RE: A "lesson" in flash with the *ist D...(now a bit OT)
With my Metz 40MZ-2 with the SCA3701, I simply switch the flash to auto instead of TTL, and it works. So I have no need for a PC connection for switching to auto. My advantage is that when setting the flash to auto, the flash still gets the data from the camera regarding used sensitivity, aperture and length of the lens, and the auto zoom of the flash works as well. Even the range at which you can get good exposure is indicated. So auto is really full auto, very easy. And I don't have to use the ISO setting of the *ist D at 400, it works at other settings as well. On TTL the *ist D is easy more then one stop off, in my case underexposure. On Mon, 2004-04-19 at 17:25, David Miers wrote: > Ok now I'm getting a bit confused. Could someone clarify a few points for > me please. I currently use the AF360FGZ on the PZ-1p and PZ-1 as well as > with some older cameras. I liked the fact that it is supposed to be > completely backward compatible with all Pentax cameras. I am aware that > this flash uses only standard TTL with these units and automatically > switches to P-TTL with the newer ones. However I was under the impression > that standard auto flash and manual were still available with all the > cameras that were supposed to support this function including the *istD. Is > this right? I bought the AF360FGZ with the idea that it would be more > compatible with future Pentax cameras that might come my way plus it has > slave, wireless, and high speed sync with the appropriate cameras. I > realize that the AF360FGZ is not the most powerful flash on the market, but > thought it should be sufficient for my needs going by the guide number. > > When using the auto and manual functions does the auto zoom head function > properly on autofocus cameras? Also what types of camera metering function > with which flash functions? I have normally shot multisegment metering with > flash in the past and have had really good results thus far. However I > haven't used my Pentax gear that much with flash. I have usually been using > my Minolta gear for this need. I did have to use my PZ-1 as a backup camera > one time at a wedding reception as my Minolta with the lens I was using was > having some major focus problems with the lighting conditions. A bit of > experimentation later proved it was a lens problem and not the body. > However using the PZ-1 that night impressed me greatly on how well it was > locking on focus quickly without a great deal of searching. I didn't even > have a external flash with me and had to use the on camera popup unit. I > still got some great shots that were properly exposed with this handicap. I > wish I would have had an external flash with to compare the results. > > Since I have a much better lens line up in Pentax, I have been strongly > considering dumping the Minolta equipment to buy a *istD. However this > thread is making me really wonder about the wisdom of this decision. > Minolta is supposed to also be releasing a DSLR based on their "7" model. > One of it's strong points is image stabilization, but I'm not feeling I need > that function all that badly. I strongly suspect this will be out of my > price tag zone and hate to give up my Pentax equipment to finance such a > move. The questions surrounding P-TTL flash and this coming camera are > being highly debated in their camp as well. The general consensus is that > no one wants to have to use it and give up standard TTL flash which is > highly accurate in their cameras, but fear that P-TTL will be required for > digital flash. Right now the P-TTL can be controlled with either not by not > using the "D" series lenses. They are also afraid that the "D" series lens > will be required for flash use. Some of the Minolta camp is jumping ship to > Canon to avoid the P-TTL, but I thought Canon used it too? Anyone know what > the status of Nikon is with P-TTL? > > I feel that using multi segment metering or at the very least center > weighted metering is very important to me for candid type shots. When > setting up a formal posed situation all the manual ideas are great and nice > to be able to work towards whatever idea you have in mind. However when > doing candid shots such at a wedding reception things are happening very > fast. I just don't see myself having the time to consider all the valid > points of lighting existing in the situation and making the corresponding > manual adjustments. I really need the camera computers to figure this out > for me so I can get the shot and not still be there trying to figure it all > out after the moment has passed. Maybe this is a so called Point and > Shooter viewpoint, but I would rather get the shot and debate the "should > haves" afterwards. I am aware the *istD will default to P-TTL, but will > auto flash be available with the AF360FGZ, or will I have to use an older fl > ash to get this function? > > Confused again! > > Dave > > -- > My Metz
