before the sensor.

I will have to buy another body sometime especially now that the new cameras handle noise so much better than the K10d

**Kerrowdown** · 06-10-2010, 06:01 AM

You don't have to post problems here, to justify new camera purchases.

CBA is just another form of LBA, enjoy.

omega leader · 06-10-2010, 07:04 PM

You may want to use a wet cleaning solution if you have never cleaned the sensor. Small oily particles build up overtime on everything, and I don't see why a sensor would be any different.

Laurentiu Cristofor · 06-10-2010, 10:02 PM

3 years, 15000+ shots, no issues - better results now, in fact.

distudio · 06-11-2010, 04:08 AM

Originally posted by kiwao

Could anybody tell me what the estimated lifespan of the K10d sensor is? I ask this because I have had my k10d for over 2 years now and my recent images don't appear to be as clean as images taken when I first got the camera.

No idea but yes they do degrade, my *ist D is far noisier than it was when new, and yes I have the test shots to confirm. The following utility is an oldie but still a great diag tool:

Dead Pixel Test

**Ahab** · 06-11-2010, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor

3 years, 15000+ shots, no issues - better results now, in fact.

Yes, same here.

Marc Sabatella · 06-11-2010, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by distudio

No idea but yes they do degrade, my *ist D is far noisier than it was when new, and yes I have the test shots to confirm.

Could you post these? I'd certainly be curious to see them, since it really doesn't seem plausible and in any case is *not* the common state of affairs (thousands upon thousands of other DSLR's that don't degrade over time).

Quote:

The following utility is an oldie but still a great diag tool:

Dead Pixel Test

Of course, if you're simply saying your *istD has more dead pixels than it used to, that's not news. Pixels do die. But they shouldn't slowly degrade.

distudio · 06-11-2010, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

Could you post these? I'd certainly be curious to see them, since it really doesn't seem plausible and in any case is *not* the common state of affairs (thousands upon thousands of other DSLR's that don't degrade over time).

They do, it's just masked in camera or in RAW development. The *ist D can save as TIFF (IE less error due to jpg compression) and doesn't mask hot pixels.

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

Of course, if you're simply saying your *istD has more dead pixels than it used to, that's not news. Pixels do die. But they shouldn't slowly degrade.

I see

http://deneb.ensc.sfu.ca/papers/ei08.pdf

jeffkrol · 06-11-2010, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

Could you post these? I'd certainly be curious to see them, since it really doesn't seem plausible and in any case is *not* the common state of affairs (thousands upon thousands of other DSLR's that don't degrade over time).

Of course, if you're simply saying your *istD has more dead pixels than it used to, that's not news. Pixels do die. But they shouldn't slowly degrade.

First sensor in ist-D was replaced w/ a less hot pixally sensor (after 2 years pixels increased) but had more "high iso noise"... The sensor is now degrading again (hot pixels increasing). Noise is not changing AFAIKT.
Remember this is a Sony CCD... CMOS and other sensors will be different.
As to other factors (dye breakdown of the Bayer filter, circuit trace degradation, I'm sure it can and does occur..

06-08-2010, 07:42 PM	#1
kiwao Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: tokyo Posts: 83	sensor life K10d Could anybody tell me what the estimated lifespan of the K10d sensor is? I ask this because I have had my k10d for over 2 years now and my recent images don't appear to be as clean as images taken when I first got the camera.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
k10d wet and dead, then... some life	GregV	Pentax DSLR Discussion	19	12-07-2009 11:11 PM
sensor cleaning for k10d	chicochongchu	Pentax DSLR Discussion	16	02-03-2009 11:35 PM
K10D shutter life	juanraortiz	Pentax DSLR Discussion	9	12-16-2008 01:32 PM
How to measure battery life on the K10D	FLASH	Pentax DSLR Discussion	1	09-21-2007 10:01 PM
K10D sensor problem?	HogRider	Pentax DSLR Discussion	25	04-20-2007 08:02 PM

06-08-2010, 10:58 PM	#2
jamesm007 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Detroit MI, USA Posts: 508	Could you explain 'what you see' why are they not as clean. More camera noise, general IQ not as good. A couple pics showing the problem would greatly help. However I think we can solve your problem in just a few posts.

06-09-2010, 01:20 AM	#3
alohadave Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Quincy, MA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,024	Originally posted by kiwao Could anybody tell me what the estimated lifespan of the K10d sensor is? I ask this because I have had my k10d for over 2 years now and my recent images don't appear to be as clean as images taken when I first got the camera. Are you comparing your pictures to pictures from newer cameras?

06-09-2010, 06:51 AM	#4
clmonk Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Eastern TN Posts: 269	Uhhh alohadave, he tells us that he is comparing them to pictures previously taken with the same camera. OP--are you using the same post processing software and methods?

