Web Analytics RiceHigh's Pentax Blog

Friday, May 18, 2007

Is the K10D Really Sluggish in Shutter Lag?

This has been a hot discussion and debate topic for months at various Pentax forums, which is solely about the system and/or AF time lags and the actual performance of the K10D in this important (IMHO) aspect. Here is one of the examples. Some people do have suggested that the time lag is actually just a feel caused by the sound(s) of the K10D generated during a shot (example here), but then actually "feel" is not something we can take reference for, at least not objectively, as different people "feel" things (that can be quite) differently and have (can be very) different "feelings".

Okay, to look into this issue, which is actually not really so mysterious and arguable as it should be, the simple solution is to do measurbation. Once enough measurbations have been carried out and adequate results and data are obtained and compared, we can know about the true answer. Well, now it is when measurbators show their true value for existence this time!

In fact, the answers have already been there! So, further arguments are actually meaningless. Since quite some times ago, the Imaging Resource has routinely measured various shutter and system time lag figures in their Digital SLR test reviews, for 3 or 4 different timings under different usage conditions, namely, "Full Autofocus", "Prefocused", "Continous AF" and "Manual Focus", as called by them.

To know and understand the background for why they have been conducting the tests and how accurate are their test results, here is a quote of the introductory remark in the beginning of the timing test data page of their earlier DSLR test reviews:-
"When you press the shutter release on a camera, there's usually a lag time or delay before the shutter actually fires. This time allows the autofocus and autoexposure mechanisms time to do their work and can amount to a fairly long delay in some situations. Since this important number is rarely reported on (and even more rarely reported accurately), I routinely measure it, using a custom-built test setup. (Crystal-controlled, with a resolution of 0.001 second.)"

Okay, now let's read the performance data page of the latest Imaging Resource Pentax K10D review, we can first have a look at the measured figures and also the corresponding explanations which illustrates the true meanings of those, at the right side column in the table.

Nonetheless, do note that the explanations and remarks in the above K10D review page are, however, not entirely clear and exact. To know exactly, one need to look at some earlier test reviews which the Imaging Resource explains in more details for what they are actually doing. I think they just have assumed that their readers have already understood all those and thus have trimmed down the remarks (but then they might have forgot about there are new readers!).

Well, to make the case clearer, I shall explain once more in my own words and quote the words in certain previous Imaging Resource test reports, wherever appropriate, for the four measured timings of the (can be different) system time lags of a DSLR, as follows:-

1. "Full Autofocus":- The camera is put in the Single AF mode but the target is pre-focused beforehand but the shutter release button is released first. And then the timing is measured "from scratch" by re-pressing the shutter release button for measuring the time required till the exposure finally happens. The following is quoted from (the timing results page of) their earlier Canon EOS 30D review, here it is: "This is basically a measure of how quickly the camera can determine focus, with the lens elements already set to the focal distance of the subject."

The true meaning of this timing figure is to look into the responsiveness of the AF system under the Single AF mode, plus, the *remaining* system time lag of the DSLR. Since the Single AF is focus priority, full AF system operations, from measure the focus, move the AF motor (if any required) and then checking the focus again, are carried out before the shutter can be released. The travelling time of the lens is ignored and it's wise to ignore it as it varies with different lenses and different travelling distances for different objects and etc., as it is also mentioned very clearly about this by Imaging Resource in (the timing results page of) their Canon EOS 5D review, "AF time will vary greatly, depending on the lens in use, the brightness and contrast level of the subject, and the amount of travel required of the lens optics to move to the new focus position. The number at left is essentially a best-case figure with the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro lens already in-focus on a target.";

2. "Prefocused": - The camera is put into Single AF mode again but the focusing is achieved beforehand with focus held and locked by keeping half-pressed for the shutter release button before the measurement. The true meaning of this measurement is an attempt to ignore about the delay incurred by the AF system and check the *net* system lag time;

3. "Continous AF":- Since in Continuous AF mode, it is not (correct) focus priority, which means that no correct focus will be re-confirmed and re-assured and the shutter release will not be withheld and it can be released at any time. So, whilst the AF are still in operation and continuously, the total system lag time can yet be shorter but it should be longer or just equal to the prefocused one as the AF system is still in operation which might affect the overall system responsiveness;

4. "Manual Focus":- It's self explanatory, the camera is put into MF mode and the system lag time is measured. Still, do note that the focusing system of the camera is not totally inactive as measurement of the in-focus point is being carried out continuously for the provision of focus indication to assist the user to do the MF.