Re: A "lesson" in flash with the *ist D...(now a bit OT)
Rob Brigham wrote: -Original Message- From: David Miers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Some of the Minolta camp is jumping ship to Canon to avoid the P-TTL, but I thought Canon used it too? Anyone know what the status of Nikon is with P-TTL? I thought I read somewhere that Pentax is the first/only to offer TTL and that Canon/Nikon only had PTTL. I've always thought my old Olympii OM-1 and OM-2 had TTL flash. Where did my brain slip a cog? keith whaley Just that with the 360FGZ you cannot set it to TTL - you need an older flash to do that. However I ALWAYS shoot my flash wireless and would not consider going back to another flash. Using wireless and getting a little fill from the RTF means no more flash shadows. I really need the camera computers to figure this out for me so I can get the shot and not still be there trying to figure it all out after the moment has passed. Shoot RAW - don't even consider doing anything else. Maybe this is a so called Point and Shooter viewpoint, but I would rather get the shot and debate the "should haves" afterwards. I am aware the *istD will default to P-TTL, but will auto flash be available with the AF360FGZ, or will I have to use an older flash to get this function? I would stop worrying so much - I use the FGZ and it works pretty much perfectly for me. You get the occasional shot it misses but often that is recoverable and using RAW you can make fine adjustments later anyway. How much would an older flash cost you anyway? Very little in the scheme of going digital. I would not base my buying decision on whether or not I might or might not have to shell out an extra fifty bucks on a new flash unit when you are spending thousands on lenses/bodies. I have an old Sigma which only does TTL and is very good if I wanted TTL and they sell for almost nothing these days second hand. Tanya has put a lot of work into understanding how to get her flash exactly where she wants it. She got there in the end and I am sure you could too. Whatever system you buy into there will be a new learning curve and unforseen expenses. These will be far lower with a system you already have experience of so if you were about to go for the *istD then stick with it. Minotla is a way off having their camera out and you expect it to have a number of limitations and too high a cost - not going to be a goer for a number of years for you I think...
Re: A "lesson" in flash with the *ist D...(now a bit OT)
I was able to get to it after you posted the new URL. I didn't comment becasue I've gotten behind. Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: Very funny, Wheatfield! ;-) http://www.tanyamayer.com/exposurelesson/index.html There - now you have no excuse for not knowing "if" there "was" a web page! I just really need to know if anyone can actually view it as I have changed hosting services tan. - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 8:49 AM Subject: Re: A "lesson" in flash with the *ist D...(now a bit OT) - Original Message ----- From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" Subject: Re: A "lesson" in flash with the *ist D...(now a bit OT) Have I missed a post somewhere? does all this mean that the page still isn't working? Has anyone actually viewed it? There was a web page? WW
RE: A "lesson" in flash with the *ist D...(now a bit OT)
Dave said:> Ok now I'm getting a bit confused. They are also afraid that the "D" series le> ns > will be required for flash use. Some of the Minolta camp is jumping ship> to > Canon to avoid the P-TTL, but I thought Canon used it too? Anyone know w> hat > the status of Nikon is with P-TTL? > Dave Flash with the D1 was hit and miss.One good one,one so so one but fixable in PS. I have added the sb80dx to the D1 and D2H line up and it seems a bit more consistant,but under exposed about 1/3 of a stop at least. I and others have found using the Nikon dslr's in Auto Aperature works best. Program mode(on camera) and 3Dttl on the flash leads to over exposures. When i do the indoor horse shows i use AA for fast recycle and use levels and curves to brighten up, and the jumps i use D-TTL.Slower recycle times but more flash and better back grounds. A lot of shooters on the Nikon BB's that shoot flash a lot sre saying the newest group of cameras and flashes are better,but still not 100%. Hope that helped Dave
Re: A "lesson" in flash with the *ist D...(now a bit OT)