06-09-2010, 08:21 AM	#5
Zebooka Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Russia, Siberia, Novosibirsk Posts: 323	I must say that my wife's K10D had no Green-Magenta gradient when it was bought in 2008 May. And in 2009 it had no gradient too. Now - it has very visible GM-Gradient at iso 1600. It is even lighter than on my cam built in 2007. Check examples here ????????. 2009 babes. ~ ???????? ???? ???????-??????? Also K10D suffers from some sort of large heat spots when doing very long exposures (like 8 mins) ... \| ????? ??????? (on top (slightly left from center), and left-top + right-top which are not noticable on BW version)

06-09-2010, 10:11 AM	#6
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by kiwao Could anybody tell me what the estimated lifespan of the K10d sensor is? I ask this because I have had my k10d for over 2 years now and my recent images don't appear to be as clean as images taken when I first got the camera. Can you post sample pictures of then versus now - same scene, same lighting, same lens, same white balance, same exposure, same camera settings, same PP workflow? If not, then I'd wager one or more of those other variables is responsible for whatever difference you might be seeing between any two completely different images. That is to say, a sensor might eventually fail completely, or develop a bunch of dead pixels or some other particular artifacts, but it's extremely unlikely to somehow just gradually get slightly less good.

06-09-2010, 06:40 PM	#7
kiwao Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: tokyo Posts: 83 Original Poster	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella Can you post sample pictures of then versus now - same scene, same lighting, same lens, same white balance, same exposure, same camera settings, same PP workflow? If not, then I'd wager one or more of those other variables is responsible for whatever difference you might be seeing between any two completely different images. That is to say, a sensor might eventually fail completely, or develop a bunch of dead pixels or some other particular artifacts, but it's extremely unlikely to somehow just gradually get slightly less good. Thanks for all the replies. It seems I have yet again asked another silly question You are probably correct when you say the difference in noise is coming from other factors. I was looking through my images taken over the past 2 years and comparing iso 100 raw files taken at similar exposures in similar conditions. I noticed that images taken now appear to be noisier than images taken then. So I thought I would ask the question REGARDING THE LIFESPAN OF THE SENSOR but perhaps the shutter is more likely to fail before the sensor. I will have to buy another body sometime especially now that the new cameras handle noise so much better than the K10d

06-10-2010, 06:01 AM	#8
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,818	You don't have to post problems here, to justify new camera purchases. CBA is just another form of LBA, enjoy.

06-10-2010, 07:04 PM	#9
omega leader Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Niagara Region, Ontario Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 417	You may want to use a wet cleaning solution if you have never cleaned the sensor. Small oily particles build up overtime on everything, and I don't see why a sensor would be any different.

06-10-2010, 10:02 PM	#10
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	3 years, 15000+ shots, no issues - better results now, in fact.

06-11-2010, 04:08 AM	#11
distudio Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney Photos: Albums Posts: 450	Originally posted by kiwao Could anybody tell me what the estimated lifespan of the K10d sensor is? I ask this because I have had my k10d for over 2 years now and my recent images don't appear to be as clean as images taken when I first got the camera. No idea but yes they do degrade, my *ist D is far noisier than it was when new, and yes I have the test shots to confirm. The following utility is an oldie but still a great diag tool: Dead Pixel Test

06-11-2010, 08:00 AM	#12
Ahab Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Arnold, Md. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 762	Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor 3 years, 15000+ shots, no issues - better results now, in fact. Yes, same here.

06-11-2010, 08:06 AM	#13
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by distudio No idea but yes they do degrade, my ist D is far noisier than it was when new, and yes I have the test shots to confirm. Could you post these? I'd certainly be curious to see them, since it really doesn't seem plausible and in any case is not* the common state of affairs (thousands upon thousands of other DSLR's that don't degrade over time). Quote: The following utility is an oldie but still a great diag tool: Dead Pixel Test Of course, if you're simply saying your *istD has more dead pixels than it used to, that's not news. Pixels do die. But they shouldn't slowly degrade.

06-11-2010, 08:34 AM	#14
distudio Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney Photos: Albums Posts: 450	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella Could you post these? I'd certainly be curious to see them, since it really doesn't seem plausible and in any case is not the common state of affairs (thousands upon thousands of other DSLR's that don't degrade over time). They do, it's just masked in camera or in RAW development. The ist D can save as TIFF (IE less error due to jpg compression) and doesn't mask hot pixels. Originally posted by Marc Sabatella Of course, if you're simply saying your istD has more dead pixels than it used to, that's not news. Pixels do die. But they shouldn't slowly degrade. I see http://deneb.ensc.sfu.ca/papers/ei08.pdf

06-11-2010, 10:51 AM	#15
jeffkrol Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wisconsin USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,434	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella Could you post these? I'd certainly be curious to see them, since it really doesn't seem plausible and in any case is not the common state of affairs (thousands upon thousands of other DSLR's that don't degrade over time). Of course, if you're simply saying your *istD has more dead pixels than it used to, that's not news. Pixels do die. But they shouldn't slowly degrade. First sensor in ist-D was replaced w/ a less hot pixally sensor (after 2 years pixels increased) but had more "high iso noise"... The sensor is now degrading again (hot pixels increasing). Noise is not changing AFAIKT. Remember this is a Sony CCD... CMOS and other sensors will be different. As to other factors (dye breakdown of the Bayer filter, circuit trace degradation, I'm sure it can and does occur..