[Peacekeeper]

I don't think I would go as far as claiming that this reviewer has made up his allegation of hot pixels.

PK

[simons-photography]

we must of course remember that all reviewing websites (DPR in particular) live off adverts and sales referals and we all know which cameras are the best bang for the buck and who spends lots of money on ad campaigns to convince us their dearer product is better bang for the buck.

[Harald]

I don't think I would go as far as claiming that this reviewer has made up his allegation of hot pixels.

PK

If one reviewer has "found" an issue anybody else (very very many as capable users as those reviewers) has not, I become very very suspicious.....

Please, don't underestimate yourselves as photographers and equipment users.

These reviewers don't have any superior methods or knowledge in these issues.

This kind of "fault" is there so that experienced user can see it, or it is not. According evidences existing so far, I say it is not.... I am not so stupid that I cant see this kind of fault from my pictures and so are either you. If we don't see it, it is not there. Emperor has no clothes.....

[ricardobeat]

If one reviewer has "found" an issue anybody else (very very many as capable users as those reviewers) has not, I become very very suspicious.....

Please, don't underestimate yourselves as photographers and equipment users.

These reviewers don't have any superior methods or knowledge in these issues.

This kind of "fault" is there so that experienced user can see it, or it is not. According evidences existing so far, I say it is not.... I am not so stupid that I cant see this kind of fault from my pictures and so are either you. If we don't see it, it is not there. Emperor has no clothes.....

Maybe because you are not using the same testing methods? I haven't seen anyone do a proper test in a RAW conversion software with no bad pixel mapping.

If someone they were having an issue with a component overheating inside the camera, wouldn't you care? Not being visible to everyone doesn't mean it's not there.. I can clearly understand now the desire for truth in modern society defined by Foucault

[pichygrue]

To all of you...............!

Do you like to take pictures?
Or do you like to take arguments?
Do you earn money from Pentax?
Or are you satisfied with the CREATIVE things, offered by K20D?
And..........moreover.....do you use them?

So, if you agree..................let's turn to be "Friendly Pentax Discussion COMMUNITY!"

I know! My arguments are so obvious...........but then?

[Fototim]

I have been reading some of the debates on the hot pixel "issue", and there is one thing I find a bit disturbing.
Many posters seem to make a big deal about the nationality of the site who reported the "issue" first. Between the lines I read something like "it is polish, so it must be fake rubbish".
IMO thats rubbish argumentation.

Just for the record. I don't loose much sleep over hot pixels. So far I have shot about 1500 shots with the K20D, and I have seen non.

[Maxington]

Did the Polish reviewer say he got the hot pixels using Live View, like Phil Askey said?

Everyone knows Live View will cause that. Hell, it even says so in the K20D *manual* not to run Live View for excessive periods, and the camera will disable it automatically!

I figure two reviewers have found this, simply because they are the ones likely to have Live View running for long periods of time while conducting tests. How many of us are going to do that, not me personally, I haven't come up with a single use for Live View yet, and I don't care about it, its a gimmick.

I can forsee a lot of criticism aimed at the K20D over its implementation of Live View, and while its probably justified, its also a useless feature. But its also useless on the Canon/Nikon bodies as well. Only the Sony/Olympus versions are useful at the moment, but they come with their own unacceptable drawbacks.

[robert]

I love my pentax but everyone seems to be making up excuses for any flaws no matter how major or minor. One poster said the problems with the 16-50 lens really effected only about 1%. of the lenses. If that were so there must have been millions sold for all the reported problems. I really don't think dpr would make something up like the hot pixel problem....Bob

[Peacekeeper]

It is uninfomred to say what the qualifications of the DPR reviewer are. I hold no technical qualifications relating to optics, sensors or lenses.

I know a sharp image when I see one, but I also realise that my own understanding of how light is focused through lenses and the acceptable difraction of certain lenses is well beyond my own knowledge.

If the reviewers have machines to test resolution and they are trained in using them, then they are better qualified to state what the true resolving power of a particular sensor is over us who just look at our own images.

As for testing sensor and Jpg Algorithms is concerned, I have no idea. But if my camera produces picures I am happy with then that where I stand. If the reviewer has more technical ways to assess these other than simply looking at them I will not argue the point.

Having said that, if to achieve hot pixels during a review the reviewer has to push the camera beyond what normal photographers would do, then I believe that is unfair.

I recall seeing a video of a guy in a Ferrari, he was spinning the wheels and sliding it about and his whole job in life (lucky B&*tard) was to push these cars at the testing centre to the point of breaking them, in a manner that the public would never ever dream of doing. In a way guaranteeing that the company would never have to get complaints of the cars breaking down.

I have seen similar testing done or safety equipment, commonly referred to as "Test to Destruction". I doubt cameras are put through this sort of testing by the manufacturers and I hope the reviewers are not trying to push the envelope of the cameras either.

PK

[Jewelltrail]

Greetings from Cumberland, RI:

I just started in this forum, looking for help and I accidentally stumbled upon this. I wouldn't know a hot from a cold pixel, but from what Codiac says in this thread's start, my K20 may be infected with the dreaded disease.

I was actually shooting long exposures to produce images with an oddity on them so I could use deductive reasoning to figure out the problem. In fact, I recently posted a thread asking for help on this. But then I ran into this. I hope to goodness my new K20 does not have the Chicken Pixels.

I am going to try an upload a sample to see if you Pentaxians with your Doctorates can diagnose for us. Okay, here goes..............


Oh, this is an 8 second exposure @ ISO 100 according to Pentax Photo browser--can not get aperture because it is an M lens. I did stop down metering but, at that time, had no concern about the f-stop number--was just trying to find that c-shaped oddity which, by the way, is nearly directly below the "hot" pixel--if it's a hot pixel. My God, the camera is brand new--how so much fuss?

Regards,

Ernest

[Jewelltrail]

I just tried uploading a Full-sized 12mb image so you could examine it for the Hot pixel issue. What I see here is a much scaled-down version of the J-peg. This is too small to see the pixel in question, though you can surely see the oddity on, as I just learned, sensor.

How do I post a %100 pic for you all? This sofware does not seem to allow it.


Regards,

Ernest

Just tried toupload again but got a message I am being redundant. BTW, the hot pixel is in the direct vertical plane with the c-shaped oddity and in a vertical plane just above the height of the wing. It is as white as can be, like a star in a long night exposure.

[Jewelltrail]

Here is another image with a white dot, this time to left of the light post. It is clear as day in the 100 percent Jpeg. I'll try again to get it to upload.


I see, there are file size limits here. How do I get the images to you all in their original size then? It looks like I need an URL address I can post to first. Thanks,

Regards,

Ernest

[codiac2600]

Ernest,

That is sensor dust...

[Rickster]

Ernest,

Here's a link to your image.

http://www.rickster.org/images/SHOT1870.JPG

[Rickster]

Ernest,

That is sensor dust...

There's a stuck white pixel at x=1243 and y=280