Okay, now that we can go forward to check and compare the measured figures for different DSLRs, for the data results obtained in various Imaging Resource reviews. For the sake of easy reading and quick comparison, I summarise the results in the following table:-

Camera
"Full AF"
(Single AF,
Prefocused but Released first)
"Prefocused"
(Single AF,
Prefocused and Held)
"Continuous AF"
"Manual Focus"
Source Page Link for
the Timing Results
Pentax K10D
0.254 s
0.107 s
0.183 s
0.181 s
Click
Pentax K100D
0.182 s
0.149 s
0.148 s
0.150 s
Click
Pentax *ist D
0.23 s
0.13 s
-
0.18 s
Click
Canon 30D
0.245 s
0.068 s
0.105 s
0.154 s
Click
Canon 400D
0.20 s
0.105 s
0.12 s
0.13 s
Click
Canon 5D
0.149 s
0.078 s
-
0.133 s
Click
Canon 1Ds MkII
0.18 s (?)
0.070 s
0.057 s (!)
0.052 s (!)
Click
Nikon D80
0.250 s
0.083 s
0.095 s
0.083 s
Click
Nikon D40
0.26 s
0.098 s
0.20 s
0.19 s
Click
Nikon D200
0.21 s
0.057 s (!)
0.057 s (!)0.057 s (!)Click
Nikon D2Xs
0.045 s (!!!)
0.045 s (!!)0.045 s (!!)0.045 s (!!)Click
Olympus E-500
0.37 / 0.38 (??)
0.095 s
0.43 (??)
0.32 (??)
Click
Sony A100
0.31 (??)
0.116 s
-
0.301 (??)
Click
Camera
Full AF
Prefocused
Continuous AF
Manual Focus
Source Page URL
Remarks: ! = Wow! ? = What?

So, now that you can compare and judge yourself and I won't comment particularly on anything further. Just for a final remark, for people who are always trying to defend for anything and argue about human reaction time is the slowest thing on Earth, I indeed regard this "point" is indeed rather groundless and actually pointless. It is because in fact the machines are made differently as we can all see from the above. There are obviously great to certain degree of differences under the above four shooting conditions. The true fact is that cameras (of different grade) are engineered and built differently, as all camera makers are well known about this fact. BTW, who will really want to add even more time lag on the top of the somehow already slow human reaction time? Nevertheless, the human reaction time is not really that slow as some would believe, especially if the photographer has stood by to take some photos. If still unconvinced, just use a single-button stop-watch, press to start and try your best to press again to stop, then note the time difference, one can then see the (stood-by) human reaction time can still be quite fast (mine is about 0.12 s).

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Pentax Re-Considers to Accept Takeover by Hoya

Pentax is now re-considering to accept the takeover bid offer by Hoya and probably Pentax will still be merged by Hoya. Two Japanese online news sources tell the same thing on yesterday and today, respectively:-

Kyodo News: http://home.kyodo.co.jp/modules/fstStory/index.php?storyid=314750

The Daily Yomiuri: http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/business/20070516TDY08004.htm

The good thing is that Pentax seems to be able to fight for maybe better terms for the merger for the time being, for what they have been trying to struggle (to get away) in the past months, including the recent announment/reporting of their annual business results, which looks somehow promising.

