Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-26-2007, 12:56 PM   #76
Pentaxian
jgredline's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: LosAngeles, Ca.
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,541
According my the exif info of the two photos, the first one is at ISO 1600 and the second is at ISO 800.

12-26-2007, 01:42 PM   #77
Forum Member
MNCurt-K10D's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Saint Paul, MN
Posts: 98
Why bother? Because!

The reason for compiling a set of data on the three bits of interest (man date, rev, int s/n) is because Phil Harvey, the author of exiftool, has expressed a willingness to try to figure out what this particular section of the EXIF data really means... but no guarantee that he can. As to PhotoME, the author simply implemented the data labels that Phil came up with. He would no doubt be just as interested in 'getting it right'. I think it is pretty obvious that, as it stands, the bytes being translated into these three numbers are not being interpreted correctly, so no one should be making judgments and/or claims based said dates, rev numbers, or internal serial number. It does make for a fascinating puzzle, though!

Anyway, my suggestion would be to stop obsessing over questionable data and get out there an take some pictures!

P.S. I admit to being a compulsive collector and analyzer of numeric data (part of my job for a lot of years) so I like the challenge of figuring out exactly what Pentax has decided to stick into these EXIF bytes... but I'd just as happy if someone inside Pentax would release a technical note or repair bulletin defining the true meaning of these data!
12-26-2007, 02:17 PM   #78
Veteran Member
Duck Dodgers's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: in the 24½th Century!
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 439
QuoteOriginally posted by jgredline Quote
According my the exif info of the two photos, the first one is at ISO 1600 and the second is at ISO 800.
Agreed. Not sure what the two pics are telling us (and I can't read the language of the original site), but you'd think that one would compare two shots at the same ISO speed...one from each hardware version. Just like croc's single photo, it doesn't give us anything similar to compare TO.
12-26-2007, 06:11 PM   #79
Forum Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Moon
Posts: 86
QuoteOriginally posted by Duck Dodgers Quote
Agreed. Not sure what the two pics are telling us (and I can't read the language of the original site), but you'd think that one would compare two shots at the same ISO speed...one from each hardware version. Just like croc's single photo, it doesn't give us anything similar to compare TO.
my point exactly.......
you getting close to understaning why i posted my sample

this whole thread is idiotic at best and op is starting stupid rumor on informations he pulled out of his rear, my russian is very bad those days but linked thread says NOTHING about different revisions and higher noise levels because of that.
as far i know op spoted some pics on russian forum that compare iso800 with iso1600 and he decided to start idiotic rumor hoping that nobody around here can read russian....
one of the people that make up rubish just so they can say anything to feel important

12-26-2007, 06:23 PM   #80
Veteran Member
Stratman's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: St Louis, Missouri U S A
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,464
QuoteOriginally posted by Croc Quote
my point exactly.......
you getting close to understaning why i posted my sample

this whole thread is idiotic at best and op is starting stupid rumor on informations he pulled out of his rear, my russian is very bad those days but linked thread says NOTHING about different revisions and higher noise levels because of that.
as far i know op spoted some pics on russian forum that compare iso800 with iso1600 and he decided to start idiotic rumor hoping that nobody around here can read russian....
one of the people that make up rubish just so they can say anything to feel important
No need to be insulting Croc, he may have misunderstood, but I am sure he was just trying to give us Pentaxians a little info.
12-26-2007, 07:01 PM   #81
Forum Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Moon
Posts: 86
QuoteOriginally posted by Stratman Quote
No need to be insulting Croc, he may have misunderstood, but I am sure he was just trying to give us Pentaxians a little info.
if you not sure of something you start sentence with "i seen something but i'm not sure....", "can someone confirm what this is....", "i'm not 100% sure but....."

