Re: An odd K-5 problem
I have been thinking of posting a related question. When you determine the per lens focus adjustment for a lens on one camera, does that number tend to work on another camera, perhaps with a slight offset. For example if on camera 1 you have lens A +5 lens B +2 lens C -1 would you use the same numbers? Or if lens A works out to be +4, could you assume that the corrections would be lens A +4 lens B +1 lens C -2 Or do they end up just being totally random? Rick Womer wrote: I am trying to sort out soft focus on my K-5 (especially with my 16-45/4 lens), and would appreciate some help. I put my camera on a tripod, used the picket fence in our back yard as a target (with a card with an X sticking out), and shot repeated frames with 3 lenses (40/2.8 Ltd, DA 16-45, and DA 50-200) using live view (LV) or viewfinder (VF) autofocus. The focal length of the 16-45 was set at 34mm, and the 50-200 at 50mm. The results: 40/2.8: FF in LV, very slight FF with VF 16-45: FF in LV, BF with VF 50-200: on target with LV and VF Two questions: 1. I thought that the fine AF adjustment (via menu C4) did not affect Live View AF. Is that incorrect? 2. What the heck is going on with the 16-45? Rick -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) http://red4est.com/lrc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An odd K-5 problem
The adjustments would only be similar if the two cameras were absolutely the same. Tolerances will be different from body to body and lens to lens, so you'd want to calibrate each lens to each body. On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Larry Colen wrote: > I have been thinking of posting a related question. When you determine the > per lens focus adjustment for a lens on one camera, does that number tend to > work on another camera, perhaps with a slight offset. > > For example if on camera 1 you have > lens A +5 > lens B +2 > lens C -1 > > would you use the same numbers? Or if lens A works out to be +4, could you > assume that the corrections would be > lens A +4 > lens B +1 > lens C -2 > > Or do they end up just being totally random? > > > Rick Womer wrote: >> >> I am trying to sort out soft focus on my K-5 (especially with my 16-45/4 >> lens), and would appreciate some help. >> >> I put my camera on a tripod, used the picket fence in our back yard as a >> target (with a card with an X sticking out), and shot repeated frames with 3 >> lenses (40/2.8 Ltd, DA 16-45, and DA 50-200) using live view (LV) or >> viewfinder (VF) autofocus. The focal length of the 16-45 was set at 34mm, >> and the 50-200 at 50mm. >> >> The results: >> >> 40/2.8: FF in LV, very slight FF with VF >> 16-45: FF in LV, BF with VF >> 50-200: on target with LV and VF >> >> Two questions: >> 1. I thought that the fine AF adjustment (via menu C4) did not affect Live >> View AF. Is that incorrect? >> 2. What the heck is going on with the 16-45? >> >> Rick >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- > Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) http://red4est.com/lrc > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. -- My Year38 365 project http://year38.blogspot.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An odd K-5 problem
Rick, my 16-45 seems soft on my K-5 and k10d but it was very good on my istd. Still confused over this. Dave On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Rick Womer wrote: > I am trying to sort out soft focus on my K-5 (especially with my 16-45/4 > lens), and would appreciate some help. > > I put my camera on a tripod, used the picket fence in our back yard as a > target (with a card with an X sticking out), and shot repeated frames with 3 > lenses (40/2.8 Ltd, DA 16-45, and DA 50-200) using live view (LV) or > viewfinder (VF) autofocus. The focal length of the 16-45 was set at 34mm, and > the 50-200 at 50mm. > > The results: > > 40/2.8: FF in LV, very slight FF with VF > 16-45: FF in LV, BF with VF > 50-200: on target with LV and VF > > Two questions: > 1. I thought that the fine AF adjustment (via menu C4) did not affect Live > View AF. Is that incorrect? > 2. What the heck is going on with the 16-45? > > Rick > > > > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An odd K-5 problem
On 3/18/2016 9:01 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: David J Brooks wrote: On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:36 PM, Bill wrote: Gentlemen, remember that with the K5, the AF accuracy can be thrown off tremendously by the colour of the subject. Sort of the Donald Trump of cameras then Mark! ;-) Can we please leave that person out of it? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An odd K-5 problem
