[maltfalc]

not as good as focus peaking, but if you crank up sharpness and contrast you'll get far more noticeable moire and aliasing in live view when your subject's in focus.

[Welfl]

It's just software, it would take them more effort for taking it out of the firmware instead of letting it in.

I totally agree; and I finally found proof of it earlier today: Sony Firmware Update Brings Peaking To NEX-3 and NEX-5.

I have been dreaming about owning a K-5 since I first discovered them in January 2011. I ate, breathed and slept K-5 research for months on end. But they were just too expensive for me at that time. Then I got (re-)sidetracked for many months by far more important national and world events.

Last month, when I learned about the existence of focus peaking for the first time, I was absolutely thrilled (even more so after seeing the stellar results of focus peaking coming from the K-01). It is exactly what I have been wanting; however, for a number of practical and subjective reasons, I don't want to own a K-01 in order to have focus peaking. I still want to own a K-5, especially now that it is $999 for a limited time!

I would be so much more comfortable with my decision to purchase a K-5 if I knew that Pentax is planning to give it focus-peaking capabilities -- or not. If not, then please let us know now! I cannot imagine why they would consider this to be top-secret information. Don't they realize they would sell even more K-5s if they announce that they are going to add this feature?

[sjwaldron]

I think there is a better chance of someone hacking both firmwares and merging it into the K-5 than Pentax actually adding a feature to a camera that is up for replacement. I think it's so unlikely for either that there isn't any point hoping for it. There is a reason it's hundreds of dollars cheaper than when it first came out. Companies rarely add features to a camera after it is released, especially after a year.

[Welfl]

I think there is a better chance of someone hacking both firmwares and merging it into the K-5 than Pentax actually adding a feature to a camera that is up for replacement.

I know, but I think Pentax-Ricoh could gain some strong customer loyalty from the customers who paid an insanely overpriced fortune for the K-5 in the early days and from those who paid a regular fortune later on. Generally speaking (very generally), those customers helped to keep Pentax in business.

I think it's so unlikely for either that there isn't any point hoping for it.

Once again, I know. I have very little faith in the "generosity" of any modern corporation, even the ones I like the most (I'm very cynical about the stereotypical corporate mentality). I was mostly just venting my frustration at the (typical) unfairness of the situation.

There is a reason it's hundreds of dollars cheaper than when it first came out.

Yes, because they know they dramatically overpriced it in the first place.

Companies rarely add features to a camera after it is released, especially after a year.

I agree. But, as features go, this one would require an incredibly minimal amount of effort (as Anvh says). In fact, most of the work on focus peaking has already been done. They just need to make it compatible with the K-5.

Besides, profit is profit, regardless of which models are being sold (present models or future models). In fact, I believe a sale now is always better than a sale later. There may actually be a lot of people like me who would buy now if this one little feature was added with minimal effort. I'm very close to waiting another two years (if the economy is still alive then) for the rumored "K-3" and/or "K-p" to come down to normal prices, because I don't want the K-01, but I do want focus peaking. Pentax should be eager to get my money now instead of two years from now.

A very similar amount of materials and assembly-line work go into making the K-01 and, to a lesser extent, the Q, but they both sell for less than the K-5, even at their introductory prices, yet a decent profit is obviously being made on both of them; otherwise Pentax wouldn't be selling them at all. Why should a corporation "save" features for a future version just because it is going to be overpriced for the first year or so? Besides, I'm pretty sure (or at least I would hope) that the upcoming Pentax models will have a lot more going for them than just focus peaking, which is already becoming standard across the industry anyway, so why not give us that tiny, easily served morsel now?

---

Last edited by Welfl; 03-20-2012 at 07:22 PM.

[sjwaldron]

A very similar amount of materials and assembly-line work go into making the K-01 and, to a lesser extent, the Q, but they both sell for less than the K-5, even at their introductory prices, yet a decent profit is obviously being made on both of them; otherwise Pentax wouldn't be selling them at all. Why should a corporation "save" features for a future version just because it is going to be overpriced for the first year or so? Besides, I'm pretty sure (or at least I would hope) that the upcoming Pentax models will have a lot more going for them than just focus peaking, which is already becoming standard across the industry anyway, so why not give us that tiny, easily served morsel now?

I'd certainly be happy if they did add focus peaking. I've wanted full manual control in video on the K-5 for a long time. How about some of us send Pentax an email asking for those two features? While peaking is probably a software thing, it might be a hardware supported feature of that new PRIME processor. This is probably the case with how the K-5 does not do H.264 encoded videos and the K-01 does not do M-JPEG encoded videos. If the encoding code were entirely software, I don't see why they wouldn't offer both formats on the K-01.

I wouldn't say the K-5 was that much overpriced. In the global market, the K-5 was probably one of the best cost per feature/result quality on he market. Right now at $999 I'd say it is the best buy for the money in DSLR cameras. It held value a lot longer than the K-7, but that's because it is a good combination of features with a strong sensor to back everything up. I bought the K-7 and K-5 around the same time after each respective release and ended up paying around $300 more for the K-5 even though they are pretty similar. $1000 for a K-7/K-5 level camera seems like a good solid deal and we can assume the replacement will be up around $1500 to start (unless Ricoh decided to go cheap).

