K-1, 14 months, 20000 photos (gets a bit nitpicky)

JensR wrote:

Hi Dominique,

good to read from you! Did you not get one of the first 645D in Switzerland? Are you still using that?

Great to have you back on the forum as well!

No, I did not get the first 645D in Switzerland, it took me quite some time to decide. But I was among the first one to get a 645z here. However, it is not always good to be the first one... My 645z was also the first one to go to service...

Yes, I am still using both 645D and 645z. While the 645z is definitely the faster camera with much better high iso capabilities, the 645D with the old Kodak CCD sensor provides more natural, more pleasing color tones.

Yes, I know what you mean! FInding out in the field that the spare battery in the bag is empty, not because I forgot to charge it, but because it had a wrong contact with the charger during the night...

Thanks, that makes me feel less clumsy
I normally have four or five batteries with me, but on a camping holiday when power can be an issue, it's still not ideal and of course not everyone has the luxury of so many spares.

Yes, when the charger is on a solar panel and you have no clue if the LED is off because the battery is full or if the panel simply does not provide enough electricity...

K-1:

For RAW shooters, three out of the four buttons on the 4-way controller are basically unnecessary. Maybe better to move the single/cont/int/... shooting mode to the CH/CL mode dial settings, then the four way controller can be used for AF point selection exclusively for RAW shooters and you can give JPEG shooters something else on the four-way-up button.

I am not happy with that two-mode four-way controller. I frequently happen to change shooting mode or whatever parameter when I just want to move the AF points around.

Agreed. As a landscape photographer that is annoying enough, but as an events photographer, it must be worse.

Yes, and shooting in the dark at the bottom of the stage with LCD turned off...

if you try to delete an image after a burst of sorts (bracketing, cont), the camera takes very very long to complete the actions and is basically unresponsive in that time

Thank you Jens! It won't help you, but having a second user complaining about the problem already helps somewhat. On my very first photo session with the K-1 back in April 2016, I noticed the camera somehow locks up when in heavy use for 10-20 seconds.

Oh wow, not the thing you want to experience at a gig.

I quickly found out the reason for the lockup and reported it to Ricoh. It took them a while to acknowledge the problem but a year later, when I asked about the status, I was told there will be no fix as long as I am the only one complaining.

Whom did you contact? Like, not the person necessarily, but which Pentax office?

I was in contact with Ricoh Imaging Germany as well as their rep here in Switzerland.

Previous Pentax cameras did not allow the user to delete photos as long as data in the buffer was not processed. The user could not delete photos just taken, but then, the camera remained usable, whenever the shutter was pressed, the photo was taken. For some reasons, the engineers at Ricoh prefer to lock the camera for 10-20 seconds.

I had a similar situation when I changed from the DS to the Sony A850. It allowed me to delete while the buffer was clearing, but it was not a good idea to do that. Sony users at the time asked me why I'd even delete in the field and maybe I shouldn't make so many mistakes. hahaha, helpful bunch they are

I received the same kind of advices here as well... and also comments like memory cards are cheap, I should just buy larger cards...

As an event photographer frequently working on tight schedules, I have got used with Nikon to sort the photos right on the spot. Once the habit is taken, it is difficult to avoid it.

Right, even with my Sony experience, I still want to be able to sort it out. Like I realise I forgot to focus correctly or set the wrong aperture or ISO - deleting the dud in the field will make my life in Lightroom easier when I need to investigate 4 seemingly identical photos to see where I made a mistake. Not a \*huge\* issue for me, but for your type of photography, I can see the impact even more.

Yes, i know exactly what you are talking about, a bad photo deleted right on the spot does not take time getting imported into Lightroom and there is no need to consider the photo a second time.

Previous Pentax camera did simply not allow the user to delete photos while the camera was active. It was not ideal as I had to wait until the camera was ready, but at least the camera remained ready, should something happen, I can simply press the shutter and the photo is taken. Not ideal, but still way better than locking the camera for such a long time.

