Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-21-2009, 04:44 PM   #46
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Mount Shasta
Posts: 185
Schmik. I didn't mean it the way you took it. It's just the incredible array of questions and issues that posters come up with and Marc's patience in handling them. As for being a Pentax booster, I was intially feeling, like some others, ripped off by the Kx announcement as I got the K2000, moving from the K10D, only four months ago. But in truth, it was a blessing because I was going to move to the K7 for the better high ISO. The Kx will satisfy that need at half the cost. I believe Pentax has really pulled off a coup by offering a camera with the Kx's specifications at its price point, which is essentially that of the K2000. More camera, same money. What's to complain about!

10-21-2009, 05:04 PM   #47
Veteran Member
schmik's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sydney Aus
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 527
No worries tarsus.

I agree, the KX looks great. I want one. Personnally I am not that fussed with high ISO noise. It is what it is. Low light AF is of concern and the KX will probably be pretty good.

I have nothing against the KX (although AF adjustment would be good). I think it is brilliant for the price. Marc and I just disagree on the QA and the 'tolerance' to which bodies and lenses are built to.

Even on my faulty da40, by f/4 (with in camera adjustment), my jaw dropped at the quality of the image. It's just a matter of fine tuning the body to get that same jaw dropping picture at f/2.8 EVERY time. I guess that is why the KX is entry level and K7 is advanced.

mike
10-21-2009, 07:35 PM   #48
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
I read it a while back. Like I said, I agree the
concept of cameras and lenses not being perfect is real. I'm just saying that,
assuming one's camera is within manufacturer's spec, the *magnitude* of the
problem is not such that one should expect to be unable to focus at f/2.8. Any
camera or lens that was so far off as to not be able to do that isn't slightly out of
calibration - it's defective.
.

I think we'll just have to disagree there, I've run in to a several lenses now in
two mounts that were slightly off at f/2.8 - with the K20D, I dialed in a +5, now
it performs perfectly for me. In the case of the D90, I sent it back (180 2.8), got another
that was perfect. I also had a Sigma 28 1.8 in Nikon mount that had FF, sent it
back, got another that had BF , and decided to give up on that lens. If that
had been my K20D, I'd own a razor-sharp Sigma 28 1.8 right now. All my other
lenses were spot-on with the D90, so I know it's not the body.

Now, I don't know if anyone would consider either of those Nikon mount lenses
"defective" - I think most people would have just kept them as-is. For
example, here's a shot I took with the first 180 2.8 with the FF problem:

(f/3.5)


That lens was marvelous - but It FF'd just a tad. I estimated that on my K20D,
it would have been about a +3 or +4 adjustment. I would have happily adjusted
and kept the lens (got it for a song.)


QuoteQuote:
I'm using "hack" in the computer programmer sense, not the sense of a "hacker"
doing something illicit. A documented feature can be a "hack" too. Something is
a "hack" if its an inelegant solution to a problem, whether the solution is
documented or not.
I'm aware of how you were using the term - I disagree with the characterization.
Actually, I think 'kludge' labels what you're trying to describe better. A 'hack'
traditionally means 'access something not meant to be available'. In the case
of the K100D and K10D, it truly was a hack, because that debug menu that
allowed the AF adjust wasn't meant to be seen and used outside of the factory
or service center.

QuoteQuote:
Again, only if the sensors are *way* off am I saying they should to be corrected
physically. Otherwise, the software workaround is fine - it's probably a more
appropriate solution, since it's pretty doubtful one could turn the screws as
precisely.
Exactly. And an elegant and welcome solution, in my opinion.

Now - if someone eventually hacks the K-x and a nice little easter-egg like an
AF adjust menu pops up, I just might buy one!




.
10-21-2009, 07:49 PM   #49
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by schmik Quote
I wish it were are as simple as just posting a photo so you could look at the focus and exif but my test shots get deleted once AF has been adjusted.
Even if you had the shots, that wouldn't help. I'm not looking for proof that *your* cameras and/or lenses are defective - I'm looking for proofs that this is likely to me common with K-x - in particular, any more common than the historical average for all AF cameras over the last 30-some-odd years.

