There are some information that K10D with revision 2.1 and higher has lower noise

ogl · 12-23-2007, 09:22 AM

It's interesting that new revision of cameras with one revision (2.1 and 2.21) has date of manufacture from March till August. But there are now K10D with revision 2.6. The last.
I didn't found 2.3, 2.4, 2.5.

Pentax had made small changes in K10D after K10D Grand Prix release - AF/MF clutch, LCD, and make some improvement in chroma noise. The revision also indicates that there are changes in electronical and mechanical components. It could be not very important.

ogl · 12-23-2007, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by mutley

I wonder if the 2.2 camera revision also improves VPN?

It's hard to say, but it seems to me that improved too.
Anyway, K10D with
Manufacture Date 2007.02.24,
Model Revision 1.2 has more noise at ISO800 than K10D with 2.21 at ISO800.
ISO640 are worse too with 1.2.
As for ISO1600 - I'm not sure. But ISO800 is better with 2.21.
At Russian forum somebody said about revision and noise. I didn't believe in it. But asked friends to check model revision: 1.2 and 2.21.

I'm not sure, but it seems to me when I see photos - last revision looks better.
I don't understand what, but something had changed.

I'd like to make test, but it's hard and almost unreal for me.

One friend has K10D with 1.2 close to me, another is in another town.

All this information could be myth, and could be real.

Need to make shots with same lense in the same condition with two K10D with first and last revisions. And we can answer this question.

song_hm · 12-23-2007, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by MNCurt-K10D

I asked about the Manuf. Data out of PhotoME earlier here, and a few responders suggested that the EXIF data was being incorrectly presented as a manufacturing date, etc. Can anyone confirm or refute the correctness of the PhotoME interpretation? Based on the data presented just in this thread, things do look a little suspect:

Manuf Date Rev Internal SN
20051201 1.5 5097223
20051206 1.5 5069598
20061028 1.1
20061208 1.2
2006/12/10 1.2 5129155 << harv3589
20070517 2.1
20070609 2.1 4258133 << mine
20070701 2.21
20070724 2.1 4376974
20070801 2.1
20070803 2.1
20071024 2.1 4576153
20071101 2.1

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.

Duck Dodgers · 12-23-2007, 10:26 AM

My internal SN is 4365299 (20070801, 2.1) Again, this is from Exiftool, not PhotoME.

ogl · 12-23-2007, 10:57 AM

Photo from Pentax recently bought

http://foto.ixbt.com/?id=album:9651
I'm confused...

)) K10D has the same noise as Canon 30D at ISO800 and 1600.
I can't see leader.

ISO 800 - K10D
http://foto.ixbt.com/photo/189480/96514dt8Uyfd0w/15O2AmI4oH/156723.jpg
ISO 800 - 30D
http://foto.ixbt.com/photo/189480/96514dt8Uyfd0w/15O2AmI4oH/156720.jpg

ISO1600 - K10D
http://foto.ixbt.com/photo/189480/96514dt8Uyfd0w/15O2AmI4oH/156724.jpg

ISO1600 - 30D
http://foto.ixbt.com/photo/189480/96514dt8Uyfd0w/15O2AmI4oH/156721.jpg

ogl · 12-23-2007, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by Duck Dodgers

My internal SN is 4365299 (20070801, 2.1) Again, this is from Exiftool, not PhotoME.

Try Photo Me

**rogerstg** · 12-23-2007, 12:18 PM

Both PhotoMe and exiftool show the following for my K10d:
Manufacture date - 20070731
Model revision - 2.6
Internal serial number - 80307

Duck Dodgers · 12-23-2007, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by ogl

Try Photo Me

Meh...PhotoME won't run under my version of WINE, and I don't do Windoze...

Someone should create a web-app that you could simply upload a pic to and have it spit out all of Pentax's EXIF info.

PDL · 12-23-2007, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Duck Dodgers

Meh...PhotoME won't run under my version of WINE, and I don't do Windoze...

Someone should create a web-app that you could simply upload a pic to and have it spit out all of Pentax's EXIF info.

Exiftool is a PERL app. It should work on just about anything.

Phil Harvey / Image-ExifTool - search.cpan.org

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

Duck Dodgers · 12-23-2007, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by PDL

Exiftool is a PERL app. It should work on just about anything.

Right. Which is why I use it.

I just can't run PhotoME as ogl requested.

Miserere · 12-24-2007, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by mutley

Supposedly they are working on a firmware update to be finished after the K14D firmware is finalized.

Hopefully it will address a number of issues.

