Re: Re[2]: Flash photography and *istD
On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 23:21, Bruce Dayton wrote: One interesting difference with the *istD (or any DSLR for that matter) is that it has a narrower latitude than print film. Coupled with the ability to quickly and cheaply test, more is explored on it and it's behaviors than previous film cameras. One wonders if there has always been a few exposure issues with flash systems that is largely hidden by the latitude of print film. If you shoot slide film, there wouldn't be much difference with digital in this respect. -- Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flash Photography and *istD revisited.
I have also noticed that my Sunpak MZ-440AF just completely overexposes everything when attached to my *istD. I was beginning to think something was wrong with it. I've used it with my PZ-1p, and ZX-5n with no problems, in fact been very happy with it. Shot a couple of weddings with it in fact... I only have one other TTL flash for Pentax, the AF220T and that seems to do a slightly better job, but it isn't very spanky. I want to get the AF360FGZ, but I'll hold off if people think there's a real firmware issue that needs to be solved. Of course Pentax has never been speedy at anything, so I wouldn't count on a firmware upgrade any time soon... Unless we all begin flooding their mailboxes with complaints about TTL flash exposures... I think tonight I'll try out my 285HV and see how that does. Does anybody think that's a bad idea? I know they've had some voltage issues in the past, particularly with the 283, but mine is a fairly new 285, and I've used it successfully on my PZ. Thanks, Jeff Jonsson Marriott Library, University of Utah 801.585.5587
Re: Flash Photography and *istD revisited.
Hello Jeff, I'm going to be doing a bunch more testing of the AF400T. Seems to overexpose, but consistently. I'll try the mentioned shooting at 400 ISO along with exposure compensation. From my first tests, seems that I will probably end up just using exposure compensation once I nail down how far over the exposure is. Another option is to use the sensor on the flash and just use Auto mode. Anyway, I'll post my findings. -- Best regards, Bruce Wednesday, January 7, 2004, 1:36:20 PM, you wrote: JJ I have also noticed that my Sunpak MZ-440AF just completely overexposes JJ everything when attached to my *istD. I was beginning to think something JJ was wrong with it. I've used it with my PZ-1p, and ZX-5n with no JJ problems, in fact been very happy with it. Shot a couple of weddings JJ with it in fact... I only have one other TTL flash for Pentax, the JJ AF220T and that seems to do a slightly better job, but it isn't very JJ spanky. I want to get the AF360FGZ, but I'll hold off if people think JJ there's a real firmware issue that needs to be solved. Of course Pentax JJ has never been speedy at anything, so I wouldn't count on a firmware JJ upgrade any time soon... Unless we all begin flooding their mailboxes JJ with complaints about TTL flash exposures... JJ I think tonight I'll try out my 285HV and see how that does. Does JJ anybody think that's a bad idea? I know they've had some voltage issues JJ in the past, particularly with the 283, but mine is a fairly new 285, JJ and I've used it successfully on my PZ. JJ Thanks, JJ Jeff Jonsson JJ Marriott Library, University of Utah JJ 801.585.5587
Re: Flash photography and *istD
Hi Bruce, on 05 Jan 04 you wrote in pentax.list: Certainly an area that I am most interested in. I am not shooting with the AF500FTZ. I have the AF360FGZ and 2 AF400T's and 1 AF280T. Could you be a bit more specific about what your results are like? There's a German thread on incorrect flash exposures at http://www.digitalfotonetz.de/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4997highlight= A source at Pentax Germany has explained that there exists a problem with the TTL-metering (I only repeat some statements of the mentioned link): The TTL-sensor measures the light that is reflected from the CCD's surface. But it seemes, that the reflection of the CCD differs depending on the chosen ISO setting. The exposure will be correct only at ISO400 as the development and testing of the TTL-measurement was apparently made at ISO400, only. At ISO settings below 400 the camera will under-expose, at setting above 400 it will over-expose. This problem can probably not be solved by a firmware update as there is no upgradeble TTL-software but some kind of hardware solution. The problem does not exist if you use P-TTL. I didn't try that myself (although I have an AF500FTZ I'm not a great flash user), but maybe this informations brings some light into the flash behaviour of the *istD. Cheers, Heiko
Re: Flash photography and *istD
* what are the best modes to use flash in? I use usualy both - P or Av modes on *istD and the same with MZ-S. -- Best Regards Sylwek Well to the wonderfull world of digital flash photography.vbg I have recently bought the newest recommended flash for my D1 and its seems to be going in the right direction.I'm getting more consistant results now. Prior to the sb80dx it was a hit a miss venue. I find with the nikon in P mode,flash on AA and the diffuser at 60 degrees in a regular room is the best,about 9 out of 10 look correct. Its taken Nikon 3 models and several flashes/firmware upgrades to accomplish this.Hopefully Pentax is seeing there may be cause for concern and work on this. Sorry for all the Nikon digital references lately.Just trying to be helpfull and its what i have at the moment.g Dave