I had one of the K5s that was so out of spec that nothing could fix the AF. I did the software upgrades, hoping that they would fix the AF, but it turns out the hardware was too flaky. Mine was so bad that even in broad daylight, the AF would vary depending on the subject matter. The only way I could secure reasonably accurate AF was to use live view and stop down to f/11. I despised that camera. bill On 3/19/2016 8:43 PM, Rick Womer wrote: Well, I have done a good deal of web research and experimentation. First, and most importantly, since I use the viewfinder for 99+ percent of my shooting, I adjusted the AF for the viewfinder for my three most-used lenses (16-45, 40 Ltd, 50-200). It is much better, thank you. Second, the K-5 did, indeed, suffer from very inconsistent viewfinder autofocus (phase detection) with different intensities and color temperatures of light. It needed light toward the blue end of the spectrum to focus accurately, and low-level tungsten light just made it wet its pants. From what I read, this was partially corrected in firmware 1.03, and corrected further in 1.15. There were hardware changes in the K-5 II and K-3 that reportedly eliminated the problem entirely. Third, even though contrast-detection AF (which is what Live View uses) is working with the image on the sensor, it also can be crazily inaccurate for reasons that nobody seems able to explain. So, I've decided not to worry about it. Cheers, Rick http://photo.net/photos/RickW On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Igor PDML-StR wrote: Rick, I am not sure. I can speculate that the difference could come from: 1) method of AF (isn't it different from LV and through viewfinder, - I forgot how it is for K5/K3). 2) number of sensor points used in the two cases. Also, Bill (or somebody else?) mentioned in this thread that some colors can throw off the AF. I was not aware of that. Igor Rick Womer wrote on Fri Mar 18 08:36:46 EDT 2016: The strangest things about these AF experiments are: 1. Front-focusing on LiveView, which (I thought) sought to maximize the contrast of the image on the sensor, and thus should be IN FOCUS regardless of the lens in use; and 2. The 16-45 front-focusing with LiveView, and back-focusing with viewfinder AF. Thoughts? Rick -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An odd K-5 problem
I have a hell of a time getting a decent shot from live view so no thoughts on your problem here. Dave On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Rick Womer wrote: > The strangest things about these AF experiments are: > > 1. Front-focusing on LiveView, which (I thought) sought to maximize the > contrast of the image on the sensor, and thus should be IN FOCUS regardless > of the lens in use; and > > 2. The 16-45 front-focusing with LiveView, and back-focusing with viewfinder > AF. > > Thoughts? > > Rick > > On Mar 17, 2016, at 10:57 PM, Igor PDML-StR wrote: > >> >> Larry, >> >> I do not know what is _typical_ for different Pentax cameras and lenses, but >> from the general point of view, I fully agree with what David wrote. >> >> Think about it this way: you have a set of deviation parameters >> for the camera C1= {c1, c2, c3,c4, c5... }, and then a set of "coupled" >> (sort of "reciprocal") deviations for the lens L1= {l1, l2, l3, l4, l5, ...}. >> The number you get for each lens is an average number that sort of minimizes >> the combined deviations {(c1,l1),(c2,l2), (c3,l3),...}. >> Since each of those individual parameters are essentially random, >> for a different set C2, the way you will need to minimize the combined >> deviations C2*L1 could be very different from that for C1*L1. >> >> So, in general, yes, for the best result, you want to calibrate each lens on >> each camera. >> However, I suspect that there will be some correlation. So, >> your first scenario of calibration will give (with some good probability) >> the result that on average [over all your lenses] is better than >> in case you haven't adjusted the calibration at all. >> >> Igor >> >> >> David Parsons wrote on Thu Mar 17 22:19:46 EDT 2016: >> >> The adjustments would only be similar if the two cameras were >> absolutely the same. Tolerances will be different from body to body >> and lens to lens, so you'd want to calibrate each lens to each body. >> >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Larry Colen wrote: >> >>> I have been thinking of posting a related question. When you determine the >>> per lens focus adjustment for a lens on one camera, does that number tend to >>> work on another camera, perhaps with a slight offset. >>> >>> For example if on camera 1 you have >>> lens A +5 >>> lens B +2 >>> lens C -1 >>> >>> would you use the same numbers? Or if lens A works out to be +4, could you >>> assume that the corrections would be >>> lens A +4 >>> lens B +1 >>> lens C -2 >>> >>> Or do they end up just being totally random? >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > http://photo.net/photos/RickW > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An odd K-5 problem
Well, I have done a good deal of web research and experimentation. First, and most importantly, since I use the viewfinder for 99+ percent of my shooting, I adjusted the AF for the viewfinder for my three most-used lenses (16-45, 40 Ltd, 50-200). It is much better, thank you. Second, the K-5 did, indeed, suffer from very inconsistent viewfinder autofocus (phase detection) with different intensities and color temperatures of light. It needed light toward the blue end of the spectrum to focus accurately, and low-level tungsten light just made it wet its pants. From what I read, this was partially corrected in firmware 1.03, and corrected further in 1.15. There were hardware changes in the K-5 II and K-3 that reportedly eliminated the problem entirely. Third, even though contrast-detection AF (which is what Live View uses) is working with the image on the sensor, it also can be crazily inaccurate for reasons that nobody seems able to explain. So, I've decided not to worry about it. Cheers, Rick http://photo.net/photos/RickW On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Igor