As someone who will not be upgrading to the new model, I would appreciate a firmware update. There are a number of issues I would like fixed, and some control features added.

Miserere · 12-24-2007, 11:05 AM

Finally installed PhotoME. My manufacture date is 2007/07/10, rev. 2.2, serial #2177747.

This could explain why I would say "huh?" and scratch my head when people complained about bad high-ISO performance with their K10Ds. I've always thought my pics at high ISO were pretty decent.

stewart_photo · 12-24-2007, 11:21 AM

Can anyone else here verify an actual difference in noise between hardware revisions? I have two K10D cameras, one purchased several months ago (hardware revision 2.1) and the other purchased just two weeks ago (hardware revision 2.6). Anyway, I set out to verify this myself by testing both cameras under the same conditions (subject, lighting, computer, etc), but could not, in the end, find any consistent differences in the resulting images (over 20 total). Even prints viewed with a magnifying glass were virtually identical (no consistent differences). Those tests, of various subjects taken at ISO 800 & 1600, included dim daylight, normal room lighting, various semi-darkened conditions, and flash lighting in total darkness.

stewart

Stratman · 12-24-2007, 11:23 AM

I'm scratching my head too...My K10 was manufactured 10/24/2007, but is revision 2.1 according to PhotoME

**Canada_Rockies** · 12-24-2007, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by MNCurt-K10D

I asked about the Manuf. Data out of PhotoME earlier here, and a few responders suggested that the EXIF data was being incorrectly presented as a manufacturing date, etc. Can anyone confirm or refute the correctness of the PhotoME interpretation? Based on the data presented just in this thread, things do look a little suspect:

Manuf Date Rev Internal SN
20051201 1.5 5097223
20051206 1.5 5069598
20061028 1.1
20061208 1.2
20070317 2.1
20070517 2.1
20070701 2.21
20070724 2.1 4376974
20070801 2.1
20070803 2.1
20071024 2.1 4576153
20071101 2.1

I just ran PhotoME and I got the following data
20070913 2.1 120119

12-23-2007, 10:57 AM	#35
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382 Original Poster	Photo from Pentax recently bought http://foto.ixbt.com/?id=album:9651 I'm confused...)) K10D has the same noise as Canon 30D at ISO800 and 1600. I can't see leader. ISO 800 - K10D http://foto.ixbt.com/photo/189480/96514dt8Uyfd0w/15O2AmI4oH/156723.jpg ISO 800 - 30D http://foto.ixbt.com/photo/189480/96514dt8Uyfd0w/15O2AmI4oH/156720.jpg ISO1600 - K10D http://foto.ixbt.com/photo/189480/96514dt8Uyfd0w/15O2AmI4oH/156724.jpg ISO1600 - 30D http://foto.ixbt.com/photo/189480/96514dt8Uyfd0w/15O2AmI4oH/156721.jpg

12-24-2007, 11:21 AM	#43
stewart_photo Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Heidelberg, Germany Posts: 1,864	Can Anyone Verify This?? Can anyone else here verify an actual difference in noise between hardware revisions? I have two K10D cameras, one purchased several months ago (hardware revision 2.1) and the other purchased just two weeks ago (hardware revision 2.6). Anyway, I set out to verify this myself by testing both cameras under the same conditions (subject, lighting, computer, etc), but could not, in the end, find any consistent differences in the resulting images (over 20 total). Even prints viewed with a magnifying glass were virtually identical (no consistent differences). Those tests, of various subjects taken at ISO 800 & 1600, included dim daylight, normal room lighting, various semi-darkened conditions, and flash lighting in total darkness. stewart

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

12-23-2007, 09:22 AM	#31
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382 Original Poster	It's interesting that new revision of cameras with one revision (2.1 and 2.21) has date of manufacture from March till August. But there are now K10D with revision 2.6. The last. I didn't found 2.3, 2.4, 2.5. Pentax had made small changes in K10D after K10D Grand Prix release - AF/MF clutch, LCD, and make some improvement in chroma noise. The revision also indicates that there are changes in electronical and mechanical components. It could be not very important.

12-23-2007, 09:54 AM	#32
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382 Original Poster	Originally posted by mutley I wonder if the 2.2 camera revision also improves VPN? It's hard to say, but it seems to me that improved too. Anyway, K10D with Manufacture Date 2007.02.24, Model Revision 1.2 has more noise at ISO800 than K10D with 2.21 at ISO800. ISO640 are worse too with 1.2. As for ISO1600 - I'm not sure. But ISO800 is better with 2.21. At Russian forum somebody said about revision and noise. I didn't believe in it. But asked friends to check model revision: 1.2 and 2.21. I'm not sure, but it seems to me when I see photos - last revision looks better. I don't understand what, but something had changed. I'd like to make test, but it's hard and almost unreal for me. One friend has K10D with 1.2 close to me, another is in another town. All this information could be myth, and could be real. Need to make shots with same lense in the same condition with two K10D with first and last revisions. And we can answer this question.