Re: Flash photography and *istD
BINGO! You got to love this list! Based on your remarks Heiko I tested with my Metz 40MZ-2 and SCA3701 adapter, which I used in TTL mode successfully on my PZ_1, but found severe underexposure on my *ist D. All at 200ISO. (On automatic, the flash uses it's own cell, it worked very fine, and the flash gets the focal length of the lens, aperture and ISO setting, so it is still very much automated.) I redid the test at ISO400 and ISO 800 using TTL, and sure enough, they seem very nice exposed at ISO 400 and perhaps a bit overexposed at ISO800. I was wondering if I needed to upgrade to the SCA3702 adapter, but based on your email that wont be needed nor would it solve it. I wish the manual would have mentioned this. I still can't imagine the reflectivity is a function of the sensitivity of the sensor. If that is indeed not the case, then a firmware update might be possible, well see. So flash at ISO400 when using TTL. Frits On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 11:32, Heiko Hamann wrote: Hi Bruce, on 05 Jan 04 you wrote in pentax.list: Certainly an area that I am most interested in. I am not shooting with the AF500FTZ. I have the AF360FGZ and 2 AF400T's and 1 AF280T. Could you be a bit more specific about what your results are like? There's a German thread on incorrect flash exposures at http://www.digitalfotonetz.de/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4997highlight= A source at Pentax Germany has explained that there exists a problem with the TTL-metering (I only repeat some statements of the mentioned link): The TTL-sensor measures the light that is reflected from the CCD's surface. But it seemes, that the reflection of the CCD differs depending on the chosen ISO setting. The exposure will be correct only at ISO400 as the development and testing of the TTL-measurement was apparently made at ISO400, only. At ISO settings below 400 the camera will under-expose, at setting above 400 it will over-expose. This problem can probably not be solved by a firmware update as there is no upgradeble TTL-software but some kind of hardware solution. The problem does not exist if you use P-TTL. I didn't try that myself (although I have an AF500FTZ I'm not a great flash user), but maybe this informations brings some light into the flash behaviour of the *istD. Cheers, Heiko -- Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Flash photography and *istD
- Original Message - From: mapson Subject: Flash photography and *istD Can anyone offer any help? I use an old Metz 60 CT-2 with the analogue SCA module. Works fine on the LX, works fine on the ist D, though I have never found Pentax TTL to be overly accurate. Consider going to an auto flash instead of a TTL flash. My Metz will expose to within 1/10 of a stop in most situations. William Robb
Re: Flash photography and *istD
Heiko Hamann wrote: That makes me wonder, too. Any physicists here to explain? I simply can't imagine, why the CCD's reflectivity should change with the ISO value. I'm a physicist and the suggestion makes no sense to me :-) S
Re: Flash photography and *istD
On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 17:04, Heiko Hamann wrote: OTOH - you now can predict the TTL-behaviour of the *istD and use the ISO setting for flash exposure compensation ;-) Yes, I thought about this as well, flash compensation is something I badly miss on my PZ-1, so now I have it on the *ist D. That would mostly be used for fill-in flash I guess. -- Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Flash photography and *istD
I've had alot of trouble with the AF360FGZ. It underexposes. I have to compensate *ALOT*. As much as +2 sometimes. Its really bad when I use it to do bounce flash, which I prefer. I took some family portraits recently and I had to play with it for a long time before I got the pics with a decent exposure. I don't know why this would be the case except for maybe there is some bug in the firmware. rg mapson wrote: With a recent purchase of *istD and an arsenal of other Pentax gear I thought I could conquer the world. HOWEVER I found it quite disappointing that the *istD produces far from acceptable results when combined with AF-500FTZ ( I won't even mention that Sigma EF-430ST) goes totally belly-up). Even when the flash gets switched to MANUAL, it still behaves somewhat like auto. I found it almost impossible to get a good fill-in compensation. The built in flash produces better results, however it is not very impressive either. Especially in fill-in where background is quite bright. Here are my questions for the Pentax Brotherhood: * is it the nature of digital cameras that they do not work well with flashes (probably not) * does anyone have any experience using *ist and 500FTZ? * is the 'new kid on the block' AF-360FGZ producing acceptable results combined with *istD * what are the best modes to use flash in? Just to let you know I have used Z-1, Z-1p, and MZ, ZX camers for a number of years, consuming tens of rolls of film a month. Apart from the 1/100s flash synch limitations the results were quite satisfactory. Z-1, Z-1p - no problems. With *istD I am not trying to be pedantic to get it within 0.001EV of a perfect value. I am trying to get it 'somewhere'. Being able to shoot consistently and reliably. At present I cannot achieve it! Can anyone offer any help? (*)o(*) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Flash photography and *istD
