RE: DL TTL flash madness
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
Re: DL TTL flash madness
More or less. It's just way faster. I don't think one can call that lag. Maybe for some time critical shots but really, you don't feel any lag. On 4/4/06, Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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
Re: DL TTL flash madness
To me, it looks more like one slightly longer flash, rather than a pre burst and main flash as two separate bursts. However, some people are prone to blinking and it is quite easy for them to get the eyelids starting to close while the exposure is being made. I get way more partially closed eyes with P-TTL than I do with TTL when shooting weddings and portraits. It seems to be only those who are prone to blinking in flash photos anyway. -- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, April 4, 2006, 7:03:47 AM, you wrote: JB I would have thought that it's something like the red eye reduction pre JB flash, which I find very annoying and time consuming (the shot is taken JB quite a bit after I have pressed the button). I never use it for the same JB reason - and it gives unnatural looking (small) pupils. JB Regards JB Jens Bladt JB http://www.jensbladt.dk JB -Oprindelig meddelelse- JB Fra: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] JB Sendt: 3. april 2006 22:38 JB Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net JB Emne: Re: DL TTL flash madness JB It does take time, but maybe 10-15ms. It's imperceptible. JB -Adam JB 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
Re: DL TTL flash madness
Red Eye Reduction purposely slows things down to give people's eyes time to react, pre-flash for metering needs to occur as quickly as possible to prevent movement from changing the needed exposure. Same technology, applied in opposite manners. -Adam Jens Bladt wrote: 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
Re: DL TTL flash madness
To me, it looks more like one slightly longer flash, rather than a pre burst and main flash as two separate bursts. However, some people are prone to blinking and it is quite easy for them to get the eyelids starting to close while the exposure is being made. I get way more partially closed eyes with P-TTL than I do with TTL when shooting weddings and portraits. It seems to be only those who are prone to blinking in flash photos anyway. -- Best regards, Bruce Yes I second that. Difficult to get open eyes. Maybe putting off 'A' setting. Then you get plain TTL but only with D,DS,DS2 of course. -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
RE: DL TTL flash madness
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
RE: DL TTL flash madness
I want a flsh photograph to look something like this. It's hardlyu notiveable, that a flash was used: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/123353168/ Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 4. april 2006 16:04 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: RE: DL TTL flash madness 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
Re: DL TTL flash madness
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
Re: DL TTL flash madness
No problem and by the way, if control is what you want, computer controlled flash and manual flash are still there AFAIK. For me PTTL is important because I just can't how to do these things myself (like good fill-in, calculate power and so on) so I need (and i'm very happy) that an automatic system can do this for me. But if I co do it myself, why complain about something you won't use? Just don't use it, that's all. And no I don't think Pentax will not support plain TTL with such a body as the D2. But well, Pentax knows how to shoot itself in the feet so, why not? -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: DL TTL flash madness
On Apr 4, 2006, at 12:49 PM, Jens Bladt wrote: I want a flsh photograph to look something like this. It's hardlyu notiveable, that a flash was used: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/123353168/ Hmm. Well, to my eye, it's apparent that a flash with bounce attachment was used as the light is falling off rapidly with distance and the direction of the light is broadly diffused downwards, as if coming off the ceiling over the photographer's head. There's nothing to indicate that this photo shows anything different from what my Sunpak 383 would do. Godfrey
RE: DL TTL flash madness
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. Regards Jens Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 31. marts 2006 19:16 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: DL TTL flash madness On Mar 31, 2006, at 7:58 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote: ... I think of it as a crippled flash interface. ... I understand your disappointment; it is one of the reasons I prefer the DS body. However, for the newcomer to SLR cameras who is going to buy new flash equipment along with body and lens, I imagine it isn't even a consideration. Crippled is kind of a strong word ... If you bought a DL and the appropriate AF360FGZ (or Sigma EF 500 DG Super) flash unit, the system is anything but crippled. For my own use, although I prefer to have the potential capability in the DS body, I don't own any dedicated flash unit. I use a generic, inexpensive Sunpak 383 and a couple of Paterson ELite flash panels. The Sunpak has its own exposure metering and does a great job with flash metering, beyond that I use a flash meter to measure things and set the ISO/aperture/exposure time accordingly. A different way of working with flash, yes. One of these days I'll get a dedicated flash unit too, I imagine. I just haven't seen the need as yet. Godfrey -- 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
