|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-11-2016, 09:33 PM
|
| |
I guess I misunderstood your intent. I re-read your posts here and think you are saying that, based on the thread title, it would be good share the existence of another thread where a physical incompatibility problem (newly announced by Sigma) is being discussed.
There is an outside chance that the two are related for at least some users and so it may be a good idea. ;)
Steve
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-11-2016, 08:57 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-11-2016, 08:50 PM
|
| |
Perhaps you would like to read back through this thread to see what it is about.
Before you start, you may be interested in knowing that there are at least two issues with Sigma lenses on the K-1. The photo you supplied relates to the mount clearance issue from today's Sigma press release, but that is not what this thread is about.
Steve
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-11-2016, 01:57 PM
|
| |
Probably not related to the issues discussed on this thread since Sigma is offering a firmware fix to the users who have inquired.
Steve
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-07-2016, 09:08 AM
|
| |
It is hard to say, except that this sort of thing (lack of backward compatibility on 3rd-party lens/flash) is quite common and not just with Pentax. I would have expected that the lens would simply not AF properly. Camera crash is another thing entirely. Pentax needs to fix the crash problem. As for Sigma, indications are that they have updated firmware that can be flashed onto the effected lenses.
Steve
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-06-2016, 06:47 PM
|
| |
Yes, the fix is to detect the fatal condition before it happens, disable most functions, and signal the user that an incompatible lens is present.
BTW...The problem is probably not the "8 255" code in and of itself. It is unlikely that codes for other than Pentax lenses are recognized as significant by the camera. More likely is that there is a bug in the reverse-engineered protocol being used where an expected value is out of the expected range.
Steve
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-06-2016, 08:01 AM
|
| |
You mean the one where the camera tells you that the lens does not speak Pentax? Pentax needs to work on robustness on their end, but any real fix would come from Sigma. With any luck they will be able and willing to provide updated firmware for your lens.
Steve
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-05-2016, 10:50 PM
|
| |
Big mystery...Sigma has a history of doing this as does Tamron and Tokina. In some cases the lens id is the same as a Pentax lens at the same focal length. My Sigma 50/2.8 EX DG macro identifies as "3 41", the same code used by the Pentax-F 50/2.8 macro.
Steve
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-05-2016, 08:36 PM
|
| |
Another "8 255" lens, though some identify as "8 7" :p
Steve
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-04-2016, 02:41 PM
|
| |
And the Sigma 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG APO HSM belonging to fs999.
Steve
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-03-2016, 01:35 PM
|
| |
Insulating the data pin on the mount might also work. No AF, but at least you would be able to use the lens.
Steve
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-03-2016, 10:23 AM
|
| |
How is the 150-500 on your K-1?
Steve
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-03-2016, 08:46 AM
|
| |
You are right, but so is Ptitboul. Read his comment carefully again.
The situation is fairly clearcut regarding lens id codes, though it is not always clear how those are handled by ExifTool and other software. An executive summary goes something like this:- The EXIF data for the Pentax makernotes do not include the actual lens model names. Instead, there is a numeric id code. This code is read from the lens by the camera body.
- According to the ExifTool developers, two id codes are known for the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II. The codes are "8 16" and "8 255".
- Code "8 16" is unambiguous and is known from this model lens only
- Code "8 255" is also known for five other Sigma lens models. Those lenses are:
- Sigma 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG APO [OS] HSM
- Sigma 50-150mm F2.8 II APO EX DC HSM
- Sigma 4.5mm F2.8 EX DC HSM Circular Fisheye
- Sigma 50-200mm F4-5.6 DC OS
- Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG HSM
- The descriptive lens name in the ExifTool results is taken from a lookup table and is usually the same as the manufacturer's model name
- Where the id code is ambiguous, ExifTool will do its best to give some notion of which lens is present. In the case of "8 255" the fallback would be "Sigma Lens" unless it is possible to narrow the choices down by some other means, hence the result of "thislens or thatlens".