Okay, let's look at the complete second last paragraph of the Yomiuri report, which is quoted as below:-

"As a condition of accepting the takeover, Pentax is demanding a guarantee of management independence and the removal from the board of directors of former senior managing director Katsuo Mori and former president Fumio Urano, who had spearheaded the merger talks with Hoya." - Daily Yomiuri Online, May 16, 2007.

Well, the first guarantee is a good promise if true (however which can still be breached by the True Authority in the future anyway, if They like). The second thing being demanded for is really interesting and mysterious, i.e., the request of the removal of Urano and Mori. Why they must get rid of Urano and Mori? Why they can't stay even the merger has come true? There must be some insider stories that we don't know and probably shall never know..

While just the day before, on May 14, another news report discloses that a managing director of Pentax tells that there likely will be a "White Knight" who will save the company in time finally and does the salvation. Now it looks rather ironically that the "White Knight" is actually Hoya! Is that real? Time will tell and we shall know.

Last Related Story: Pentax to Sell Tokyo HQs, Quit MF and P&S Businesses

Saturday, May 12, 2007

Klaus Schroiff's K10D Review at PhotoZone

Klaus Schroiff, site owner and editor of the PhotoZone, recently has published his K10D full review and test report:-

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/dslr/pentax_k10d/index.html

I highly recommend to read this report of Klaus's (also for his other reports, without any hesitation) as his findings and conclusions are sensible and insightful, most importantly, comments and conclusions are usually made with good enough technical grounds and evidences. Nevertheless, his report is yet concise and easy to read. Of course, some of his particular conclusions and viewpoints made can still be subjective somehow but then this is of no difference from any other reviewers. At least, his tests and reviews are in a comparatively higher standard class of only few truly quality reviews belong to, amongst all other numerous sub-standard so-so "reviews" floating around the net.

Well, in Klaus's test report, he has actually reported something new, of which these new findings have never been reported by anyone so specifically before.

One of his new findings is about the obvious differences in resolution and the appearance of moires, etc. along the vertical versus the horizontal directions. With this strange and unique behaviour which I have reported here previously, Klaus did consider that it's simply a design flaw when he first saw the symptom. Later on Klaus was able to find out the possible cause to this problem, which is believed to be caused by the unequal strength of the Anti-Aliasing (AA) filter in the vertical and horizontal directions, more specifically: In the vertical direction, the AA filtering is much weaker than normal (i.e., very little dispersion to none, microscopically). And, in the horizontal direction, the AA filtering is yet stronger than typical (i.e., more dispersion).

Well, if we read into the details presented by Klaus. We can see that neither a too weak nor a too strong AA filter is good for the final image quality. Too weak a filter will create colour moires and very visible Bayer artifacts. Too strong a filter will decrease resolution significantly and blur the image too much.

It is found that Pentax takes the approach of using software (no matter it is in-camera or not) to do the demosaic job, as a remedial to the weak AA filter, vertically, which unfortunately just create even more blur and resulting in more loss in resolution. If 3rd party RAW convertors are used to convert the images, it can be seen that more serious and obvious colour moires will appear, although more resolution can be retrieved, also this will generate more noises too (see in the report for the noise level comparison by different convertors).

On the other hand, for the horizontal run, the image quality suffers from another extreme. So, this asymmetrical design of the AA filter, simply cause much undesirable effects which, however, cannot be handled by any RAW convertor with any software algorithm. In the end, one must see either more colour moires with better resolution (about vertically) or an image with less colour moires and noises but with inferior resolution and obvious blur.

The worst thing IMO is that the images will always look somehow different in vertical run against horizontally. I just wonder why Pentax need to design and make a camera in this way, of which this design and the produced results are indeed very strange and the image quality suffers and that no other DSLR makers else have ever done so, nor Pentax themselves for their previous models.

BTW, as we all know, the selling point of a 10MP+ DSLR is its higher resolution, however, the K10D by itself simply fails to deliver, no matter shooting in Jpeg or RAW, if only Pentax software is used. If one uses 3rd party RAW convertors, more moires and noises are resulted. Even worse, do note again that these are not symmetrical vertically and horzontally.

