Replaced K5: Tested for FREEZING

psychdoc · 03-27-2011, 01:23 PM

My original K5 froze repeatedly. With my replacement K5 I simply shot about 800 pics during a dance recital at Hi frame rate. Obviously not any kind of professional test. NO freezing. Keeping my fingers crossed...Anyone else with no freezing problems on replaced k5?

Here is one pic. f2.8, 1/500. iso 6400. Love being able to shoot high iso
[She has braces at her pre-teen age now and did not want those seen. Hence the profile view....]

Last edited by psychdoc; 04-09-2013 at 11:04 AM.

**Fontan** · 03-27-2011, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by psychdoc

My original K5 froze repeatedly. With my replacement K5 I simply shot about 800 pics during a dance recital at Hi frame rate. Obviously not any kind of professional test. NO freezing. Keeping my fingers crossed...Anyone else with no freezing problems on replaced k5?

Here is one pic. f2.8, 1/500. iso 6400. Love being able to shoot high iso
[She has braces at her pre-teen age now and did not want those seen. Hence the profile view....]

Hello, Doctor.

I am sorry that your original K-5 did not work properly for you.

By any means I do not mean to be rude, and I say this because there will be people who will accuse me of being exactly that. But I could not help but notice that the focus on this picture did not look spot on to me. At a shutter speed of 1/500, and unless the subject was moving furiously, I thought that it may be sharper.

I only mention this, not to criticize your picture in any ways, but because K-5 has had focusing issues of some sort. This was probably the AF.C mode (sorry if I am wrong!), and the type of focusing issues that K-5 was reported to have may have nothing to do with this mode . . . .

Sorry in advancve.

psychdoc · 03-27-2011, 02:06 PM

No offense taken.

I knew everything was not in foucs but I was not expecting the whole picture to be sharp at f2.8. Maybe I am wrong...
I suppose at 1/500 even a moving dancer should be sharper? Well, sometimes it pays to be ignorant.

I was clicking away furiously to see if I could get the K5 to freeze. But even otherwise, I always thought that at f2.8 you would not get everything in focus. Of course, with my greying hair and my recent need to use glasses, maybe I am thinking that things are good enough while others may notice that it is not so...

I am no expert. I suppose it could be operator error/skill limitation too. Maybe some others with experience will also contribute to this comment.

Christine Tham · 03-27-2011, 02:09 PM

Lovely focus on the earrings and the necklace. Thanks for posting.

**Fontan** · 03-27-2011, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by psychdoc

No offense taken.

I knew everything was not in foucs but I was not expecting the whole picture to be sharp at f2.8. Maybe I am wrong...
I suppose at 1/500 even a moving dancer should be sharper? Well, sometimes it pays to be ignorant.

I was clicking away furiously to see if I could get the K5 to freeze. But even otherwise, I always thought that at f2.8 you would not get everything in focus. Of course, with my greying hair and my recent need to use glasses, maybe I am thinking that things are good enough while others may notice that it is not so...

I am no expert. I suppose it could be operator error/skill limitation too. Maybe some others with experience will also contribute to this comment.

I am no expert either, but I think it depends on how fast your lens is. If its maximum aperture is f/1.8, then at 2.8 pictures ought to be plenty sharp. In this picture's case, your lens may well have been at its maximum.

I do have to respectfully disagree with the young lady's comment above though. I think that ear ring can be a bit sharper. Also, the plane of the whole neckless is somewhere between parallel and perpendicular, about 60 degrees, I say. If the lens is at its maximum aperture, I don't think it is possible that the entire neckless is spot on. The motifs on the dress just below the neckless seems also a bit out of focus too.

I think this is more or less a motion artifact in that the subject did not stay still enough, even at 1/500. Sorry, I made it sound like your daughter did something wrong - but I am sure she did fabulous!

twitch · 03-27-2011, 04:10 PM

Great news that your K-5 doesn't freeze anymore.

As for photo sharpness, well given the text is not sharp I tend to think the actual resizing of the photo is what is causing the slight fuzziness. .

Rupert · 03-27-2011, 04:17 PM

Hey.....It's a nice photo, interesting, and the colors are superb. Plenty sharp enough for my eyes. Some photos are best if they are not razor sharp....and generally women prefer them to have a little softness....anyhow that is my experience.