For a while the Nikon D7000 was probably a bit better, but it's now overpriced and hard to find due to the natural disaster in Thailand (presumably).

[riff]

I would welcome focus peeking on the K-5 and it need not be a free upgrade to please me.

[Welfl]

How about some of us send Pentax an email asking for those two features?

Yes, that would be great. Believe it or not, I was just discussing that with someone earlier today. I admitted the odds of their listening to me are slim to none, but I said I still want to do it anyway, because it's better to try and maybe fail than not to try at all and certainly fail. We just need to find the ideal email address. The customer-service email address would not be sufficient.

While peaking is probably a software thing, it might be a hardware supported feature of that new PRIME processor.

That could be; but do the two Sony NEX cameras that were updated last summer also have the PRIME processor? I think that's Pentax technology, isn't it? I'm not up to date on this information.

This is probably the case with how the K-5 does not do H.264 encoded videos and the K-01 does not do M-JPEG encoded videos. If the encoding code were entirely software, I don't see why they wouldn't offer both formats on the K-01.

I've certainly been wishing the K-5 could produce videos in both file formats. Converting AVIs is a pain. AVI video is the only other thing I really dislike about the K-5 -- along with its confusing and very limited focusing methodology.

I wouldn't say the K-5 was that much overpriced.

I don't really disagree with you, but I guess it depends on ones point of view and business philosophy (I actually once practiced what I preach, much to my boss's/dad's initial frustration; but he later reluctantly admitted that I attracted a lot more loyal customers -- and profits -- because I sold them more for less). Pentax is definitely still making a profit on the K-5, even at $999 (since it is obviously profiting on the K-01 at $749). That means that it was making well over $600 additional profit on each and every K-5 when it was initially priced at $1,599. Pentax may have made a lot of money on each unit at that higher price, but it certainly didn't sell as many as it would have at $999 or even $1,099. If we want Pentax to become a lot larger -- in order to compete with Canon and Nikon -- then it needs to sell lots of high quality cameras at reasonably lower profit margins than a few high quality cameras at much higher profit margins.

In the global market, the K-5 was probably one of the best cost per feature/result quality on he market. Right now at $999 I'd say it is the best buy for the money in DSLR cameras.

I totally agree with that! The K-5 is almost magical, in my opinion. But then, as someone who is new to the world of high-end digital cameras and still has an outsider's perspective, I think the other camera makers have been overpricing their medium- and high-end products too (in other words, IMHO, two wrongs don't make a right). I could be way out of touch with reality, but it appears to me that the camera world has taken on an "elite boutique" mentality since I last paid attention to the market in the 1970s and 1980s. I know inflation (thanks to the Fed) accounts for a huge chunk of overall price increases since "the old days," but it just seems hard to believe that relatively tiny, mid-level cameras cost as much or more than Mac Pros or high-end iMacs, or even (very) used cars. The overpriced iPad does a lot more things than the K-01 and the Q, but it costs about the same as they do. Computer prices keep going down as the years pass, in spite of the customer getting several orders of magnitude more technology for his/her money than in the old days, and in spite of inflation. The same was true of VCRs and is true of DVD players, scanners, hard drives, etc. Why are digital cameras going against that time-honored trend?

---

Last edited by Welfl; 03-21-2012 at 08:45 AM.

[Welfl]

I would welcome focus peeking on the K-5 and it need not be a free upgrade to please me.

Yes, that's an excellent idea!*

*Unless they overcharge for it.

[Welfl]

I'd certainly be happy if they did add focus peaking. I've wanted full manual control in video on the K-5 for a long time.

Maybe you could help me out. I've been very confused about the video capabilities of the K-5.

I've read a lot about it, but I keep seeing seemingly contradictory information. Today I found a thread on PF (can't find it now, of course) in which a person asks if it is possible to do autofocus when shooting video with the K-5. Several people answered: "No." Yet in other places I've read that one cannot do manual focus when shooting video.*

I've almost come to the conclusion that the camera will be stuck at a fixed distance (for example, 10 feet) once you start filming something or someone at that distance. If the subject of the video happens to move 20 feet away or 5 feet away while you are filming, the video will remain focused at 10 feet, because it cannot change automatically, nor can it be changed manually. That can't be true. Can it? What is the truth?

*Maybe I misread what they wrote, and they are actually saying that it is not possible to have FULL manual control, just as you are saying.

[sjwaldron]

Maybe you could help me out. I've been very confused about the video capabilities of the K-5.

I've read a lot about it, but I keep seeing seemingly contradictory information. Today I found a thread on PF (can't find it now, of course) in which a person asks if it is possible to do autofocus when shooting video with the K-5. Several people answered: "No." Yet in other places I've read that one cannot do manual focus when shooting video.*

I've almost come to the conclusion that the camera will be stuck at a fixed distance (for example, 10 feet) once you start filming something or someone at that distance. If the subject of the video happens to move 20 feet away or 5 feet away while you are filming, the video will remain focused at 10 feet, because it cannot change automatically, nor can it be changed manually. That can't be true. Can it? What is the truth?