Whilst Klaus finally mentions this strange problem, which was actually first reported by him, is just a "Minor Con" in his final test report conclusion, I must regard this problem to be a *Major* Con, as this affects the image quality seriously and especially there is NO true solution to this killing problem.

Also, as for the "phantom" bright and dark pixels revealed under pixel peeping, it is actually a mystery to Klaus and all of us.

Finally, if you read back Phil Askey's K10D review, we can now all know why Phil Askey found the problem of "soft edged images" (in-camera Jpegs or RAW converted images via Pentax PhotoLab, same here for what Klaus has found), which led to a low rating in the image quality part of the DPR review. Well, now Klaus's latest findings and explanations have indeed given full answers to the questions raised by Phil Askey, of which there was no brief answer at all even by Phil Askey himself in his DPR K10D review. In fact, Phil Askey actually did not describe the problem as clear and as specific as what Klaus has achieved - Phil Askey just wondered and puzzled for the odds he saw and then he just (told us that he) "scratched his head hard". So, afterall, I think we must thank Klaus for letting us and all Pentaxians finally know the answers to this mystery! :-) My big smile to him and thumb up!

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Pentax to Sell Tokyo HQs, Quit MF and P&S Businesses

Latest headline news of today from Japanese Nikkei Net discloses that "Pentax to Sell Tokyo HQ, Quit Low-Profit Ops to Lift Corp Value" (article in English, subscriber login required to read in full).

Here is a DPR forum thread which quotes some of the key texts of the news article, in addition to the headline preview in the Nikkei Net homepage today:-
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=23162979

So, now the 645D has virtually been abandoned already as it is mentioned specifically about that the MF (Medium Format) business is one of the low profit operations of the corporation. For what it is also stated about Pentax will concentrate only in the DSLR market, it simply hints that the P&S (Point and Shoot) business will also be abandoned altogether very soon in the future.

Well, to sell real estate is a quick way to cash back money to raise the company's value "instantaneously" and to increase significantly the liquidity too. It seems that the current Pentax management has a firm determination to draw more power by all means for the fight faced straight ahead, or, at least they will have more bargaining power. However, actually it is rather risky if the business still fails somedays later even when after the company has sold its property already - it's just like a gambler to fully mortgage or even sell his house and goes to the casino to gamble, i.e., he'll either just win something or get a total loss!

Friday, April 27, 2007

Internal Struggle within Pentax Escalates

Here is the latest headline from the Japanese Daily Yomiuri Online, on the news of "Pentax set to pull backers of takeover bid from board":-

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/business/20070427TDY08006.htm
(News article is in English)

Now that the internal conflicts within Pentax, mainly between the (majority of) the current Pentax Management Board and the largest shareholder Sparx Group Co., have become scorching hot. Whilst the current Board opposes the merger (with Hoya), the investment company supports it. As a result, vigorous struggles and struggling between the two gangs will be totally unavoidable.

It is very likely that the current situation of the tangled warfare cannot come to a stop until 22nd of June, when a shareholder's meeting has been called and will be held, and the fate of Pentax will be determined by voting, and the new Board of Directors of the company will be elected.

No matter whether the case can be settled by June 22 or if the chaos can really come to an end (or just a temporary stop), the stability of the company is greatly affected as well as the investors will hesitate in investing in Pentax for the time being or even in the near future, undoubtedly, unless some days things can be cleared up and that Pentax can recover from the wound and looks worth for investment (again?).

Nonetheless, as Pentax's supporters, customers and users, what we do not want to see is that Pentax will not continue in the camera business (not even to mention about "commitment"), but it has the chance to happen if Hoya really takes over Pentax, as Hoya's stance had been stated clearly before, by their CEO previously, when the merger was first proposed and announced.