As for focus problems on the K5.......that's old hat, a done deal, over, history, adios, and not a problem. The K5 focuses just dandy.
Best Regards!

psychdoc · 03-27-2011, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Fontan

I am no expert either, but I think it depends on how fast your lens is. If its maximum aperture is f/1.8, then at 2.8 pictures ought to be plenty sharp. In this picture's case, your lens may well have been at its maximum.

Lens used: DA 50-135mm f2.8 zoomed all the way out to 135mm. It was shot at Shutter priority and auto iso and so I got f2.8 and iso 6400.

**Fontan** · 03-27-2011, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by psychdoc

Lens used: DA 50-135mm f2.8 zoomed all the way out to 135mm. It was shot at Shutter priority and auto iso and so I got f2.8 and iso 6400.

It is a terrific lens. The only Pentax zoom that is worthy of comparison to primes, I think. I got one as well, but with a lame SDM unfortunately. But, now I am convinced that this is more of a motion artifact, especially at a focal length of 135mm. To catch a rapidly rotating target under that condition would be very hard. Rotation is definitely the most difficult to lock on, I think.

Sorry I ever mentioned.

jamesm007 · 03-28-2011, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by psychdoc

Lens used: DA 50-135mm f2.8 zoomed all the way out to 135mm. It was shot at Shutter priority and auto iso and so I got f2.8 and iso 6400.

Not much DOF at f/2.8 and 135mm. Just off the top of my head we are talking inches. The shot had no flaw until somebody says something (you tell me

).

I don't get it. This is just a demo pic. Shoot it at f/8 and I would bet she will be sharp. Does not everyone know telephoto has a small DOF and f/2.8 is ... let me plug it in to the DOF calculator.......................... assuming you were 15' from her its 0.39 feet, or about 4". This matches pretty good with what we see. So no big deal.

BTW ISO6400! The K-5 is amazing.

03-27-2011, 01:23 PM	#1
psychdoc Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Bham Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 949	Replaced K5: Tested for FREEZING My original K5 froze repeatedly. With my replacement K5 I simply shot about 800 pics during a dance recital at Hi frame rate. Obviously not any kind of professional test. NO freezing. Keeping my fingers crossed...Anyone else with no freezing problems on replaced k5? Here is one pic. f2.8, 1/500. iso 6400. Love being able to shoot high iso [She has braces at her pre-teen age now and did not want those seen. Hence the profile view....] Last edited by psychdoc; 04-09-2013 at 11:04 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Can the USB port rubber cover be replaced?	peterh337	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	2	01-26-2011 12:23 PM
replaced K-5 - no issues left	elho_cid	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	13	12-21-2010 05:09 AM
K-x Freezing :(	zach	Pentax DSLR Discussion	3	08-19-2010 02:09 PM
Are we, like post office workers, slated to be replaced by machines?	jaieger	Photographic Technique	6	07-28-2010 11:10 PM
Got my 16-50 replaced; now sending it AND the K-7 in for repair	inferno10	Pentax DSLR Discussion	15	08-16-2009 12:42 AM

03-27-2011, 01:46 PM	#2
Fontan Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: 5th floor Posts: 1,610	Originally posted by psychdoc My original K5 froze repeatedly. With my replacement K5 I simply shot about 800 pics during a dance recital at Hi frame rate. Obviously not any kind of professional test. NO freezing. Keeping my fingers crossed...Anyone else with no freezing problems on replaced k5? Here is one pic. f2.8, 1/500. iso 6400. Love being able to shoot high iso [She has braces at her pre-teen age now and did not want those seen. Hence the profile view....] Hello, Doctor. I am sorry that your original K-5 did not work properly for you. By any means I do not mean to be rude, and I say this because there will be people who will accuse me of being exactly that. But I could not help but notice that the focus on this picture did not look spot on to me. At a shutter speed of 1/500, and unless the subject was moving furiously, I thought that it may be sharper. I only mention this, not to criticize your picture in any ways, but because K-5 has had focusing issues of some sort. This was probably the AF.C mode (sorry if I am wrong!), and the type of focusing issues that K-5 was reported to have may have nothing to do with this mode . . . . Sorry in advancve.

03-27-2011, 02:06 PM	#3
psychdoc Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Bham Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 949 Original Poster	No offense taken. I knew everything was not in foucs but I was not expecting the whole picture to be sharp at f2.8. Maybe I am wrong... I suppose at 1/500 even a moving dancer should be sharper? Well, sometimes it pays to be ignorant. I was clicking away furiously to see if I could get the K5 to freeze. But even otherwise, I always thought that at f2.8 you would not get everything in focus. Of course, with my greying hair and my recent need to use glasses, maybe I am thinking that things are good enough while others may notice that it is not so... I am no expert. I suppose it could be operator error/skill limitation too. Maybe some others with experience will also contribute to this comment.

