My *ist D works fine with both Pentax (200-400 ASA) and Metz flashes, using TTL metering - especially Metz (200-800 ASA). And who needs a flash at 1600-3200 ASA? Underexposure can be caused by using a flash that is not powerfull enough or if the subject is very bright (the bride??), the meter system will cut off the beam to early.
BTW: I know wedding photographers who use the Fuji S3, which has special "pixels" (in between the other ones) - especially designed for highlights - avoiding burned out highlights. I guess overexposure is the general problem with the *ist D/flash - and with most digital cameras BYW - due to a shallow dynamic range, compared to film. This was shot using af dual tube Metz 45 CT-5, using TTL meetering. I thinks is brilliant: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/6782063/ I hope your camera will be fine after the check-up, Paul! Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Paul Ewins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 21. marts 2005 11:25 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: *ist-D underexposing - off for repair I dropped my *ist-D off for repair today at the local Pentax distributor. Yesterday I was taking photos at a wedding and all of them, except the first two, were underexposed by a couple of stops. I'd had this sort of trouble before when using flash and also a couple of weekends ago shooting race cars in bright sunlight and wasn't really sure whether it was a camera fault or not, but yesterday tipped the balance. The repair guy didn't seem the least surprised when I explained the fault and was confident that it could be fixed so I'm assuming it is a known problem. He didn't even bother asking any questions - I just showed him the histograms on the display and explained that I was shooting on full auto and that was that. Unfortunately the camera is well out of warranty so I have no idea how much it will cost to fix. I'm hoping it is some sort of firmware reset and will cost nothing, but that is being fairly optimistic. Fortunately the wedding shots are salvageable, and in fact most of the time I was shooting B&W using an MX and 77LTD so the day was far from a disaster. For anyone who wonders whether the image size in the finder is really that important try swapping from a zoom on the *ist-D to a fast prime on an MX and back for a couple of hours and see if you change your mind. FWIW, when I had the problems using TTL flash I found that the AF400FTZ would screw most shots up while an AF280T using a more primitive TTL was fine. Regards, Paul Ewins Melbourne, Australia