Heiko Hamann wrote: Hi Frits, That makes me wonder, too. Any physicists here to explain? I simply can't imagine, why the CCD's reflectivity should change with the ISO value. I'm not a physicist, but I am an electrical engineer by training, and the CCD's sensistivity/ISO setting does not alter any physical properties of the CCD. This happens in the hardware A/D convertor stage, where the gain of the sensor amp is adjusted to get higher/lower ISO values. So this theory about the reflection being different based on the ISO values is bunk. I have a feeling that the firmware routine that is computing the exposure value has a bug whereby the ISO setting is not being looked up, but instead some constant value has been put in, probably as a result of prototype code making its way into the final product. rg
Re: Flash photography and *istD
Hi Steve, on 06 Jan 04 you wrote in pentax.list: I simply can't imagine, why the CCD's reflectivity should change with the ISO value. I'm a physicist and the suggestion makes no sense to me :-) That calms me down, really. Whatever the cause is, it shouldn't be the reflectiveness of the CCDs surface. Doesn't a higher ISO mean higher power consumption of the CCD? So maybe there is not enough power left for the TTL-sensor :-)) Cheers, Heiko
Re: Flash photography and *istD
I've never experienced problems with the AF360FGZ on my ist-D in P-TTL mode. I use bounce flash a ton and I get very good exposures. I use it on a macro bracket just inches from a small subject and get great results. I use it straight on without problems. Fill flash works too. Geez, even the red-eye-reduction function on the body works! I even borrowed one of tv's 500s and it worked really well bounced (I didn't use it straight on) in TTL mode. I'm thinking there may be some manufacturing issues and that all Ds are not alike. Christian - Original Message - From: Robert Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 11:58 AM Subject: Re: Flash photography and *istD I've had alot of trouble with the AF360FGZ. It underexposes. I have to compensate *ALOT*. As much as +2 sometimes. Its really bad when I use it to do bounce flash, which I prefer. I took some family portraits recently and I had to play with it for a long time before I got the pics with a decent exposure. I don't know why this would be the case except for maybe there is some bug in the firmware. rg
Re[2]: Flash photography and *istD
Hello Heiko, Thanks for the information. Certainly something for me to check out. My own observations are thus: AF360FGZ seems to slighly underexpose - sometimes when vertical shooting with flash mounted in hotshoe it underexposes by quite a bit. AF400T seems to overexpose by at least a stop. These are with ISO set to 200. I'll have to try 400 and see what happens. Again, thanks for the info. Bruce Tuesday, January 6, 2004, 2:32:00 AM, you wrote: HH Hi Bruce, HH on 05 Jan 04 you wrote in pentax.list: Certainly an area that I am most interested in. I am not shooting with the AF500FTZ. I have the AF360FGZ and 2 AF400T's and 1 AF280T. Could you be a bit more specific about what your results are like? HH There's a German thread on incorrect flash exposures at HH http://www.digitalfotonetz.de/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4997highlight= HH A source at Pentax Germany has explained that there exists a problem HH with the TTL-metering (I only repeat some statements of the mentioned HH link): The TTL-sensor measures the light that is reflected from the HH CCD's surface. But it seemes, that the reflection of the CCD differs HH depending on the chosen ISO setting. The exposure will be correct only HH at ISO400 as the development and testing of the TTL-measurement was HH apparently made at ISO400, only. HH At ISO settings below 400 the camera will under-expose, at setting above HH 400 it will over-expose. HH This problem can probably not be solved by a firmware update as there is HH no upgradeble TTL-software but some kind of hardware solution. The HH problem does not exist if you use P-TTL. HH I didn't try that myself (although I have an AF500FTZ I'm not a great HH flash user), but maybe this informations brings some light into the HH flash behaviour of the *istD. HH Cheers, Heiko
Re: Re[2]: Flash photography and *istD
