I would have thought that it's something like the red eye reduction pre flash, which I find very annoying and time consuming (the shot is taken quite a bit after I have pressed the button). I never use it for the same reason - and it gives unnatural looking (small) pupils. Regards
Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 3. april 2006 22:38 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: DL TTL flash madness It does take time, but maybe 10-15ms. It's imperceptible. -Adam Jens Bladt wrote: > So the pre-flash doesn't take time? > Regards > Jens > > > Jens Bladt > http://www.jensbladt.dk > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 3. april 2006 20:02 > Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Emne: RE: DL TTL flash madness > > > And P-TTL does not cause shutter lag. > > -------------- Original message ---------------------- > From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>What is E-TTL? >>I don't know. >>All I know is, that I'm not interested in using ANY preflash - at all. >>It's bad enough, that the people I photograph must put up with one flash >>light. I would never use a flash system that requires more than one flash >>burst. >> >>First of all, it will give me a "shutter lag" - I can't capture the right >>moment. Secondly I believe that more than one flash is an unnecessary >>annoyance for the people being photographed. >> >>I almost exclusively use bounced flash (ceiling or other surfaces (except >>for studio photography and outdoor photography). >>A direct flash is not very polite. is it?. It leaves people "blind" for >>several minutes. This is often quite unacceptable. >>A direct flash provides a very unnatural looking light (horizontal in > > stead > >>of vertical). >>Direct flash will result in over exposure of the foreground and under >>exposure of the background. Thus very unpleasant pictures. >>A direct flash will result in long horizontal shadows, which are not very >>pleasing IMO. >> >>No pre flash system for me, thank you very much! >> >>One flash light is actually one flash too many, as far as I'm concerned. >>I just want noiseless 12800 ASA . >>I guess my grand children will have this feature in - let's say - 20 years >>time ;-) >>Regards >>Jens >> >> >>Jens Bladt >>http://www.jensbladt.dk >> >>-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- >>Fra: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sendt: 3. april 2006 19:00 >>Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >>Emne: RE: DL TTL flash madness >> >> >>BTW, I didn't know that my PENTAX *ist D was their very cheapest DSLR? >>I knew it was their first one, though. >>Regards >>Jens >> >>Jens Bladt >>http://www.jensbladt.dk >> >>-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- >>Fra: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sendt: 3. april 2006 17:29 >>Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >>Emne: RE: DL TTL flash madness >> >> >>Who said only? >>Jens >>Jens Bladt >>http://www.jensbladt.dk >> >>-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- >>Fra: Aaron Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sendt: 3. april 2006 15:49 >>Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >>Emne: Re: DL TTL flash madness >> >> >> >>On Apr 3, 2006, at 2:22 AM, Jens Bladt wrote: >> >> >>>Crippled or not. >>>If the new 10 MP Pentax body doesn't support ordenary TTL flash, I >>>won't be >>>buying it. >>>I have too many flashes - I guess 7 or 8 TTL flahses, one of which is >>>a Metz >>>60-CT2. >> >>Why on earth would you expect that the new top-end body would have only >>the feature set of the very cheapest DSLR that Pentax makes? >> >>-Aaron >> >>-- >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.4/299 - Release Date: 03/31/2006 >> >>-- >>No virus found in this outgoing message. >>Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.4/299 - Release Date: 03/31/2006 >> >>-- >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.4/299 - Release Date: 03/31/2006 >> >>-- >>No virus found in this outgoing message. >>Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.4/299 - Release Date: 03/31/2006 >> >> >>-- >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.4/299 - Release Date: 03/31/2006 >> >>-- >>No virus found in this outgoing message. >>Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.4/299 - Release Date: 03/31/2006 >> > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.4/299 - Release Date: 03/31/2006 > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.4/299 - Release Date: 03/31/2006 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/300 - Release Date: 04/03/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/300 - Release Date: 04/03/2006
