Reading mode: Light Dark

What's the latest on K-x blur defect?

Go to last post
M

mrdc76

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
379
Reaction score
7
Location
FI
I have noticed that I am getting too much of this (see full image) from my K-x:





If you have sent your K-x for repair under warranty, what was the response? Does Pentax acknowledge the problem?

--
Mikko
 
I don't see what you're seeing. Maybe a 100% crop would display the blur you refer to? As it is, even at the largest size, the thin branches of the tree show no sign of the blur that others have described. Is it possible you're referring to the fact that part of the foreground is out of focus? That's not a defect; that's just not being careful enough about where you've focused.

--
Marc Sabatella
http://www.marcsabatella.com/
Blog: http://marcsabatella.blogspot.com/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcsabatella/
 
after pixel peeping your image I can detect some portions (leaves in the back) are out of focus but some other areas (the grass in the front) are perfectly focused.

I detect a focusing problem related to the lens. you would get this with any camera, please don't get paranoid...

cheers,
d
 
Looks sharp to me, looking at the edge of the window frame in the sunlight.

There's a problem with judging shots sharp with leaves or branches, the move in the wind, it doesn't seem to take much wind.

--
Phil B
K20D, K10D
 
I saw the same as everyone else but thought the cause looked more like lens/processing leading to a generally soft image so gave it a quick wash and brush up.

Just basic sharpening in Bibble and some WB/exposure adjustment.

I see no blur issue at all, the original was soft but the detail is present.

If you want me to remove it let me know.





--
My PPG

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=1471087&subSubSection=0&language=EN
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/
 
I believe he is referring to the "original posted" image, not the original file from your camera. Neither do I see a blur issue with the image you posted, at least not in the sense of what I have come to understand from other posts. From the exif data, I assume you used the DA L 18-55 kit lens at 1/160 @ f6.3 with +0.3EV ISO 200. Not too bad at that setting, but an additional stop in sensitivity at ISO 400 could have given you f8 and a slight bump in shutter speed and it would still look great.
 
mrdc76 said:
awaldram said:
I see no blur issue at all, the original was soft but the detail is present.
Click to expand...
Did you see the original? Your edit of the small image is oversharpened to my taste.
Click to expand...
Yes as I said "the original was soft but the detail is present."

Ah having just seen Catalana's comment, you somehow think I may have seen your image out the camera.? not sure how or why you would think that , but no I mean the published image you posted as an example of the blur issue you believe your seeing.

Reasons for this could be many but sensor moving during the exposure is not one of them as sharpening a blurred image would not improve it.

Reasons fall into 2 categories as I said
1 poor lens
2 processing

for 1 the only option i to stop down further or get a better lens.

in option 2

If you are using in camera jpg then increase the sharpness
if your doing your own processing then add a little more sharpness.

I know you said you think mine is over sharpened but you also think yours is to soft so maybe somewhere in between.?
mrdc76 said:
--
Mikko
Click to expand...
--
My PPG

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=1471087&subSubSection=0&language=EN
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/
 
Ah, I see. But maybe it's because I'm also expecting too much. ;-)

To my eyes the left side of the picture is quite ok but on the right side it looks like horizonal lines are a little too blured (some pixels in hight) but vertikal lines seem more ok. Some guess might be blur by slight shake (vertikal shake / rotation of camera???) but not sure if this really might be the reason.
 
I think the comparisons are not on even footing. One shot is at 14mm (four-thirds) and a substantially higher shutter speed, although it matches the f-stop. Consider the better DOF in this case. The other is at f8 at 1/500th sec with much better glass...Nikon D3 on top of that.

Maybe you posted these shots just to make a point.
 
roland66 said:
Ah, I see. But maybe it's because I'm also expecting too much. ;-)

To my eyes the left side of the picture is quite ok but on the right side it looks like horizonal lines are a little too blured (some pixels in hight) but vertikal lines seem more ok. Some guess might be blur by slight shake (vertikal shake / rotation of camera???) but not sure if this really might be the reason.
Click to expand...
I can see what your talking about but that is just contrast not sharpness the right side has less contrast as it is in direct sunlight.

I'm not convinced either the cameras you mention could have done a better job though the increased DR of a full frame camera may have helped.

But it would be cheaper initially just to put decent glass on the front of the Kx then compare like for like.

Any of the primes in that focal range would have given you an image that you'd cut your fingers on at that aperture.

You might even find them too sharp for your liking and would have to soften them to your taste.

--
My PPG

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=1471087&subSubSection=0&language=EN
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/
 
Hi Marc!

You can download the original file by clicking the appropriate link above the image - first line of the info, to the right.

If you do that, you see that the left side is pretty okay (I'd say good, even), whereas the right side is atrocious. Well. That's what I see, anyway.

Cheers
Jens

--

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
'I don't own lenses. I pwn lenses.' (2009)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de
 
dragra said:
I detect a focusing problem related to the lens.
Click to expand...
Unlikely that this is normal. The left side is okay, the right side is terrible, but the hut was shot almost exactly straight on.
If this is not the shake issue than something else is very wrong with his gear.

--

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
'I don't own lenses. I pwn lenses.' (2009)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de
 
Mikko has provided us with a 100% shot from his camera. He's done what we are always asking of people having a problem, but it seems many of you have not seen it?
Here's my assessment:
The left side is okay - this includes hut and tree.

The right is unsharp, shows clear doublelines and again, this again applies to the hut and tree.

The hut and tree is photographed head-on, so there cannot be these huge differences in sharpness. It wouldn't really explain the double-lines anyway.

Have you guys looked at the full-res shot? Or just clicked onto the embedded picture?

Here's the link to the full size image. Not sure whether the forum software allows it:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/masters.galleries.dpreview.com/336658.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1276576890&Signature=97jfvm1eKKyYa5wsgGxwi7K5SFE%3d

Make sure to click on the link, open in new tab or browser window and then click the displayed image to get the 100% view (firefox, other browsers are similar).

Now. If anyone has an idea how to help Mikko find the cause for this poor result, I am sure he'd appreciate it.

Cheers
Jens

--

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
'I don't own lenses. I pwn lenses.' (2009)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de
 
Unfortunately the link does not work for me...
 
Catalana said:
Unfortunately the link does not work for me...
Click to expand...
...then go back to the Mikko's orginal post and look for the info header above his shot. Click (original image) and investigate the issue at 100%.

--

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
'I don't own lenses. I pwn lenses.' (2009)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de
 
JensR said:
Now. If anyone has an idea how to help Mikko find the cause for this poor result, I am sure he'd appreciate it.

Cheers
Jens
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree. If you look at the full-sized image, you can see significant movement of the image on the right and upper portions of the image, whereas the left side is quite acceptable.
I wonder if it might be something to do with the SR?

Maybe you could take images with and without it - that's assuming this image has SR applied. If not, I'd be looking at a service, with samples of offending images supplied.

AB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top