I have noticed that mine seems to expose differently depending on aperture - from a distance of about ten feet, I used the FA* 24 f/2 and shot at a painting in my bedroom. The smaller apertures showed a marked difference in exposure as compared to the bigger ones. This is using the AF500FTZ. I rarely use flash, so I did not follow up on this much, except to form the impression that the firmware is probably defective. I did send a comment/complaint to Pentax Cnaada, with so far zero response. Quoting Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hello Heiko, Thanks for the information. Certainly something for me to check out. My own observations are thus: AF360FGZ seems to slighly underexpose - sometimes when vertical shooting with flash mounted in hotshoe it underexposes by quite a bit. AF400T seems to overexpose by at least a stop. These are with ISO set to 200. I'll have to try 400 and see what happens. Again, thanks for the info. Bruce Tuesday, January 6, 2004, 2:32:00 AM, you wrote: HH Hi Bruce, HH on 05 Jan 04 you wrote in pentax.list: Certainly an area that I am most interested in. I am not shooting with the AF500FTZ. I have the AF360FGZ and 2 AF400T's and 1 AF280T. Could you be a bit more specific about what your results are like? HH There's a German thread on incorrect flash exposures at HH http://www.digitalfotonetz.de/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4997highlight= HH A source at Pentax Germany has explained that there exists a problem HH with the TTL-metering (I only repeat some statements of the mentioned HH link): The TTL-sensor measures the light that is reflected from the HH CCD's surface. But it seemes, that the reflection of the CCD differs HH depending on the chosen ISO setting. The exposure will be correct only HH at ISO400 as the development and testing of the TTL-measurement was HH apparently made at ISO400, only. HH At ISO settings below 400 the camera will under-expose, at setting above HH 400 it will over-expose. HH This problem can probably not be solved by a firmware update as there is HH no upgradeble TTL-software but some kind of hardware solution. The HH problem does not exist if you use P-TTL. HH I didn't try that myself (although I have an AF500FTZ I'm not a great HH flash user), but maybe this informations brings some light into the HH flash behaviour of the *istD. HH Cheers, Heiko - This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
Re: Flash photography and *istD
On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 21:36, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 17:04, Heiko Hamann wrote: OTOH - you now can predict the TTL-behaviour of the *istD and use the ISO setting for flash exposure compensation ;-) Frits wrote: Yes, I thought about this as well, flash compensation is something I badly miss on my PZ-1, so now I have it on the *ist D. That would mostly be used for fill-in flash I guess. Yes, but you wouldn't NEED it if the TTL was working properly to begin with. This is quite a major consideration to me as one of the main reasons that I *want* to get the *istD is so that I have a compatible flash system to go with the body. I have been using the Oly with my Sigma 430st and 500st manually, and have been quite happy with the results, so if the *istD doesn't work properly in TTL, makes me wonder if I will race out and buy one as quickly as I thought or maybe wait for something *better* as I have been thinking of doing anyways... tan. Tanya, I disafree here. With flash compensation I would be able to control how much flash I ad to the existing ambiant light. For instance, someone in the sun, will have harsh shadows. These shadows can be reduced by the usage of flash. If however, the flash has the same brightness as the ambient light, the flash will be too dominant, so I would like to be able to have less flash output with still the same correct exposure for the ambient. The result is that you still get shadows from the sun, but not too strong. Look at http://www.xs4all.nl/~wuthrich/albums/scotland/Image59.html Taken with the PZ-1 and the Metz 40MZ-2 in TTL, the flash output is too high for my taste. -- Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Flash photography and *istD
Fritz wrote: I disafree here. With flash compensation I would be able to control how much flash I ad to the existing ambiant light. For instance, someone in the sun, will have harsh shadows. These shadows can be reduced by the usage of flash. If however, the flash has the same brightness as the ambient light, the flash will be too dominant, so I would like to be able to have less flash output with still the same correct exposure for the ambient. The result is that you still get shadows from the sun, but not too strong. Look at http://www.xs4all.nl/~wuthrich/albums/scotland/Image59.html Taken with the PZ-1 and the Metz 40MZ-2 in TTL, the flash output is too high for my taste. -- Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oh, I totally hear you Frits! Sorry, I may have written that a little ambiguously. Of course there are *many* situations where flash compensation is required, for *many* different reasons. I just meant that in regards to the *istD, if the TTL was working in the first place for normal shooting, you shouldn't have to *need* to fiddle with yet another setting by also having to think of flash compensation. In regards to the shot that you posted, I would have actually INCREASED the output for that one. The model is still in too much shadow for my tastes. Of course, you are dealing with the reflection on her glasses, but a polariser could have helped that. The polariser could have also assisted in saturating the background creating less contrast, BUT fill flash can have a similar effect as well so that such a bright background doesn't overexpose, and your sky and ocean would've been bluer etc, just from increasing the output of the flash a little more. Ok, so probably everyone will disagree, cause I am not very good at this technical stuff, but that is just how I would've tackled that particular shot... She is very pretty btw... tan.