PDML-StR wrote: > > > Rick, > > I am not sure. I can speculate that the difference could come from: > 1) method of AF (isn't it different from LV and through viewfinder, - I > forgot how it is for K5/K3). > 2) number of sensor points used in the two cases. > > Also, Bill (or somebody else?) mentioned in this thread that some colors can > throw off the AF. I was not aware of that. > > Igor > > > > > > Rick Womer wrote on Fri Mar 18 08:36:46 EDT 2016: > > The strangest things about these AF experiments are: > > 1. Front-focusing on LiveView, which (I thought) sought to maximize the > contrast of the image on the sensor, and thus should be IN FOCUS regardless > of the lens in use; and > > 2. The 16-45 front-focusing with LiveView, and back-focusing with viewfinder > AF. > > Thoughts? > > Rick > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An odd K-5 problem
Rick, I am not sure. I can speculate that the difference could come from: 1) method of AF (isn't it different from LV and through viewfinder, - I forgot how it is for K5/K3). 2) number of sensor points used in the two cases. Also, Bill (or somebody else?) mentioned in this thread that some colors can throw off the AF. I was not aware of that. Igor Rick Womer wrote on Fri Mar 18 08:36:46 EDT 2016: The strangest things about these AF experiments are: 1. Front-focusing on LiveView, which (I thought) sought to maximize the contrast of the image on the sensor, and thus should be IN FOCUS regardless of the lens in use; and 2. The 16-45 front-focusing with LiveView, and back-focusing with viewfinder AF. Thoughts? Rick -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An odd K-5 problem
On 3/18/2016 1:51 AM, Larry Colen wrote: Bill wrote: Gentlemen, remember that with the K5, the AF accuracy can be thrown off tremendously by the colour of the subject. The AF on the K5 is like a whore turning her first trick. It hasn't yet become jaded and bored by the whole process? Sucks on several levels, none in in a good way. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An odd K-5 problem
That's what's nice about the K-5II it's Pentax Auto Focus that mostly works. Mostly. On 3/18/2016 8:22 AM, Bill wrote: On 3/18/2016 1:51 AM, Larry Colen wrote: Bill wrote: Gentlemen, remember that with the K5, the AF accuracy can be thrown off tremendously by the colour of the subject. The AF on the K5 is like a whore turning her first trick. It hasn't yet become jaded and bored by the whole process? Sucks on several levels, none in in a good way. -- I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying. -- Woody Allen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An odd K-5 problem
Bill wrote: Gentlemen, remember that with the K5, the AF accuracy can be thrown off tremendously by the colour of the subject. The AF on the K5 is like a whore turning her first trick. It hasn't yet become jaded and bored by the whole process? -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) http://red4est.com/lrc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An odd K-5 problem
I noticed similar with my 16-45 and K-5. It was my favorite lens on my K100D Super, and on the K-5, it lost it's luster. Most likely due to the extra 10 megapixels to see the flaws, and it makes a tripod even more critical for clean shots. On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 5:47 PM, David J Brooks wrote: > Rick, my 16-45 seems soft on my K-5 and k10d but it was very good on > my istd. Still confused over this. > > Dave > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Rick Womer wrote: >> I am trying to sort out soft focus on my K-5 (especially with my 16-45/4 >> lens), and would appreciate some help. >> >> I put my camera on a tripod, used the picket fence in our back yard as a >> target (with a card with an X sticking out), and shot repeated frames with 3 >> lenses (40/2.8 Ltd, DA 16-45, and DA 50-200) using live view (LV) or >> viewfinder (VF) autofocus. The focal length of the 16-45 was set at 34mm, >> and the 50-200 at 50mm. >> >> The results: >> >> 40/2.8: FF in LV, very slight FF with VF >> 16-45: FF in LV, BF with VF >> 50-200: on target with LV and VF >> >> Two questions: >> 1. I thought that the fine AF adjustment (via menu C4) did not affect Live >> View AF. Is that incorrect? >> 2. What the heck is going on with the 16-45? >> >> Rick >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > > > -- > Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. > www.caughtinmotion.com > http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ > York Region, Ontario, Canada > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- My Year38 365 project http://year38.blogspot.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An odd K-5 problem
MARK! Bill wrote on Thu Mar 17 23:36:51 EDT 2016: The AF on the K5 is like a whore turning her first trick. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An odd K-5 problem
Gentlemen, remember that with the K5, the AF accuracy can be thrown off tremendously by the colour of the subject. The AF on the K5 is like a whore turning her first trick. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An odd K-5 problem
