Petition - Please allow KAF4 firmware for the K3, K5 series, and K50

**lithedreamer** · 09-23-2016, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Des

Because the K-3ii is firmware-upgradeable we assume that the K-3 is too. But we don't really know that yet do we? Presumably KAF4 was on the drawing board when the K-3ii and K-S2 were being developed, but it might not have been when the K-3 or K-S1 were being developed

This argument would make more sense if it wasn't the case that the K-S1 received a firmware update while the K-3 has not.

Kunzite · 09-23-2016, 03:14 PM

The K-S1 was announced almost 11 months after the K-3. The argument would make more sense if it didn't include the K-S1.

Adam · 09-23-2016, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by The Squirrel Mafia

Soooooooo............... Did anyone ask?

They said no comment...so that's a pretty clear no IMO.

**Des** · 09-23-2016, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by lithedreamer

This argument would make more sense if it wasn't the case that the K-S1 received a firmware update while the K-3 has not.

Originally posted by Kunzite

The K-S1 was announced almost 11 months after the K-3. The argument would make more sense if it didn't include the K-S1.

I missed the point that the K-S1 was supported. You guys are right. And given the "no comment" response, we can stop giving Ricoh the benefit of the doubt. They are trying to make us buy new cameras.

mee · 09-23-2016, 05:14 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Des

I missed the point that the K-S1 was supported. You guys are right. And given the "no comment" response, we can stop giving Ricoh the benefit of the doubt. They are trying to make us buy new cameras.

News Flash: Company that sells cameras trying to make customers buy more cameras. Film at 11.

reh321 · 09-23-2016, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by Des

I missed the point that the K-S1 was supported. You guys are right. And given the "no comment" response, we can stop giving Ricoh the benefit of the doubt. They are trying to make us buy new cameras.

Could they have made a hardware change after K-3 and before K-S1?

mee · 09-23-2016, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by reh321

Could they have made a hardware change after K-3 and before K-S1?

Yes that is possible (K-S1 was released in the Summer of 2014, K-3 was released in the Fall of 2013).

But either way does it really matter? The end of the discussion is when RIAC puts their foot down and says it isn't going to happen -- We can petition all we want, we can protest, we can riot.. but we are wasting our time because RIAC has answered with a no.

Last edited by mee; 09-23-2016 at 06:53 PM. Reason: missed a key word! lol

VoiceOfReason · 09-23-2016, 06:32 PM

I was hoping for the K3 at minimum.

reh321 · 09-23-2016, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by mee

....
But either way does it really matter? The end of the discussion is when RIAC puts their foot down and says it isn't going to happen -- We can petition all we want, we can protest, we can riot.. but we are wasting our time because RIAC has answered with a no.

The only other petition I remember in the nearly two years I've been here was to have the K-mount "un-crippled" ... and we all know how that has worked out.

You have been here much longer that I have. What has been the history of petitions? How often has RIAC done what was asked for?

Kunzite · 09-23-2016, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by Des

I missed the point that the K-S1 was supported. You guys are right. And given the "no comment" response, we can stop giving Ricoh the benefit of the doubt. They are trying to make us buy new cameras.

Response or no response (were you expecting them to answer on this topic?) the timing is still suggesting that a hardware change (if necessary) would've likely be implemented after the K-3.

mee · 09-24-2016, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by reh321

The only other petition I remember in the nearly two years I've been here was to have the K-mount "un-crippled" ... and we all know how that has worked out.

You have been here much longer that I have. What has been the history of petitions? How often has RIAC done what was asked for?

I think they respond more to their own company surveys and user feedback at tradeshows than anything.

**THoog** · 09-24-2016, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by reh321

Could they have made a hardware change after K-3 and before K-S1?

Originally posted by mee

Yes that is possible (K-S1 was released in the Summer of 2014, K-3 was released in the Fall of 2013).

IIRC, the K-3 had a longer-than-usual development period, so it is possible that it had some older components that were updated in the next round of designs. It's also possible that a higher-up said "we'll go back two years, but not three". Supporting the 2013 releases would mean the K-3, K-50, K-500, and maybe even the K-01 because of the Smurf.

The curt "we can't answer that", rather than the usual polite "that's a good idea, but" is a little surprising, and pretty much slams the door on this one.

VoiceOfReason · 09-24-2016, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by reh321

The only other petition I remember in the nearly two years I've been here was to have the K-mount "un-crippled" ... and we all know how that has worked out.