[Fwd: Re: Flash photography and *istD]
Tanya wrote: She is very pretty btw... My oldest daughter, three years ago in Scotland. They grow up so fast. -- Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Flash photography and *istD
FWIW, I seem to have these same problems with mine and the 280T and the 200T. Cory - Original Message - From: mapson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 1:22 AM Subject: Re: Flash photography and *istD Certainly an area that I am most interested in. I am not shooting with the AF500FTZ. I have the AF360FGZ and 2 AF400T's and 1 AF280T. Could you be a bit more specific about what your results are like? most common - washed out - totally overexposed. Even inside. Once I tried to get a nice compensation of flash fill in on some people against a sunset - did not happen. I played with manual settings on the flash - no go! ;-( All underexposed/overexposed/all over the map? How is the flash attached? Bracket or hotshoe? Hotshoe. How is your 360 doing? Let's say you set all to P and TTL and start shooting - what will you get? In a variety of situations - in a darkish room, outside, against light/bright background? (*)o(*) [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004
Re: Re[2]: Flash photography and *istD
On 6 Jan 2004 at 10:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have noticed that mine seems to expose differently depending on aperture - from a distance of about ten feet, I used the FA* 24 f/2 and shot at a painting in my bedroom. The smaller apertures showed a marked difference in exposure as compared to the bigger ones. Try it without flash too :-( Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re[2]: Flash photography and *istD
Hello Tanya, I think the jury is still out on this one. You have two different issues for the *istD. First is P-TTL. This is the latest type of TTL from Pentax. It was introduced when the MZ-S was released. This emits a preflash that is measured before the main flash. Supposedly it is more accurate and renders more natural looking images. Then there is digital TTL from the FTZ flashes (AF330FTZ, AF500FTZ) and analog TTL from the older (Af280T, AF400T) units. I don't know which one your Sigma's are, but if had to guess, I would think that they are digital TTL like the AF500FTZ. I haven't done enough flash stuff yet, nor seen enough on the web from others to make a good determination as to how well the flash system is working. One thing the AF360FGZ does with the *istD is high speed flash synch for daylight fill. The AF360FGZ can be programmed to compensate the exposure, so I normally dial in about -1 to -1.5 stops of light. So with that setup, you can shoot at ANY shutter speed up to 1/4000 in daylight and have the flash fill in the shadows a bit and put a catchlight in the subject's eyes. One interesting difference with the *istD (or any DSLR for that matter) is that it has a narrower latitude than print film. Coupled with the ability to quickly and cheaply test, more is explored on it and it's behaviors than previous film cameras. One wonders if there has always been a few exposure issues with flash systems that is largely hidden by the latitude of print film. -- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, January 6, 2004, 12:36:56 PM, you wrote: TMP On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 17:04, Heiko Hamann wrote: OTOH - you now can predict the TTL-behaviour of the *istD and use the ISO setting for flash exposure compensation ;-) TMP Frits wrote: TMP Yes, I thought about this as well, flash compensation is something I TMP badly miss on my PZ-1, so now I have it on the *ist D. That would mostly TMP be used for fill-in flash I guess. TMP Yes, but you wouldn't NEED it if the TTL was working properly to begin with. TMP This is quite a major consideration to me as one of the main reasons that I TMP *want* to get the *istD is so that I have a compatible flash system to go TMP with the body. I have been using the Oly with my Sigma 430st and 500st TMP manually, and have been quite happy with the results, so if the *istD TMP doesn't work properly in TTL, makes me wonder if I will race out and buy one TMP as quickly as I thought or maybe wait for something *better* as I have been TMP thinking of doing anyways... TMP tan.