10-21-2009, 07:54 PM   #50
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
I think we'll just have to disagree there
I suppose so, but tell me - are you claiming that Pentax cameras and lenses are worse than the historical average for all AF cameras and lenses over the last three decades? That is, that people were able to successfully take pictures at f/2.8 from the 1970's through now, but that things have changed recently such that this is no longer something one can expect? Or are you claiming that AF has *always* been such that it was not reaosnable to expect an in focus picture at f/2.8? I think both statements are false, but if we're going to agree to disagree, I
might as well understand what exactly we are disagreeing on.

QuoteQuote:
Actually, I think 'kludge' labels what you're trying to describe better. A 'hack'
traditionally means 'access something not meant to be available'.
Back when I was in the industry, these were synonyms.
10-21-2009, 07:56 PM   #51
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by tarsus Quote
Marc, how did you get this job as moderator? Nice job you do before a tough crowd.
Thanks. I think being selected to be one of the moderators was just my punishment for posting too much :-).
10-21-2009, 08:02 PM   #52
Veteran Member
schmik's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sydney Aus
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 527
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
I'm looking for proofs that this is likely to me common with K-x - in particular, any more common than the historical average for all AF cameras over the last 30-some-odd years.
I think that 30 years is a bit much as I suspect none of us (certainly me in particular) tested their gear as much as we do now or expected as much of it. I'm sure none of us shot as many pictures or attempted them in low light (or razor thin DOF) as we do with digital.

I used a 1942 rangefinder over the weekend... my definition of in-focus was very relaxed reviewing those shots.

I don't understand why you dismiss the argument of Pentax (and others) providing us in-camera AF adjustment for individual lenses. Do you think that this feature is going to be used to intentionally dial in BF or FF as a special effect? or to fix issues of tolerance?

I'm not saying that KX is going to be better or worse than any other pentax camera. I am saying that pentax should have a tighter tolerance for body and lens production/calibration before they leave the factory.

mike
10-21-2009, 08:09 PM   #53
Veteran Member
schmik's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sydney Aus
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 527
My complaint is that Pentax (which constitutes most of my gear) should do a better job of providing bodies and lenses (especially LTD and DA *) that focus within DOF out of the box OR provide AF adjust on all new bodies.

Maybe I just expect too much from the gear or have been extremely unlucky in the gear provided to me.

mike

10-21-2009, 08:15 PM   #54
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,678
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Thanks. I think being selected to be one of the moderators was just my punishment for posting too much :-).

Righty-o.
I'm stopping right now...
(except for this one!)
10-21-2009, 08:15 PM   #55
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
I suppose so, but tell me - are you claiming that Pentax cameras and lenses are worse than the historical average for all AF cameras and lenses over the last three decades? That is, that people were able to successfully take pictures at f/2.8 from the 1970's through now, but that things have changed recently such that this is no longer something one can expect?
Oh, no, I'm certain it's nothing recent - it's just that photographers had only
two options, then - work with what they had and MF in crucial situations, or
send the lens in for calibration/exchange.

We now have a third option - AF adjust menus!

QuoteQuote:
Or are you claiming that AF has *always* been such that it was not reaosnable to expect an in focus picture at f/2.8?
There's a difference between saying "some lenses are slightly off while still
within spec" and "it's not reasonable to expect an in focus picture at f/2.8". I'm
simply saying the former.




QuoteQuote:
Back when I was in the industry, these were synonyms.
I think that in some contexts, they still could be used as synonyms, but in
this case a distinct 'hack' existed for the K10D, so it maybe wasn't the
best term to use to describe a nice pretty GUI in the K20D/K7/D300.... etc.

But if you want to label it a kludge, that's fine, I just don't agree that it's a
kludge any more than, say, monitor calibration is a kludge, or that seat belts
shouldn't be used because they represent a capitulation to all the bad drivers on the road.