he done non of it, he claim it to be a real thing, and reported to be a FACT which it is not and right now it is nothing more but rubish unless we see real tests but there isn't any, and this is why i say he pulled it out of his rear end, because he did and if anything it is his posts that i find insulting to others posters intelligence
04-22-2008, 04:41 PM   #82
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ste-Anne des Plaines, Qc., Canada
Posts: 2,014
I sent my camera for repair (finicky AE-L switch). It left with revision 1.2 and came back with 8.2. I'll have to do some tests to check for noise (it could take a little time since I play more with the K20D than the K10D lately).
For those interested:Manufacture date:2007/04/25
Bought:2007/07/14 (real date from the sales slip)
Model revision: 1.2 (now 8.2)
Internal serial number: 5315743

Last edited by flyer; 04-23-2008 at 05:07 PM.
04-22-2008, 05:03 PM   #83
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,973
K10D body data

Mfg date 2007-08-08
Model Revision 2.1
S/N 4412956
Purch from Adorama 02-25-2008 - where was it for 7 months?

QuoteOriginally posted by song_hm Quote
Updated to include harv3589 and mine. Based on this data, it does suggest pre 2.1 decreasing serial number, and increasing after 2.1. May or may not be PhotoME misterpretation. Could also possibly be Pentax's block allocation scheme. Just a wild guess.


04-22-2008, 07:38 PM   #84
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,617
This thread is highly entertaining...

I am sure that at least some of you are aware that the K10D exif encoding has changed with different firmware revisions? When I first got my K10D and the initial release of Lightroom, the exif information displayed was relatively complete and accurate. A short time later I upgraded to firmware v1.11 and strangely enough Lightroom was no longer able to digest the full exif set. The most obvious symptom was lack of lens information. An update from Adobe and the issue went away.

Given that knowledge and what little I know about low-level programming and bit-wise parsing, it would not surprise me at all if the fields in question were not as they are being presented and that the behavior may be different depending on firmware version. (It is, after all, the firmware that writes the exif...regardless of the hardware mix.)

Translation...PhotoMe may well be on crack as far as this feature goes.

That does not mean the author is a bad person or inept. It just means that he made his best guess and probably needs more data to fine-tune his parser. Those of you that have the data can assist him if it suits you. With any luck better data will yield a better product!

Cheers!

Steve
04-23-2008, 01:58 AM   #85
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 268
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Mfg date 2007-08-08
Model Revision 2.1
S/N 4412956
Purch from Adorama 02-25-2008 - where was it for 7 months?
I'll join the party with my K10D data as well...


Mfg date 2007-12-04
Model Revision 2.1
Internal S/N 194431
04-24-2008, 11:42 AM   #86
Veteran Member
Miserere's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,994
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Mfg date 2007-08-08
Model Revision 2.1
S/N 4412956
Purch from Adorama 02-25-2008 - where was it for 7 months?
My wife asked me that once...
04-25-2008, 04:24 PM   #87
Forum Member
APEHAUS's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Whittier, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 93
Based on the following image, I got a PM from another member asking about my revision number.

Here's my data:

Model Revision: 2.1
Manufacture Date: 2007-11-16

This photo:
Pentax SMC-A 50mm f/2.0 @ 1/30
ISO 1600
Image Stabilization was on
Manual Focus, aperture priority



Attached is a ~300% enlargement of a portion of the image. (Well it was 300% until the uploader resized it)
Attached Images
 
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, cameras, date, dslr, information, iso800, ist*, k10d, noise, photography, revision
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax W90 - noise at higher ISOs gubak Pentax Compact Cameras 2 10-22-2010 12:03 PM
Lowering image size to lower ISO noise? jboyde Pentax DSLR Discussion 14 08-11-2010 02:44 PM
GX10 Lower iso1600 noise jamesm007 Pentax DSLR Discussion 1 12-27-2008 12:26 PM
Higher pixel count produces less noise...? roentarre Pentax DSLR Discussion 6 11-18-2008 03:43 PM
K10D update and Model Revision 8.1 Yes /No?? Peter Zack Pentax DSLR Discussion 148 06-20-2008 11:08 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:23 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top