Jens,
I didn't say only the cheapest Pentax DSLR supports TTL, because it
doesn't. Only the DS and DS2 do TTL well, the D only does it accurately
at 400ISO, having exposure issues at other ISO settings.
And where are you going to take your business? The DS2 is the only DSLR
on the market currently that does plain TTL flash. Pre-Flash is simply
more accurate, and permits technologies like multiple balanced wireless
remotes (As done with i-TTL and E-TTL) and accurate balanced fill-flash.
You have a number of obsolete flashes. Be glad Pentax was kind enough to
not obsolete your flash gear immediately, as Nikon did, Twice (Well,
sort of, Nikon's pro bodies still support D-TTL, no other current Nikon
body does).
-Adam
Jens Bladt wrote:
I don't know who said what. I guess Adam said only the cheapest Pentax DSLR
(DS2) supports plain TTL flash. That is not the case. So does the PENTAX
*ist D.
I want the new DSLR to support plain TTL (perhaps as well as other, more
recent systems).
Or I will have to consider taking my business elsewhere. I have more money
invested in TTL flashes than the cost of a new body. I don't se any reason
why a new pro-speced camera should not support more than one kind of TTL
flash. Most pro's already have several TTL flashes (and lenses etc.). If a
pro body is made for photographers, it should support the gear that
photographers already use. It should support the photographers - not just
the manufacturer's need of selling a lot of "improved" stuff.
Some times the manufacturer's just change things for the reason of selling
more - not because it's actually an improvement.
Crippled means a lack of backwards compatibility. For amateurs it's not that
important. They only have one body and a few lenses and maybe one flash. For
pro's it's important since they have many lenses and flashes. Crippling
backwards compatibility means making cameras for "one time buyers" -
amateurs that buy one camera every five years. Not for a pro, using many
components of the same brand all the time. I would hate to have to change
brands - or switch to "computer flash" because of one tiny missing circuit
worth only a couple of dollars. To me pre-flash is a step backwards - it
takes time, it's annoying and not necessary at all. I can make perfectly lit
flash photographs with the D and a bounced 100 USD TTL Metz flash. What's
the problem with that?
Regards
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Aaron Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 4. april 2006 02:00
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: RE: DL TTL flash madness
Jens, what are you talking about? You said you don't want the D2 if it's
the same as a DL in terms of flash handling. I asked why the new high-end
body would it be crippled like the cheapest DSLR that Pentax sells.
Are you saying that the D is also crippled? If so, your complaints lead me
to believe you should buy a DS2.
You seem to think I'm saying the very opposite of what I'm saying.
-Aaron
-----Original Message-----
From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: RE: DL TTL flash madness
Date: Mon Apr 3, 2006 12:59 pm
Size: 1K
To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net>
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: 268.3.5/300 - 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