Larry, I do not know what is _typical_ for different Pentax cameras and lenses, but from the general point of view, I fully agree with what David wrote. Think about it this way: you have a set of deviation parameters for the camera C1= {c1, c2, c3,c4, c5... }, and then a set of "coupled" (sort of "reciprocal") deviations for the lens L1= {l1, l2, l3, l4, l5, ...}. The number you get for each lens is an average number that sort of minimizes the combined deviations {(c1,l1),(c2,l2), (c3,l3),...}. Since each of those individual parameters are essentially random, for a different set C2, the way you will need to minimize the combined deviations C2*L1 could be very different from that for C1*L1. So, in general, yes, for the best result, you want to calibrate each lens on each camera. However, I suspect that there will be some correlation. So, your first scenario of calibration will give (with some good probability) the result that on average [over all your lenses] is better than in case you haven't adjusted the calibration at all. Igor David Parsons wrote on Thu Mar 17 22:19:46 EDT 2016: The adjustments would only be similar if the two cameras were absolutely the same. Tolerances will be different from body to body and lens to lens, so you'd want to calibrate each lens to each body. On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Larry Colen wrote: I have been thinking of posting a related question. When you determine the per lens focus adjustment for a lens on one camera, does that number tend to work on another camera, perhaps with a slight offset. For example if on camera 1 you have lens A +5 lens B +2 lens C -1 would you use the same numbers? Or if lens A works out to be +4, could you assume that the corrections would be lens A +4 lens B +1 lens C -2 Or do they end up just being totally random? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An odd K-5 problem
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:36 PM, Bill wrote: > Gentlemen, remember that with the K5, the AF accuracy can be thrown off > tremendously by the colour of the subject. Sort of the Donald Trump of cameras then Dave > The AF on the K5 is like a whore turning her first trick. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An odd K-5 problem
The strangest things about these AF experiments are: 1. Front-focusing on LiveView, which (I thought) sought to maximize the contrast of the image on the sensor, and thus should be IN FOCUS regardless of the lens in use; and 2. The 16-45 front-focusing with LiveView, and back-focusing with viewfinder AF. Thoughts? Rick On Mar 17, 2016, at 10:57 PM, Igor PDML-StR wrote: > > Larry, > > I do not know what is _typical_ for different Pentax cameras and lenses, but > from the general point of view, I fully agree with what David wrote. > > Think about it this way: you have a set of deviation parameters > for the camera C1= {c1, c2, c3,c4, c5... }, and then a set of "coupled" > (sort of "reciprocal") deviations for the lens L1= {l1, l2, l3, l4, l5, ...}. > The number you get for each lens is an average number that sort of minimizes > the combined deviations {(c1,l1),(c2,l2), (c3,l3),...}. > Since each of those individual parameters are essentially random, > for a different set C2, the way you will need to minimize the combined > deviations C2*L1 could be very different from that for C1*L1. > > So, in general, yes, for the best result, you want to calibrate each lens on > each camera. > However, I suspect that there will be some correlation. So, > your first scenario of calibration will give (with some good probability) > the result that on average [over all your lenses] is better than > in case you haven't adjusted the calibration at all. > > Igor > > > David Parsons wrote on Thu Mar 17 22:19:46 EDT 2016: > > The adjustments would only be similar if the two cameras were > absolutely the same. Tolerances will be different from body to body > and lens to lens, so you'd want to calibrate each lens to each body. > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Larry Colen wrote: > >> I have been thinking of posting a related question. When you determine the >> per lens focus adjustment for a lens on one camera, does that number tend to >> work on another camera, perhaps with a slight offset. >> >> For example if on camera 1 you have >> lens A +5 >> lens B +2 >> lens C -1 >> >> would you use the same numbers? Or if lens A works out to be +4, could you >> assume that the corrections would be >> lens A +4 >> lens B +1 >> lens C -2 >> >> Or do they end up just being totally random? > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. http://photo.net/photos/RickW -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An odd K-5 problem
On 3/18/2016 8:23 AM, Bill wrote: On 3/18/2016 9:01 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: David J Brooks wrote: On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:36 PM, Bill wrote: Gentlemen, remember that with the K5, the AF accuracy can be thrown off tremendously by the colour of the subject. Sort of the Donald Trump of cameras then Mark! ;-) Can we please leave that person out of it? Who would we get to edit the annual? -- Science - Questions we may never find answers for. Religion - Answers we must never question. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An odd K-5 problem
David J Brooks wrote: >On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:36 PM, Bill wrote: >> Gentlemen, remember that with the K5, the AF accuracy can be thrown off >> tremendously by the colour of the subject. > >Sort of the Donald Trump of cameras then Mark! ;-) -- Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.