Hello David, Couple of points. Yes the AF360FGZ does work in Auto and Manual modes on the *istD - You need to be in manual mode on the camera for these to work. No, when the AF360FGZ is in Auto or manual mode, the auto zoom function does not work - you would need to zoom manually or pick a setting and leave it there. Your thinking on how auto works seems a bit clouded. Basically, you choose an fstop on the flash that the flash sensor will meter along with iso speed. You set the camera to flash synch and the same f-stop. After that, there is no real camera metering needed. As long as the light levels are lower (you need the flash) than your settings indicate, the flash will provide the needed illumination. As Canon and Nikon with multiple generations of DSLR's are still struggling with P-TTL working reliably, it is very doubtful that Minolta's first DSLR is going to set the world on fire concerning their P-TTL equivalent. It is interesting to note that the new D-70 from Nikon has a new flash system called I-TTL - not really sure just what it is and if it solves the problems. I know that it requires a new flash unit however. One angle to consider is that flash units are generally much cheaper than lenses. What I do is use the AF360FGZ in daylight for flash fill (works pretty well there) and then an older analog TTL flash unit (AF400T) in TTL with some compensation for regular flash work. You could easily buy an AF280T analog flash unit for less than US$100 to complement you AF360FGZ rather than replacing all your Pentax glass. Just a thought. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, April 19, 2004, 8:25:30 AM, you wrote: DM> Ok now I'm getting a bit confused. Could someone clarify a few points for DM> me please. I currently use the AF360FGZ on the PZ-1p and PZ-1 as well as DM> with some older cameras. I liked the fact that it is supposed to be DM> completely backward compatible with all Pentax cameras. I am aware that DM> this flash uses only standard TTL with these units and automatically DM> switches to P-TTL with the newer ones. However I was under the impression DM> that standard auto flash and manual were still available with all the DM> cameras that were supposed to support this function including the *istD. Is DM> this right? I bought the AF360FGZ with the idea that it would be more DM> compatible with future Pentax cameras that might come my way plus it has DM> slave, wireless, and high speed sync with the appropriate cameras. I DM> realize that the AF360FGZ is not the most powerful flash on the market, but DM> thought it should be sufficient for my needs going by the guide number. DM> When using the auto and manual functions does the auto zoom head function DM> properly on autofocus cameras? Also what types of camera metering function DM> with which flash functions? I have normally shot multisegment metering with DM> flash in the past and have had really good results thus far. However I DM> haven't used my Pentax gear that much with flash. I have usually been using DM> my Minolta gear for this need. I did have to use my PZ-1 as a backup camera DM> one time at a wedding reception as my Minolta with the lens I was using was DM> having some major focus problems with the lighting conditions. A bit of DM> experimentation later proved it was a lens problem and not the body. DM> However using the PZ-1 that night impressed me greatly on how well it was DM> locking on focus quickly without a great deal of searching. I didn't even DM> have a external flash with me and had to use the on camera popup unit. I DM> still got some great shots that were properly exposed with this handicap. I DM> wish I would have had an external flash with to compare the results. DM> Since I have a much better lens line up in Pentax, I have been strongly DM> considering dumping the Minolta equipment to buy a *istD. However this DM> thread is making me really wonder about the wisdom of this decision. DM> Minolta is supposed to also be releasing a DSLR based on their "7" model. DM> One of it's strong points is image stabilization, but I'm not feeling I need DM> that function all that badly. I strongly suspect this will be out of my DM> price tag zone and hate to give up my Pentax equipment to finance such a DM> move. The questions surrounding P-TTL flash and this coming camera are DM> being highly debated in their camp as well. The general consensus is that DM> no one wants to have to use it and give up standard TTL flash which is DM> highly accurate in their cameras, but fear that P-TTL will be required for DM> digital flash. Right now the P-TTL can be controlled with either not by not DM> using the "D" series lenses. They are also afraid that the "D" series lens DM> will be required for flash use. Some of the Minolta camp is jumping ship to DM> Canon to avoid the P-TTL, but I thought Canon used it too? Anyone know what DM> the status of Nikon is with P-TTL? DM> I feel that using multi segment
Re: A "lesson" in flash with the *ist D...(now a bit OT)
I thought I read somewhere that Pentax is the first/only to offer TTL and that Canon/Nikon only had PTTL. Just that with the 360FGZ you cannot set it to TTL - you need an older flash to do that. However I x-TTL for Cxx, Nxx and P-TTL for Pentax use a pre-flash and a standard light measurement. The *ist D has a cell in the mirror box for TTL (as the Super-A/Super Programm), I don't know for others. You can use TTL only in manual mode.