You have been here much longer that I have. What has been the history of petitions? How often has RIAC done what was asked for?

I also did a tethering one that seems to have been addressed.

mee · 09-24-2016, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by VoiceOfReason

I also did a tethering one that seems to have been addressed.

But that was also requested in several of the interviews with RIAC for a couple of years as well as in the surveys before they finally reacted.

Nicolas06 · 09-24-2016, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by THoog

IIRC, the K-3 had a longer-than-usual development period, so it is possible that it had some older components that were updated in the next round of designs. It's also possible that a higher-up said "we'll go back two years, but not three". Supporting the 2013 releases would mean the K-3, K-50, K-500, and maybe even the K-01 because of the Smurf.

The curt "we can't answer that", rather than the usual polite "that's a good idea, but" is a little surprising, and pretty much slams the door on this one.

Yeap, if K3 was simply unable to do it hardware wise, they could have said just that and that would have closed the matter I guess. Some would still think this is software related, but still...

Here, not wanting to respond let the matter blury. It look like that if there enough demand they would enable it or that they think people would not trust them anyway would they say the truth. I guess even if there were willing to do it, there could be some problem/bug/limitation and that they have to work on it. And then would it be really worth to spend valuable engineers to make it work while they are needed to develop the next camera? What if for example it could work but eratically? Would people accept that?

Also, we all have to understand that Ricoh has to make money selling gear. K3 is a VERY capable camera with lot of features. It is still current and if you plan to stay APSC, there no much reason to switch.

So this is Ricoh job to create needs for upgrade: pixel shift, bundled astro tracer, better high iso or most recent lenses support. Even with all of that combined honestly I don't feel the need to upgrade at all. But imagine if the latest firmware pushed back all the features except the astro tracer into old K3. Why would one ever buy a K3-II ?

09-23-2016, 04:24 PM	#123
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,595	Originally posted by The Squirrel Mafia Soooooooo............... Did anyone ask? They said no comment...so that's a pretty clear no IMO. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
HSS triggers for k3 and k5	sunilsookhoo	Flashes, Lighting, and Studio	44	06-01-2016 01:41 AM
K3 Firmware upgrade problems Help Please	Real Ale	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	9	03-29-2016 07:35 PM
Urgently need help with firmware update K3 please !	jpzk	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	9	08-12-2015 08:58 PM
Firmware for k50	Gerrys	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	2	09-02-2014 10:38 AM

09-23-2016, 02:29 PM	#121
lithedreamer Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2013 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,799	Originally posted by Des Because the K-3ii is firmware-upgradeable we assume that the K-3 is too. But we don't really know that yet do we? Presumably KAF4 was on the drawing board when the K-3ii and K-S2 were being developed, but it might not have been when the K-3 or K-S1 were being developed This argument would make more sense if it wasn't the case that the K-S1 received a firmware update while the K-3 has not.

09-23-2016, 03:14 PM	#122
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	The K-S1 was announced almost 11 months after the K-3. The argument would make more sense if it didn't include the K-S1.

09-23-2016, 05:07 PM	#124
Des Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Victoria Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 6,423	Originally posted by lithedreamer This argument would make more sense if it wasn't the case that the K-S1 received a firmware update while the K-3 has not. Originally posted by Kunzite The K-S1 was announced almost 11 months after the K-3. The argument would make more sense if it didn't include the K-S1. I missed the point that the K-S1 was supported. You guys are right. And given the "no comment" response, we can stop giving Ricoh the benefit of the doubt. They are trying to make us buy new cameras.

09-23-2016, 05:14 PM - 1 Like	#125
mee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,403	Originally posted by Des I missed the point that the K-S1 was supported. You guys are right. And given the "no comment" response, we can stop giving Ricoh the benefit of the doubt. They are trying to make us buy new cameras. News Flash: Company that sells cameras trying to make customers buy more cameras. Film at 11.

09-23-2016, 06:05 PM	#126
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,180	Originally posted by Des I missed the point that the K-S1 was supported. You guys are right. And given the "no comment" response, we can stop giving Ricoh the benefit of the doubt. They are trying to make us buy new cameras. Could they have made a hardware change after K-3 and before K-S1?