JensR wrote:

Not neccesary. There could be times you need 2s delay but manual control when the shot is done. It seems more that you need a remote or should use a smartphone to start your brackting sequence. And if this would no longer be possible someone else would be upset as they are using that feature.

In which instance do you want 2s delay between bracketed shots?!
I have the remote, but I think there can be little disagreement that it is generally best if we do not need extra equipment.
If there is REALLY someone who wants 2s between bracketed shots: Fine, add it to the bracketing drive mode.

It's not exact 2s between the shots that may be neede; bur longer delay. If you use bracketing to get the best exposure for the shot it may not matter if it is a long delay beween shots. Sometimes you just have to wait between shots for best conditions.

Bracketing is not only used for HDR.

I think we are talking a little bit past one another here.

While I can see that for some instances you do not want to do the shots as quick together as possible: If you want to space it out some time, you'd not use one-touch bracketing! Because then you'd take each shot of the series individually.

My responses was to your suggestion that 2s delay bracking should always be one-touch.

So I maintain: One touch bracketing with mirror-preflip should only flip the mirror up at the start and then keep it up during the whole series.

Yes you spotted the missing word. The old style PDAF had the advantage of working with all lenses. Old Sigma lensesit has showed that their reversed engineered frimware is not fully compatible with CDAF. If it is newer Sigma lenses they may have firmware updated that can fix the issue.

And it is not a Pentax specific problem users of other brand cameras has reported the same thing.

Interesting. This means that CDAF is not really a fully closed control loop, but has some open-loop or feed-forward characteristics.

It can be looped, but Sigma lenses may not respond correctly, or not at all. As Sigma reverse engineer firmware it may be thing they get incorrecly inplemented. But it may only show up later when cameras are released with new functionallity that Sigma has not been able to test.

I shall try and compare my screw drive Sigmas to my HSM 120-400. It's not an ideal comparison, because the 120-400 is much newer than my other long Sigmas, so it will not be clear whether a difference in performance is due to the other drive system or the improved reverse engineering.But it's the best I can do.

If you have links regarding this, I'd be interested in them

If you google for "sigma liveview AF" or something simlilar you should get plenty of links showing the problem, mostly nikon though. If only interested in Pentax specific problems just add "pentax" to the search.

Check with Sigma if they have updates fo the lenses you gave pronlem with.

It's because they use two completely differrent designs, where the Sony sensor is fixed on rails while Pentax sensor is free floating. Most manufactures today use similar system to Pentax (including Sony).

Sure, that wasn't a criticism, just an observation

I wonder if that difference is due to the additional axes the new Sony and Pentax systems can compensate compared to the older Sony system? Not sure how it was for older Pentax systems.

The old Minolta/Sony IBIS could not rotate the sensor so it would have been limited to 4-axis, but at the time it had 2-axis when Pentax had 3-axis.

But I think the biggest disadvantage of if was that it was less responsive so it would not have reached the 5 stops of compensation that free floating systems allow. And it would be difficult to add all other fuctions that rely on SR. (pixel shift, AA simulator...)

Oh yes, things have improved for sure.

FWIW, I found the old Sony SSS works quite well during panning (Sony recommended to switch it off), but haven't done any detailed tests regarding the Pentax system during panning.

Cheers

Jens

JensR wrote:

My responses was to your suggestion that 2s delay bracking should always be one-touch.

Oh I see. oops. I think (hope!) I wrote that should be the default, but ultimately it doesn't matter.

But we agree on this one? One-touch+2s should keep the mirror up after the preflip.

Yes, that would be better.

Interesting. This means that CDAF is not really a fully closed control loop, but has some open-loop or feed-forward characteristics.

It can be looped, but Sigma lenses may not respond correctly, or not at all. As Sigma reverse engineer firmware it may be thing they get incorrecly inplemented. But it may only show up later when cameras are released with new functionallity that Sigma has not been able to test.

->

If you have links regarding this, I'd be interested in them

If you google for "sigma liveview AF" or something simlilar you should get plenty of links showing the problem, mostly nikon though. If only interested in Pentax specific problems just add "pentax" to the search.