RE: A "lesson" in flash with the *ist D...(now a bit OT)
> -Original Message- > From: David Miers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Some of the > Minolta camp is jumping ship to Canon to avoid the P-TTL, but > I thought Canon used it too? Anyone know what the status of > Nikon is with P-TTL? I thought I read somewhere that Pentax is the first/only to offer TTL and that Canon/Nikon only had PTTL. Just that with the 360FGZ you cannot set it to TTL - you need an older flash to do that. However I ALWAYS shoot my flash wireless and would not consider going back to another flash. Using wireless and getting a little fill from the RTF means no more flash shadows. > I really > need the camera computers to figure this out for me so I can > get the shot and not still be there trying to figure it all > out after the moment has passed. Shoot RAW - don't even consider doing anything else. > Maybe this is a so called > Point and Shooter viewpoint, but I would rather get the shot > and debate the "should haves" afterwards. I am aware the > *istD will default to P-TTL, but will auto flash be available > with the AF360FGZ, or will I have to use an older flash to > get this function? I would stop worrying so much - I use the FGZ and it works pretty much perfectly for me. You get the occasional shot it misses but often that is recoverable and using RAW you can make fine adjustments later anyway. How much would an older flash cost you anyway? Very little in the scheme of going digital. I would not base my buying decision on whether or not I might or might not have to shell out an extra fifty bucks on a new flash unit when you are spending thousands on lenses/bodies. I have an old Sigma which only does TTL and is very good if I wanted TTL and they sell for almost nothing these days second hand. Tanya has put a lot of work into understanding how to get her flash exactly where she wants it. She got there in the end and I am sure you could too. Whatever system you buy into there will be a new learning curve and unforseen expenses. These will be far lower with a system you already have experience of so if you were about to go for the *istD then stick with it. Minotla is a way off having their camera out and you expect it to have a number of limitations and too high a cost - not going to be a goer for a number of years for you I think...
RE: A "lesson" in flash with the *ist D...(now a bit OT)
Ok now I'm getting a bit confused. Could someone clarify a few points for me please. I currently use the AF360FGZ on the PZ-1p and PZ-1 as well as with some older cameras. I liked the fact that it is supposed to be completely backward compatible with all Pentax cameras. I am aware that this flash uses only standard TTL with these units and automatically switches to P-TTL with the newer ones. However I was under the impression that standard auto flash and manual were still available with all the cameras that were supposed to support this function including the *istD. Is this right? I bought the AF360FGZ with the idea that it would be more compatible with future Pentax cameras that might come my way plus it has slave, wireless, and high speed sync with the appropriate cameras. I realize that the AF360FGZ is not the most powerful flash on the market, but thought it should be sufficient for my needs going by the guide number. When using the auto and manual functions does the auto zoom head function properly on autofocus cameras? Also what types of camera metering function with which flash functions? I have normally shot multisegment metering with flash in the past and have had really good results thus far. However I haven't used my Pentax gear that much with flash. I have usually been using my Minolta gear for this need. I did have to use my PZ-1 as a backup camera one time at a wedding reception as my Minolta with the lens I was using was having some major focus problems with the lighting conditions. A bit of experimentation later proved it was a lens problem and not the body. However using the PZ-1 that night impressed me greatly on how well it was locking on focus quickly without a great deal of searching. I didn't even have a external flash with me and had to use the on camera popup unit. I still got some great shots that were properly exposed with this handicap. I wish I would have had an external flash with to compare the results. Since I have a much better lens line up in Pentax, I have been strongly considering dumping the Minolta equipment to buy a *istD. However this thread is making me really wonder about the wisdom of this decision. Minolta is supposed to also be releasing a DSLR based on their "7" model. One of it's strong points is image stabilization, but I'm not feeling I need that function all that badly. I strongly suspect this will be out of my price tag zone and hate to give up my Pentax equipment to finance such a move. The questions surrounding P-TTL flash and this coming camera are being highly debated in their camp as well. The general consensus is that no one wants to have to use it and give up standard TTL flash which is highly accurate in their cameras, but fear that P-TTL will be required for digital flash. Right now the P-TTL can be controlled with either not by not using the "D" series lenses. They are also afraid that the "D" series lens will be required for flash use. Some of the Minolta camp is jumping ship to Canon to avoid the P-TTL, but I thought Canon used it