09-23-2016, 06:16 PM	#127
mee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,403	Originally posted by reh321 Could they have made a hardware change after K-3 and before K-S1? Yes that is possible (K-S1 was released in the Summer of 2014, K-3 was released in the Fall of 2013). But either way does it really matter? The end of the discussion is when RIAC puts their foot down and says it isn't going to happen -- We can petition all we want, we can protest, we can riot.. but we are wasting our time because RIAC has answered with a no. Last edited by mee; 09-23-2016 at 06:53 PM. Reason: missed a key word! lol

09-23-2016, 06:32 PM	#128
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124 Original Poster	I was hoping for the K3 at minimum.

09-23-2016, 09:50 PM	#129
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,180	Originally posted by mee .... But either way does it really matter? The end of the discussion is when RIAC puts their foot down and says it isn't going to happen -- We can petition all we want, we can protest, we can riot.. but we are wasting our time because RIAC has answered with a no. The only other petition I remember in the nearly two years I've been here was to have the K-mount "un-crippled" ... and we all know how that has worked out. You have been here much longer that I have. What has been the history of petitions? How often has RIAC done what was asked for?

09-23-2016, 11:29 PM	#130
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by Des I missed the point that the K-S1 was supported. You guys are right. And given the "no comment" response, we can stop giving Ricoh the benefit of the doubt. They are trying to make us buy new cameras. Response or no response (were you expecting them to answer on this topic?) the timing is still suggesting that a hardware change (if necessary) would've likely be implemented after the K-3.

09-24-2016, 07:25 AM	#131
mee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,403	Originally posted by reh321 The only other petition I remember in the nearly two years I've been here was to have the K-mount "un-crippled" ... and we all know how that has worked out. You have been here much longer that I have. What has been the history of petitions? How often has RIAC done what was asked for? I think they respond more to their own company surveys and user feedback at tradeshows than anything.

09-24-2016, 07:55 AM	#132
THoog Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: North Carolina Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,685	Originally posted by reh321 Could they have made a hardware change after K-3 and before K-S1? Originally posted by mee Yes that is possible (K-S1 was released in the Summer of 2014, K-3 was released in the Fall of 2013). IIRC, the K-3 had a longer-than-usual development period, so it is possible that it had some older components that were updated in the next round of designs. It's also possible that a higher-up said "we'll go back two years, but not three". Supporting the 2013 releases would mean the K-3, K-50, K-500, and maybe even the K-01 because of the Smurf. The curt "we can't answer that", rather than the usual polite "that's a good idea, but" is a little surprising, and pretty much slams the door on this one.

09-24-2016, 08:03 AM	#133
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124 Original Poster	Originally posted by reh321 The only other petition I remember in the nearly two years I've been here was to have the K-mount "un-crippled" ... and we all know how that has worked out. You have been here much longer that I have. What has been the history of petitions? How often has RIAC done what was asked for? I also did a tethering one that seems to have been addressed.

09-24-2016, 08:08 AM	#134
mee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,403	Originally posted by VoiceOfReason I also did a tethering one that seems to have been addressed. But that was also requested in several of the interviews with RIAC for a couple of years as well as in the surveys before they finally reacted.

09-24-2016, 08:11 AM	#135
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by THoog IIRC, the K-3 had a longer-than-usual development period, so it is possible that it had some older components that were updated in the next round of designs. It's also possible that a higher-up said "we'll go back two years, but not three". Supporting the 2013 releases would mean the K-3, K-50, K-500, and maybe even the K-01 because of the Smurf. The curt "we can't answer that", rather than the usual polite "that's a good idea, but" is a little surprising, and pretty much slams the door on this one. Yeap, if K3 was simply unable to do it hardware wise, they could have said just that and that would have closed the matter I guess. Some would still think this is software related, but still... Here, not wanting to respond let the matter blury. It look like that if there enough demand they would enable it or that they think people would not trust them anyway would they say the truth. I guess even if there were willing to do it, there could be some problem/bug/limitation and that they have to work on it. And then would it be really worth to spend valuable engineers to make it work while they are needed to develop the next camera? What if for example it could work but eratically? Would people accept that? Also, we all have to understand that Ricoh has to make money selling gear. K3 is a VERY capable camera with lot of features. It is still current and if you plan to stay APSC, there no much reason to switch. So this is Ricoh job to create needs for upgrade: pixel shift, bundled astro tracer, better high iso or most recent lenses support. Even with all of that combined honestly I don't feel the need to upgrade at all. But imagine if the latest firmware pushed back all the features except the astro tracer into old K3. Why would one ever buy a K3-II ?