03-27-2011, 02:09 PM	#4
Christine Tham Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,269	Lovely focus on the earrings and the necklace. Thanks for posting.

03-27-2011, 03:59 PM	#5
Fontan Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: 5th floor Posts: 1,610	Originally posted by psychdoc No offense taken. I knew everything was not in foucs but I was not expecting the whole picture to be sharp at f2.8. Maybe I am wrong... I suppose at 1/500 even a moving dancer should be sharper? Well, sometimes it pays to be ignorant. I was clicking away furiously to see if I could get the K5 to freeze. But even otherwise, I always thought that at f2.8 you would not get everything in focus. Of course, with my greying hair and my recent need to use glasses, maybe I am thinking that things are good enough while others may notice that it is not so... I am no expert. I suppose it could be operator error/skill limitation too. Maybe some others with experience will also contribute to this comment. I am no expert either, but I think it depends on how fast your lens is. If its maximum aperture is f/1.8, then at 2.8 pictures ought to be plenty sharp. In this picture's case, your lens may well have been at its maximum. I do have to respectfully disagree with the young lady's comment above though. I think that ear ring can be a bit sharper. Also, the plane of the whole neckless is somewhere between parallel and perpendicular, about 60 degrees, I say. If the lens is at its maximum aperture, I don't think it is possible that the entire neckless is spot on. The motifs on the dress just below the neckless seems also a bit out of focus too. I think this is more or less a motion artifact in that the subject did not stay still enough, even at 1/500. Sorry, I made it sound like your daughter did something wrong - but I am sure she did fabulous!

03-27-2011, 04:10 PM	#6
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	Great news that your K-5 doesn't freeze anymore. As for photo sharpness, well given the text is not sharp I tend to think the actual resizing of the photo is what is causing the slight fuzziness. .

03-27-2011, 04:17 PM	#7
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	Hey.....It's a nice photo, interesting, and the colors are superb. Plenty sharp enough for my eyes. Some photos are best if they are not razor sharp....and generally women prefer them to have a little softness....anyhow that is my experience. As for focus problems on the K5.......that's old hat, a done deal, over, history, adios, and not a problem. The K5 focuses just dandy. Best Regards!

03-27-2011, 04:20 PM	#8
psychdoc Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Bham Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 949 Original Poster	Originally posted by Fontan I am no expert either, but I think it depends on how fast your lens is. If its maximum aperture is f/1.8, then at 2.8 pictures ought to be plenty sharp. In this picture's case, your lens may well have been at its maximum. Lens used: DA 50-135mm f2.8 zoomed all the way out to 135mm. It was shot at Shutter priority and auto iso and so I got f2.8 and iso 6400.

03-27-2011, 04:36 PM	#9
Fontan Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: 5th floor Posts: 1,610	Originally posted by psychdoc Lens used: DA 50-135mm f2.8 zoomed all the way out to 135mm. It was shot at Shutter priority and auto iso and so I got f2.8 and iso 6400. It is a terrific lens. The only Pentax zoom that is worthy of comparison to primes, I think. I got one as well, but with a lame SDM unfortunately. But, now I am convinced that this is more of a motion artifact, especially at a focal length of 135mm. To catch a rapidly rotating target under that condition would be very hard. Rotation is definitely the most difficult to lock on, I think. Sorry I ever mentioned.

03-28-2011, 05:20 PM	#10
jamesm007 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Detroit MI, USA Posts: 508	Originally posted by psychdoc Lens used: DA 50-135mm f2.8 zoomed all the way out to 135mm. It was shot at Shutter priority and auto iso and so I got f2.8 and iso 6400. Not much DOF at f/2.8 and 135mm. Just off the top of my head we are talking inches. The shot had no flaw until somebody says something (you tell me ). I don't get it. This is just a demo pic. Shoot it at f/8 and I would bet she will be sharp. Does not everyone know telephoto has a small DOF and f/2.8 is ... let me plug it in to the DOF calculator.......................... assuming you were 15' from her its 0.39 feet, or about 4". This matches pretty good with what we see. So no big deal. BTW ISO6400! The K-5 is amazing.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search