- The behavior in the above point is better than nothing, but I am not sure it is a good idea.*
- An ambiguity in lens id code may create significant problems for a camera body that tailors its AF (or other) behavior on a per lens basis
- There are numerous cases where both Sigma and other 3rd-party lenses provide ambiguous id codes. Often times, the lens is attempting to masquerade as a Pentax lens, but in this case, "8 255" is only used by Sigma.
I think that about covers it.
Steve
* If it had been up to me, I would have used "Unknown Sigma Lens" or something similar and left it at that.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-02-2016, 04:59 PM
|
| |
That was my first thought when I read the original post. One of the easiest ways to "confuse" a piece of software is to present ambiguous/mixed signals. Perhaps the Sigma is "rooting" the K-1 :eek: :eek: :eek:
(...just kidding...)
Steve
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-02-2016, 04:56 PM
|
| |
Anyone have a Sigma lens they are willing to "brick"? FWIW, I would be very surprised if Sigma has a lens EEPROM api that is accessible from Pentax debug mode. One never knows, however! ;)
Steve
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
04-30-2016, 08:10 PM
|
| |
I believe yours is the most recent produced in Pentax K.
Steve
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
04-29-2016, 03:51 PM
|
| |
It controls itself* in response to body commands and reports its state back to the body. If a value is out of range or inappropriate in type or timing, the camera might be thrown into an infinite control loop with the lens or become deadlocked waiting for a confirmation flag that never comes.
Steve
* Good indication of this might be that recently-released Sigma lenses may have their AF calibration fine-tuned using the Sigma USB Dock device.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
04-29-2016, 03:45 PM
|
| |
:(:(:(:(
Yes, very bad news. Several members on this site indicated intent to buy this lens in advance of a K-1 purchase. Sorry you got caught up short. Is it usable for manual focus?
I am curious as to how your lens identifies itself in the EXIF. There are two variants in this regard. The first identifies itself as "8 16" and is displayed with no confusion as Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II or something similar. The second identifies as "8 255", a code shared in common with several other Sigma lenses.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
04-27-2016, 01:53 PM
|
| |
Agreed! I hope it is not an intractable communication issue. Unfortunately, Sigma has a history of not providing firmware fixes on product that have reached EOL. Ricoh can be expected to provide a stability firmware update to address this problem, but I would not expect it to create compatibility with the lens in question.
I am hoping it is just a power issue.
Steve
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
04-27-2016, 01:49 PM
|
| |
I am not even sure this is strictly true (not aware of any known third-party licensee). My observation for both lenses and flash is that third-party products generally do a very good job of reflecting the behavior of Pentax-brand product at the time they are made, but that incompatibilities crop up with new camera models and/or firmware updates. Pentax is very good about backward compatibility to its own products,* but cannot be expected to provide work-around behaviors for products outside its own stable.**
Steve
* One of the best examples I know of is my AF280T flash from the mid-1980s. Both my K10D and K-3 support those features that appropriate to today's cameras. I was impressed.
** Consider that Pentax does not publish their lens communication API. Neither do they publish the feature evolution of that interface. Consider too that Sigma does not publish their Pentax-compatibility API nor do the publish the evolution of that interface. The possibility that one system might send signals that the other system can't handle is enormous.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
04-27-2016, 01:18 PM
|
| |
Excellent question! I don't know how many strange behavior questions I have responded to on this site that were caused by the user not fully charging the battery before using their new camera.
Steve
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
04-27-2016, 01:16 PM
|
| |
You might want to consider doing so. Might your 70-200/2.8 be the model that returns the same lens id (8 255) as five other Sigma lenses, all with strikingly different specifications?
You are correct. The camera should display a nasty message and then turn itself off until the offending lens is removed or perhaps some other form of graceful degradation*. I suggest you return your K-1 post haste and buy the competitor's FF K-mount dSLR, (I am fairly sympathetic to this user's complaint, but feel that a call to customer support or the dealer before posting a rant here might have been more appropriate.)
Steve
* Graceful degradation is the term used in software development for the idealized behavior when an unanticipated event occurs, throwning a process/component into an indeterminant state. Unfortunately, graceful degradation is not possible on fatal error. Your older Sigma is apparently a poison pill.
|