too? Anyone know what the status of Nikon is with P-TTL? I feel that using multi segment metering or at the very least center weighted metering is very important to me for candid type shots. When setting up a formal posed situation all the manual ideas are great and nice to be able to work towards whatever idea you have in mind. However when doing candid shots such at a wedding reception things are happening very fast. I just don't see myself having the time to consider all the valid points of lighting existing in the situation and making the corresponding manual adjustments. I really need the camera computers to figure this out for me so I can get the shot and not still be there trying to figure it all out after the moment has passed. Maybe this is a so called Point and Shooter viewpoint, but I would rather get the shot and debate the "should haves" afterwards. I am aware the *istD will default to P-TTL, but will auto flash be available with the AF360FGZ, or will I have to use an older fl ash to get this function? Confused again! Dave -- My Metz 60 CT-2 has measured to within ± 1/10 of a stop, at ranges from 6 feet or so right out to around 25 feet with it's built in sensor. This is an amply accurate range for wedding/ general photography. When running it in TTL with the LX, the exposures were within a stop most of the time, but sometimes about 15 stops under because of the ongoing meter fault that all three of my LX have. The istD has just about the worst TTL flash control I have seen, I doubt if it is within ± 1 stop. It is certainly not accurate enough for the recording medium. On the nice side, the istD has a PC socket, so auto flash is easily done. William Robb
Re: A "lesson" in flash with the *ist D...(now a bit OT)
Very funny, Wheatfield! ;-) http://www.tanyamayer.com/exposurelesson/index.html There - now you have no excuse for not knowing "if" there "was" a web page! I just really need to know if anyone can actually view it as I have changed hosting services tan. - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 8:49 AM Subject: Re: A "lesson" in flash with the *ist D...(now a bit OT) > > - Original Message - > From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" > Subject: Re: A "lesson" in flash with the *ist D...(now a bit OT) > > > > Have I missed a post somewhere? does all this mean that the page > still isn't > > working? Has anyone actually viewed it? > > There was a web page? > WW > > >
Re: A "lesson" in flash with the *ist D...(now a bit OT)
- Original Message - From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" Subject: Re: A "lesson" in flash with the *ist D...(now a bit OT) > Have I missed a post somewhere? does all this mean that the page still isn't > working? Has anyone actually viewed it? There was a web page? WW
Re: A "lesson" in flash with the *ist D...(now a bit OT)
Have I missed a post somewhere? does all this mean that the page still isn't working? Has anyone actually viewed it? thanks! tan. :-) - Original Message - From: "Steve Jolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 7:31 AM Subject: Re: A "lesson" in flash with the *ist D...(now a bit OT) > The *packets* may still be able to get through, but that doesn't mean > that the *emails* can. SMTP is not IP. :-) > > S > > Joseph Tainter wrote: > > Mark wrote: > > > > "Well it seems that there's a dead router somewhere between your ISP's > > server and my web server. A traceroute would indicate approximately > > where that's happening. I'd be interested, anyway..." > > > > Well that would be very curious. The ancestor of the internet was > > developed to allow communication even when some communication nodes and > > routes are wiped out by nuclear blasts. The thing is designed to find > > other routes. > > > > Joe > > >
Re: A "lesson" in flash with the *ist D...(now a bit OT)
The *packets* may still be able to get through, but that doesn't mean that the *emails* can. SMTP is not IP. :-) S Joseph Tainter wrote: Mark wrote: "Well it seems that there's a dead router somewhere between your ISP's server and my web server. A traceroute would indicate approximately where that's happening. I'd be interested, anyway..." Well that would be very curious. The ancestor of the internet was developed to allow communication even when some communication nodes and routes are wiped out by nuclear blasts. The thing is designed to find other routes. Joe
Re: A "lesson" in flash with the *ist D...(now a bit OT)
And it does Joe, It takes just a bit longer but the message is getting through. Cory - Original Message - From: "Joseph Tainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Well that would be very curious. The ancestor of the internet was > developed to allow communication even when some communication nodes and > routes are wiped out by nuclear blasts. The thing is designed to find > other routes. > > Joe > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.659 / Virus Database: 423 - Release Date: 4/15/2004
Re: A "lesson" in flash with the *ist D...(now a bit OT)
Mark wrote: "Well it seems that there's a dead router somewhere between your ISP's server and my web server. A traceroute would indicate approximately where that's happening. I'd be interested, anyway..." Well that would be very curious. The ancestor of the internet was developed to allow communication even when some communication nodes and routes are wiped out by nuclear blasts. The thing is designed to find other routes. Joe