All in all, I am indeed upset to see things got worsen like that. I think Fumio Urano is the one who should bear most of the responsibility for all those undesirable happenings in this case, which are very sad afterall, frankly speaking.

Background Stories:-

Pentax's withdrawal from being merged by Hoya

Hoya Swallows Pentax

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Shipment of the DA* Lenses is Delayed

Pentax have just announced today that the shipment of their DA* zoom lenses, the two very or probably even most important new products of the year of theirs, is delayed and now that the new arrival date will be in fall July! (So late?) It's really disappointing afterall.

http://www.pentax.co.jp/japan/news/2007/200731.html

(The Press Release is in Japanese, use WorldLingo to translate if needed)

The reason Pentax gives us is that "they need to have more time for the quality assurance part because of the huge demand of the lenses globally". Well, do you really understand what they are actually talking about? Even if yes, do you think that the given reason is sensible?

Nevertheless, it just looks like an excuse to me. The most important thing is that customers will look back at the past track records for how many times those commitments made in the past by Pentax in their official announcements were fulfilled and how many times those announced products were delayed and release dates were postponed, once and once again, and for most of the time.

Yes, by saying that a new (maybe attractive) product will be coming soon is a way for promoting the current line of products and is also a way to retain old customers. But, when those cannot come true repeatedly, the disappointed customers will go away. Simple.

See Also:- PMA Disappointment (but there is hope)

Pentax targeted at releasing at least five new DA* lenses in their new lens roadmap which was published around the PMA. Let's wait and see if they can really make the remaining three lenses in the remaining four months of 2007, counting from the late July. Just for the sake of direct review and comparison, here is the Pentax's lens roadmap published in 2006 - just have a look for the DA* zooms, which should be products of 2006!

Firmware and Software Updates for the K10D (Only?)

Pentax have announced today three updates (solely) for the K10D at the support page of their Japan website. These are a new firmware update for the K10D (version 1.2), the new software Remote Assistant 3, which requires the latest firmware version 1.2 to work with, and a minor update to the Pentax Photo Browser 3.10 to 3.11 for the support of the two long-anticipated and belated DA Star zooms. The corresponding direct links are as follows:-

http://www.pentax.co.jp/english/support/digital/k10d_s.html

http://www.pentax.co.jp/english/support/digital/remoteassistant_k10d_win.html

http://www.pentax.co.jp/english/support/digital/photo310.html

Whilst it is good to see that there is a new software from Pentax, i.e, the Remote Assistant, which had disappeared long time ago with the decline of the original *ist D (and all subsequent Pentax DSLR models do not have the Remote Assistant software to be used with), there is actually no new feature/function nor performance tweaking made available in the updated firmware and the Photo Browser, at least as officially announced.

As the Photo Browser is now able to recognise the new Star zooms, this might hint that the long delayed lenses may be marketed soon. However, Pentax still haven't stated if the new firmware version 1.2 could support the new SDM lenses or not. Maybe there is yet another update of the firmware to make thing works, as it is generally believed that the K10D firmware versions 1.11 or earlier do not support the new SDM lenses. (Update: My above guess has been wrong and it's just a wishful thinking of mine. The shipment of the DA* zooms is delayed!)

Last but not least, do note also that the software update of Photo Browser does limit to K10D users only (as stated in the official documentation contained in the above provided link), it is clear that other Pentax DSLR models are "not" supported *intentionally*. As the Photo Browser is *actually* a generic software for all Pentax DSLRs which *should* work with all Pentax DSLRs *actually* as designed, the above act of Pentax is indeed rather disappointing and it is highly questionable for their intention which can be considered as rather poor. Just say, I am a K100D user, even I do not expect any further firmware update for my K100D, why my existing Photo Browser need to be excluded from supporting the new Pentax lenses, even just for the correct display of the lens models in the Photo Browser, just because I'm not one of the K10D users? And why all those other Pentax DSLR users need to be excluded from being supported by Pentax?? Would this mean Pentax do not encourage (actually it should be "discourage") all Pentax DSLR users, except those with K10D, to buy their new lenses??? I'm afraid that this is simply called super "short vision" in my book, again, very unfortunately.