The links I found were all about either not working at all or trying and failing. My experience was quick and decisively focusing wrongly - with focus confirmation!

It seem similar to what Nikon users experience. Quickly confirming focus.

I will admit I don't understand what firmware does for screw drive PDAF. Turn the shaft one way, lens goes one way, turn the shaft the other way, lens goes the other way. Turn the shaft fast, lens focuses fast,...
I am not saying it doesn't have an influence, and we know from PDAF that is has impact there, but on an AF system that can/could/should be closed-loop, I don't understand.

The differenc e in PDAF anf CDAF is that with PDAF tHe af system can have one look at rhe AF senor to find out how much to move the focus and in which direction. With CDAF it does not know any of these things. So CDAF need costant polling on AF to first see if focus is getting better or worse. Once it confirmed focus is improving it know it is moving in right direction, but it still do not know ihow much it need to move. So it need to keep pollong AF until the focus get worse again and then it know it has passed best focus.

So with PDAF there is a handful commands and replys between camera and lens before focus is locked, but with CDAF there might behundreds. With PDAF it may always be a fixed number of commands, but with CDAF if will vary depending on how much the focus need to move. The firmware in camera may aslo contain AF algorithm that is fine tuned to each lens, but most likely only for the camera makers own lenses.

Also, some motors designed for PDAF are worce when used for CDAF than others. And longer focal length lenses has heavier lens element to move wich can make it worse with CDAF.

Mirrorless lenses designed for CDAF often focus by moving a small and light lens in the rear of the lens for best CDAF performance, while DSLR lenses designed for PDAF usually move a larger and heavier lens in the front of the lens.

Check with Sigma if they have updates fo the lenses you gave pronlem with.

Not much hope, but good idea nevertheless!

JensR wrote:

The differenc e in PDAF anf CDAF is that with PDAF tHe af system can have one look at rhe AF senor to find out how much to move the focus and in which direction.

Yup. So knowing how the lens behaves is much more important.

With CDAF it does not know any of these things. So CDAF need costant polling on AF to first see if focus is getting better or worse. Once it confirmed focus is improving it know it is moving in right direction, but it still do not know ihow much it need to move. So it need to keep pollong AF until the focus get worse again and then it know it has passed best focus.

So with PDAF there is a handful commands and replys between camera and lens before focus is locked, but with CDAF there might behundreds. With PDAF it may always be a fixed number of commands, but with CDAF if will vary depending on how much the focus need to move.

Yup, I know that. And you could argue that this last ("Oh it is getting softer again, must backtrack a bit." is lens-dependent, but that is not required.
I mean, I don't know what the camera does. If it remembers the last 5 focus pollings, it could interpolate the right focus position. I'm assuming the screw drive shaft has some type of encoder on it. The step size could be reduced when the lens hones in and so on and so forth.
Not sure if such info is available.

It is possible that it's pre-programmed exactly how much it need to move back for each individual lens. But not for lenses it cannot be identify properly. Sigma often use "fake" id in their lenses so the lens firmware has to be compensated for this instead.

Also, some motors designed for PDAF are worce when used for CDAF than others.

Sure.

And longer focal length lenses has heavier lens element to move wich can make it worse with CDAF.

Well, if you have a long lens that uses rear focusing (as most modern long lenses do since PDAF times) then that will not be more mass than for a 50...85mm lens that uses extension focus.

Mirrorless lenses designed for CDAF often focus by moving a small and light lens in the rear of the lens for best CDAF performance, while DSLR lenses designed for PDAF usually move a larger and heavier lens in the front of the lens.

But optimisation (=reduction) of the moving mass during focus has long been a design goal since way before CDAF.

Yes at least most high performance tele lenses use internal focus. But they still may use heavier lenses (or more lens groups) for focus than a CDAF lens would have. The weight is not as critical for PDAF as focus can predict how much it need to move to stop at focus target.  CDAF always pass the focus target and need to reverse so weight can make a large difference in speed.