*Maybe I misread what they wrote, and they are actually saying that it is not possible to have FULL manual control, just as you are saying.

I have a good deal of information about the K-5 and its video mode on my site/youtube channel, but I think this forum is getting extreme about people posting personal links in the message body. I'll save you from my rant on that.

The camera does not auto-focus while recording. However, you can pre-focus when in video mode. You can manual focus in video mode. It's a lot easier to manual focus with quick-shift lenses if you pre-focus using auto-focus, otherwise the lenses without quick-shift are locked in place and you need to switch the camera to manual focus to release the lock.

The camera allows control of the aperture and the exposure compensation and AE-L buttons work as they should too. Shutter speed and ISO are not controllable (I think there was some trick people could use to get manual control, but it requires playing around with the dial or something). Aperture + exposure compensation + the AE-L button are a decent method of control, yet not ideal. Another thing I don't like is that it only does 25fps in 1080p.

[grahamcoad]

HEY gang, us older types will recall that, while a split image fiocus screen works well with a 'standard ' lens with bright wide aperture, they are far less useful with wide angle and especially bad on telephoto lenses, and hopeless for dim small aperture lenses.
One half or another would 'black out' much of the time with the 'kit' lenses supplied with a large number of DSLRs making the screen pointless.
Pentax and the other makers will have tried it and seen it fail!!

[benjikan]

I am so disappointed that Pentax do not make a Split Screen for their K5. I just requested one from them and found out that they don't have them. Would help a lot for precise focussing in lower lighting conditions.

[rawr]

Would help a lot for precise focussing in lower lighting conditions.

I find the Pentax O-ME53 magnifying eyepiece quite handy for precise focussing with all sorts of manual lenses, instead of using a split screen.
I can also easily move it from one camera to another as needed.

[lammie200]

... Pentax is definitely still making a profit on the K-5, even at $999 (since it is obviously profiting on the K-01 at $749). That means that it was making well over $600 additional profit on each and every K-5 when it was initially priced at $1,599...

I think that you made a lot of good points but it is difficult to draw the conclusion that all of the price difference went towards Pentax profits. For example, parts supplier prices might have dropped due to economies of scale. I give kudos to PRICL for discounting the K-5 along its life cycle. I haven't seen anything similar for comparable cameras like the Canon 7D.

[goldenarrow]

I totally agree with that! The K-5 is almost magical, in my opinion. But then, as someone who is new to the world of high-end digital cameras and still has an outsider's perspective, I think the other camera makers have been overpricing their medium- and high-end products too (in other words, IMHO, two wrongs don't make a right). I could be way out of touch with reality, but it appears to me that the camera world has taken on an "elite boutique" mentality since I last paid attention to the market in the 1970s and 1980s. I know inflation (thanks to the Fed) accounts for a huge chunk of overall price increases since "the old days," but it just seems hard to believe that relatively tiny, mid-level cameras cost as much or more than Mac Pros or high-end iMacs, or even (very) used cars. The overpriced iPad does a lot more things than the K-01 and the Q, but it costs about the same as they do. Computer prices keep going down as the years pass, in spite of the customer getting several orders of magnitude more technology for his/her money than in the old days, and in spite of inflation. The same was true of VCRs and is true of DVD players, scanners, hard drives, etc. Why are digital cameras going against that time-honored trend?

Need to add my 2cents, I, too, have been frustrated by the photo industry mentality as something expousing elitism as a high value. You can see it in most of the ad campaigns of superstars, perfect bodies, or slick-looking scenes. That does not necessarily match the values of the majority of amateurs like me. I think the industry does itself a disservice to create an elite image when they have to deal with more and more complexity in their main products (cameras and lenses). I think of cars as a "technology" that has a small (but very important) computer component but still lots of dependence on various materials all working together into one seamless whole. Cars have not come down in price so much either, although the quality has certainly gone up as the second-tier manufacturers increase their capabilities (Korean makers especially). And cars are certainly promoted with a lot of sexy pizzazz. There's a lot of money at stake.

Similarly, photo equipment is getting more and more complex with still a dependence on quality materials like computer designed lenses and coatings. The more we demand, the more they all scramble to stuff features we may or may not want. I have liked the idea of getting a K-5 for a while now but the more I see how much money goes into spending for photo gear, the more I am turned off. Maybe it is time for me to spend more time and effort investing in human relationships instead of messing with taking pictures with expensive hardware and the creative time spent in software. Just my own thoughts. I can understand totally if some would disagree with me, I have been wrestling with this very topic for the last few weeks lately. It is hard to answer but it would help a lot to re-assure people like me who need to see the value of continued involvement in BUYING if Ricoh/Pentax would be much more responsive with simple updates like that proposed here for firmware.

It might also help to End the Fed and bring back Constitutional Money of some sort (gold-backed gov't bonds, for instance) but that is a topic for different spheres.....