Indeed, such short-sighted behaviour of a company, which harms the benefits of both their customers and ultimately the company themselves, resulting in a lose-lose situation, is the most disappointing thing which nobody would like to see in the commercial world.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

(Unique) Colour Moire Problem of the K10D

As you may know, Klaus Schroiff of PhotoZone is now testing the K10D, also along with some of the more common Pentax lenses.

Whilst his full review on the K10D hasn't yet been published, nor any of his Pentax lens tests, all of which I believe are still under progress, his latest findings have revealed that the K10D does produce a special type of colour moire artifacts which is unique amongst all of the 10Mega-Pixel DSLRs which use the Sony 10MP APS-C CCDs:-

http://www.photozone.de/active/forum/ShowMessage?ID=1083172A

As we can see from the test shots of the resolution test charts at 100%, those colour moires are particularly visible, for images converted with ACR 3.7 and Raw Therapee V2. With Pentax's original Photo Laboratory 3.1 (PPL 3.1), it seems that the software tries to eliminate something, but then the image's contrast and sharpness are reduced dramatically with obvious blur and resolution is greatly affected.

Following down the PhotoZone discussion thread of the above, the same test shot made with the Sony A100 can be compared and it is clear that the Sony one does not exhibit similar problems.

Well, it is guessed and generally agreed that the possible cause for this problem is that a very weak Anti-Aliasing (AA) filter has been chosen and used by Pentax. However, Pentax has failed to manage the aliasing problem, no matter for the hardware and firmware/software used in the K10D, without scarifying resolution and image quality.

The good thing is that it is the first time I can see some very simple but solid evidence and a very sensible answer to the K10D image low fidelity problem for its in-camera jpegs and why also for converted RAWs with original PPL 3.1, which this problem have never been found with the K100D. So, it is probably a hardware problem inside the K10D for some limitations and barriers which Pentax has not yet able to break through at this moment. Indeed, the comparatively lower image quality of the K10D was first suggested by Phil Askey but then he hasn't commented any further on the possible cause(s) to the problems he found in his review, nor Phil Askey mentioned anything about the problem of colour moires, which is for the first time pointed out by Klaus. In fact, as Klaus has pointed out in the above thread that same symptoms do indeed show up in the sample image of the of the DC Resource Samsung GX-10 review.

Nonetheless, besides, from what I can see from the thread and another previous thread mentioned for what Klaus has tested and found, actually Imatest is not really something very reliable in determining the resolution figure of LW/PH (Line Widths per Picture Height) by the method of calculating the highest spatial frequency by plotting the Spatial Frequency Response (SPR) curve via some mathematical methods and algorithms (simple Fourier transform?), which is also very susceptible to image noise and other artifacts, say, colour moires. So, sometimes a higher Imatest LW/PH figure does *not* really mean a higher resolution nor a better image (with good quality) afterall.

Read also:- The Secrets of the K10D (Part 1 of 3): The Heart - The CCD Imager

Friday, April 13, 2007

When the Focusing Screen Lies (for Focusing and Metering)

Do you still use some of the legacy lenses on your Pentax DSLR(s) and carry out focusing manually and metering stopped-down? If yes, it would be always interesting to know if actually it is accurate or not for the aid which facilitates both, i.e., the focusing screen.

Here is an interesting recent article by an Olympus DSLR guy who has presented the case very clearly:-

Manual Focus with AF DSLRs

The article is self-explanatory on the problem found. Indeed, the focusing screen of his Olympus DSLR is not good for Manual Focusing (MF) with fast lenses. From my experience with Pentax DSLRs, I found that my *ist D and DS are quite reliable for MF for *any* lenses, including my very fast short tele-prime FA* 85/1.4 which often fooled me with incorrect focus with their AF.