12-23-2007, 10:17 AM	#33
song_hm Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 797	Originally posted by MNCurt-K10D I asked about the Manuf. Data out of PhotoME earlier here, and a few responders suggested that the EXIF data was being incorrectly presented as a manufacturing date, etc. Can anyone confirm or refute the correctness of the PhotoME interpretation? Based on the data presented just in this thread, things do look a little suspect: Manuf Date Rev Internal SN 20051201 1.5 5097223 20051206 1.5 5069598 20061028 1.1 20061208 1.2 2006/12/10 1.2 5129155 << harv3589 20070517 2.1 20070609 2.1 4258133 << mine 20070701 2.21 20070724 2.1 4376974 20070801 2.1 20070803 2.1 20071024 2.1 4576153 20071101 2.1 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.

12-23-2007, 10:26 AM	#34
Duck Dodgers Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: in the 24½th Century! Photos: Gallery Posts: 439	My internal SN is 4365299 (20070801, 2.1) Again, this is from Exiftool, not PhotoME.

12-23-2007, 10:59 AM	#36
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382 Original Poster	Originally posted by Duck Dodgers My internal SN is 4365299 (20070801, 2.1) Again, this is from Exiftool, not PhotoME. Try Photo Me

12-23-2007, 12:18 PM	#37
rogerstg Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 1,168	Both PhotoMe and exiftool show the following for my K10d: Manufacture date - 20070731 Model revision - 2.6 Internal serial number - 80307

12-23-2007, 01:16 PM	#38
Duck Dodgers Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: in the 24½th Century! Photos: Gallery Posts: 439	Originally posted by ogl Try Photo Me Meh...PhotoME won't run under my version of WINE, and I don't do Windoze... Someone should create a web-app that you could simply upload a pic to and have it spit out all of Pentax's EXIF info.

12-23-2007, 01:41 PM	#39
PDL Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: PNW USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,128	Originally posted by Duck Dodgers Meh...PhotoME won't run under my version of WINE, and I don't do Windoze... Someone should create a web-app that you could simply upload a pic to and have it spit out all of Pentax's EXIF info. Exiftool is a PERL app. It should work on just about anything. Phil Harvey / Image-ExifTool - search.cpan.org The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

12-23-2007, 02:21 PM	#40
Duck Dodgers Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: in the 24½th Century! Photos: Gallery Posts: 439	Originally posted by PDL Exiftool is a PERL app. It should work on just about anything. Right. Which is why I use it. I just can't run PhotoME as ogl requested.

12-24-2007, 10:03 AM	#41
Miserere Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Boston Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,993	Originally posted by mutley Supposedly they are working on a firmware update to be finished after the K14D firmware is finalized. Hopefully it will address a number of issues. As someone who will not be upgrading to the new model, I would appreciate a firmware update. There are a number of issues I would like fixed, and some control features added.

12-24-2007, 11:05 AM	#42
Miserere Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Boston Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,993	Finally installed PhotoME. My manufacture date is 2007/07/10, rev. 2.2, serial #2177747. This could explain why I would say "huh?" and scratch my head when people complained about bad high-ISO performance with their K10Ds. I've always thought my pics at high ISO were pretty decent.

12-24-2007, 11:23 AM	#44
Stratman Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: St Louis, Missouri U S A Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,464	I'm scratching my head too...My K10 was manufactured 10/24/2007, but is revision 2.1 according to PhotoME

12-24-2007, 11:58 AM	#45
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by MNCurt-K10D I asked about the Manuf. Data out of PhotoME earlier here, and a few responders suggested that the EXIF data was being incorrectly presented as a manufacturing date, etc. Can anyone confirm or refute the correctness of the PhotoME interpretation? Based on the data presented just in this thread, things do look a little suspect: Manuf Date Rev Internal SN 20051201 1.5 5097223 20051206 1.5 5069598 20061028 1.1 20061208 1.2 20070317 2.1 20070517 2.1 20070701 2.21 20070724 2.1 4376974 20070801 2.1 20070803 2.1 20071024 2.1 4576153 20071101 2.1 I just ran PhotoME and I got the following data 20070913 2.1 120119