Flash photography and *istD
With a recent purchase of *istD and an arsenal of other Pentax gear I thought I could conquer the world. HOWEVER I found it quite disappointing that the *istD produces far from acceptable results when combined with AF-500FTZ ( I won't even mention that Sigma EF-430ST) goes totally belly-up). Even when the flash gets switched to MANUAL, it still behaves somewhat like auto. I found it almost impossible to get a good fill-in compensation. The built in flash produces better results, however it is not very impressive either. Especially in fill-in where background is quite bright. Here are my questions for the Pentax Brotherhood: * is it the nature of digital cameras that they do not work well with flashes (probably not) * does anyone have any experience using *ist and 500FTZ? * is the 'new kid on the block' AF-360FGZ producing acceptable results combined with *istD * what are the best modes to use flash in? Just to let you know I have used Z-1, Z-1p, and MZ, ZX camers for a number of years, consuming tens of rolls of film a month. Apart from the 1/100s flash synch limitations the results were quite satisfactory. Z-1, Z-1p - no problems. With *istD I am not trying to be pedantic to get it within 0.001EV of a perfect value. I am trying to get it 'somewhere'. Being able to shoot consistently and reliably. At present I cannot achieve it! Can anyone offer any help? (*)o(*) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Flash photography and *istD
Hello mapson, Certainly an area that I am most interested in. I am not shooting with the AF500FTZ. I have the AF360FGZ and 2 AF400T's and 1 AF280T. Could you be a bit more specific about what your results are like? All underexposed/overexposed/all over the map? How is the flash attached? Bracket or hotshoe? Thanks, Bruce Monday, January 5, 2004, 9:09:04 PM, you wrote: m With a recent purchase of *istD and an arsenal of other Pentax gear I m thought I could conquer the world. m HOWEVER I found it quite disappointing that the *istD produces far from m acceptable results when combined with AF-500FTZ ( I won't even mention m that Sigma EF-430ST) goes totally belly-up). m Even when the flash gets switched to MANUAL, it still behaves somewhat like m auto. I found it almost impossible to get a good fill-in compensation. m The built in flash produces better results, however it is not very m impressive either. Especially in fill-in where background is quite bright. m Here are my questions for the Pentax Brotherhood: m * is it the nature of digital cameras that they do not work well with m flashes (probably not) m * does anyone have any experience using *ist and 500FTZ? m * is the 'new kid on the block' AF-360FGZ producing acceptable results m combined with *istD m * what are the best modes to use flash in? m Just to let you know I have used Z-1, Z-1p, and MZ, ZX camers for a number m of years, consuming tens of rolls of film a month. Apart from the 1/100s m flash synch limitations the results were quite satisfactory. Z-1, Z-1p - no m problems. m With *istD I am not trying to be pedantic to get it within 0.001EV of a m perfect value. I am trying to get it 'somewhere'. Being able to shoot m consistently and reliably. At present I cannot achieve it! m Can anyone offer any help? m (*)o(*) m [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Flash photography and *istD
-Original Message- From: mapson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Here are my questions for the Pentax Brotherhood: * is it the nature of digital cameras that they do not work well with flashes (probably not) Actually, yes, ttl flash is tougher with digital cameras. As far as I know, they all do a pre-flash instead of metering off the film. For some reason this isn't as accurate. When I used to print all my b/w proofs I would be quite happy to get the available light shots out of the way because I knew the flash shots would be much more consistent and easier to print. It's pretty much the reverse now - the flash shots require more fiddling. Canon cameras before the 10D had notoriously bad flash exposures...the 10D is supposed to be better, but there's more variance than I was used to with film. I've heard similar stories from Nikon users. With *istD I am not trying to be pedantic to get it within 0.001EV of a perfect value. I am trying to get it 'somewhere'. Being able to shoot consistently and reliably. At present I cannot achieve it! Can anyone offer any help? With the 10D I just needed a lot of practice. It took 4 or 5 thousand frames before I had it down. When you look at the pics can you tell how the meter was fooled? tv
Re: Flash photography and *istD
Certainly an area that I am most interested in. I am not shooting with the AF500FTZ. I have the AF360FGZ and 2 AF400T's and 1 AF280T. Could you be a bit more specific about what your results are like? most common - washed out - totally overexposed. Even inside. Once I tried to get a nice compensation of flash fill in on some people against a sunset - did not happen. I played with manual settings on the flash - no go! ;-( All underexposed/overexposed/all over the map? How is the flash attached? Bracket or hotshoe? Hotshoe. How is your 360 doing? Let's say you set all to P and TTL and start shooting - what will you get? In a variety of situations - in a darkish room, outside, against light/bright background? (*)o(*) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