.
10-22-2009, 02:24 AM   #56
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,934
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Now - if someone eventually hacks the K-x and a nice little easter-egg like an
AF adjust menu pops up, I just might buy one!
If Pentax didn't change their scheme, it should be straightforward to get into the AF adjust menu of a K-x. There is a method that works for all previous Pentax DSLRs. You only need to find out the K-x-specific MODSET number. Doing that is not hard and described somewhere in this thread.
10-22-2009, 04:00 AM   #57
Veteran Member
georgweb's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Berlin, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,381
Class A, hear hear ! Can I have ultrasilent shutter with mirror-lockup and liveview please :-)

Jay, onto your original call. As falconeye/Falk has put straight in the other thread, the sensor technology used in the K-X is not the same as in the two latest Sony point-and-shoot cameras, which represent a breakthrough in low light P&S cams since the venerable Fuji F30/31.

The K-X sensor though, has the Sony technology of placing the A/D converters (proper channel by channel) on the chip itself and that's what makes them already so much more cool in low light (and much faster in overall readout, too).

Now, as far as I have been understanding (and that stands to be corrected by the likes of Falk and others who really technically understand this) the Nikon D90 sensor has that technology, too, as well as the Pentax K-X, the Nikon D5000 and the Sony A500/550. It could very well be that all these share the very same sensor (except the 550 which has more pixels).

I for one work with manual prime lenses, so it boils down to shake reduction (Pentax and Sony) and the best viewfinder and changeable matt screens. Looks good for Pentax if you consider that the Sonys won't do any video either.

BTW I use eneloops too with a real good charger, which makes all the difference. I won't say anything about AF-calibration :-)

Best, Georg (the other)
10-22-2009, 04:10 AM   #58
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,934
QuoteOriginally posted by georgweb Quote
Class A, hear hear ! Can I have ultrasilent shutter with mirror-lockup and liveview please :-)
Sure, all this is aka K-7.
10-22-2009, 06:58 AM   #59
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by class a Quote
if pentax didn't change their scheme, it should be straightforward to get into the af adjust menu of a k-x. There is a method that works for all previous pentax dslrs. You only need to find out the k-x-specific modset number. Doing that is not hard and described somewhere in this thread.
.


Thanks!

10-22-2009, 02:20 PM   #60
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by schmik Quote
I think that 30 years is a bit much as I suspect none of us (certainly me in particular) tested their gear as much as we do now or expected as much of it.
It was also much harder to "pixel peep" even if you wanted to - we judged results based on how they looked in prints, and we seldom printed very large. So we never saw the equivalent of 100% crops from most of our images.

So actually I do think that this is the "right" answer - that modern DSLR AF systems aren't actually worse than they've been, but that we're more demanding. The point of contention mostly has to do with how common it would be for the combination of misalignment of camera and "demandingness" of user to be such that results at f/2.8 were unacceptable. And since none of have any real numbers here, we're just going by our own experiences, and since they vary, it's no surprise we're all being led to different conclusions.

QuoteQuote:
I don't understand why you dismiss the argument of Pentax (and others) providing us in-camera AF adjustment for individual lenses. Do you think that this feature is going to be used to intentionally dial in BF or FF as a special effect? or to fix issues of tolerance?
I'm not dismissing it. I think it's great that some camera provide this as a way of tightening up already excellent tolerances even further. I don't think providing this should be a substitute for actually performing up to excellent tolerances in the first place - but luckily,I also don't think that is a problem *in general* (sure, any given unit might happen to be outside that spec). I think it reaosnable to expect a camera to produce acceptable results *without* these adjustments, and I think on the whole, Pentax succeeds in this. Which is why I am not comfortable with leaving prospective customers with the notion that with teh K-x, they wouldn't be able to expect acceptable results.

Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 10-22-2009 at 02:32 PM.
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, d90, dslr, image, iso, k-x, lens, nr, photography, pp, sensor, shooters, thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Landscape When You Least Expect It jkwhawk Post Your Photos! 1 10-20-2010 11:18 AM
When do you expect to have the 645D? stp Ask B&H Photo! 10 10-03-2010 09:35 AM
SO what can I expect? traumaalert Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 16 09-19-2010 07:12 AM
Old K20D: What to expect? jeff knight Pentax DSLR Discussion 14 08-20-2010 12:34 PM
What to expect if you?????? cupic Post Your Photos! 9 06-21-2008 08:43 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:08 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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