However, for MF with my K100D, I found that it is not so reliable as my *ist Dx bodies. Maybe it is just the limitation of its viewfinder with a smaller magnification of 0.85X (versus the 0.95X of my *ist Dx), but it maybe also because of the design of the focusing screen is not good for MF with fast lenses, just like the Olympus case illustrated above.

It is known that the focusing screen of the K100D and K10D are newly designed, to make them even brighter, especially for that the K10D's one has been widely recognised to have metering problems with legacy lenses for stopped-down metering, which causes obvious overexposure. The more one stopped down, the more overexposure will result. Here are some of the related (numerous) discussions on the issue:-

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=21822089

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=22056769

As we follow down the threads, various people do suggest that by replacing the original K10D focusing screen with an *ist DS one, which is of the same size but of a different optical characteristic, can resolve the problem mostly, which makes the K10D to expose correctly regardless of the aperture selected. By doing so, one would usually need to swap back the K10D screen to the *ist DS. But ironically, this would again correct the underexposure problem of the stop-down metering of the *ist DS (and *ist D as well), which it was quite firstly reported by me, in the following full "measurbation" report in my homepage long time ago:-

http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh/FAStar_85_1_4.html

For the exact evidence on this method really works, see this systematic presentation with all the posted pictures, metered and shot with different f-stops:-

http://forum.digitalfotonetz.de/viewtopic.php?t=31356&start=21
(Post in German, use BabelFish if required)

So, for a Pentax DSLR user who has both the *ist DS and the K10D whom uses his legacy Pentax lenses on his DSLRs, he can get both cameras for the right exposure. This is what a secret and special gift which Pentax gives us! In all other cases, the exposure will be off, either overexposed or underexposed!

As for the K100D, my limited experience with pre-A lenses on it for stop-down metering is just right for the metering/exposure accuracy.

So, next time when we believe firmly that the MF with the focusing screen through the finder and metering stopped down TTL-ly (Through-The-Lens-ly), then we should think twice if this is really the case or not. The only reason for the errors, if any seen, is simply that the focusing screen is not WYSIWYG (What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get), it simply lies most of the time afterall. In fact, it is either not designed to do particular jobs and/or off-calibrated actually, especially for the metering inaccuracy case.

Read also:-
Focus Calibrations for (Pentax) (D)SLR Bodies and Lenses

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Pentax's Withdrawal from being Merged by Hoya

Further to the "merger" plan for that Hoya would actually swallow Pentax, which was officially announced by both corporations in last December, recently there have been various news from different sources including Asahi, Reuters and Bloomberg starting from April 8 that majority of Pentax's Board of Directors are actually opposing the "proposal", which is now known to be proposed by the resigned CEO, Fumio Urano, solely, as the sources quote (from insider sources).

Urano, the ex-CEO and his sub-ordinate, who was also one of the ("automatic"?) members in the Board of Directors, have both (been) stepped down owing to the rift with the Board on the issue.

However, from what the news articles/sources disclose, it is really a big surprise for such a *supposed to be* well thought and planned merger plan, which *should* be a result of extensive and intensive negotiations (between Hoya and Pentax) and internal communications (within Pentax), would die in the embryo like this case, just because indeed the above assumed activities seem have never taken any place!(?)

In fact, similar case(s) have rarely been seen and heard in the past for other mergers.

Whilst I myself have never been a true supporter on the "merger" as I had pointed out the obvious cons and primitive problems to Pentax of the "merger" on day one in my last Blog entry about the merger news, I feel sad again on this recent happened case just because the future of Pentax is now even more unclear and unforeseeable, which must be imposing very bad effects and impacts to the company, and of course, will undoubtedly hinder the progresses of future product developmentes for such a big (unhealthy) earthquake within the company.

Indeed, the sudden drops in the stock prices of both Pentax and Hoya have reflected the worries of the investors.

Nevertheless, I hope Pentax can recover and stand-by again soonest and everything are to be back on the right tracks again! My best wishes..