Re: DL TTL flash madness
Expect it not to. Pre-flash based TTL and Auto-Thyristor flash are both more reliable with Digital than plain TTL. It's remarkable that TTL ever worked with the *ist's (the only other recent DSLR to support TTL flash was the Fuji S2 Pro, all others use a pre-flash based system like E-TTL, iTTL, D-TTL or whatever KM called theirs). In other words, TTL is dead. -Adam 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. Regards Jens Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 31. marts 2006 19:16 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: DL TTL flash madness On Mar 31, 2006, at 7:58 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote: ... I think of it as a crippled flash interface. ... I understand your disappointment; it is one of the reasons I prefer the DS body. However, for the newcomer to SLR cameras who is going to buy new flash equipment along with body and lens, I imagine it isn't even a consideration. Crippled is kind of a strong word ... If you bought a DL and the appropriate AF360FGZ (or Sigma EF 500 DG Super) flash unit, the system is anything but crippled. For my own use, although I prefer to have the potential capability in the DS body, I don't own any dedicated flash unit. I use a generic, inexpensive Sunpak 383 and a couple of Paterson ELite flash panels. The Sunpak has its own exposure metering and does a great job with flash metering, beyond that I use a flash meter to measure things and set the ISO/aperture/exposure time accordingly. A different way of working with flash, yes. One of these days I'll get a dedicated flash unit too, I imagine. I just haven't seen the need as yet. Godfrey -- 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
Re: DL TTL flash madness
By the way, I saw Metz did release a new version of their 45 flashes with E-TTL (and others) compatibility. Interesting I'd say ... On 4/3/06, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Expect it not to. Pre-flash based TTL and Auto-Thyristor flash are both more reliable with Digital than plain TTL. It's remarkable that TTL ever worked with the *ist's (the only other recent DSLR to support TTL flash was the Fuji S2 Pro, all others use a pre-flash based system like E-TTL, iTTL, D-TTL or whatever KM called theirs). In other words, TTL is dead. -Adam 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. Regards Jens Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 31. marts 2006 19:16 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: DL TTL flash madness On Mar 31, 2006, at 7:58 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote: ... I think of it as a crippled flash interface. ... I understand your disappointment; it is one of the reasons I prefer the DS body. However, for the newcomer to SLR cameras who is going to buy new flash equipment along with body and lens, I imagine it isn't even a consideration. Crippled is kind of a strong word ... If you bought a DL and the appropriate AF360FGZ (or Sigma EF 500 DG Super) flash unit, the system is anything but crippled. For my own use, although I prefer to have the potential capability in the DS body, I don't own any dedicated flash unit. I use a generic, inexpensive Sunpak 383 and a couple of Paterson ELite flash panels. The Sunpak has its own exposure metering and does a great job with flash metering, beyond that I use a flash meter to measure things and set the ISO/aperture/exposure time accordingly. A different way of working with flash, yes. One of these days I'll get a dedicated flash unit too, I imagine. I just haven't seen the need as yet. Godfrey -- 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 -- -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
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
Re: DL TTL flash madness
Jens Bladt wrote on 03.04.06 8:22: 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. Sell all these oldies and buy one solid, modern, P-TTL, HSS and wireless capable flash like Pentax AF540FGZ or Sigma 500 DG Super... -- Balance is the ultimate good... Best Regards Sylwek
Re: DL TTL flash madness
On Apr 3, 2006, at 6:59 AM, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: 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. Sell all these oldies and buy one solid, modern, P-TTL, HSS and wireless capable flash like Pentax AF540FGZ or Sigma 500 DG Super... I'll probably continue using the Sunpak 383 ... Godfrey
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
Re: DL TTL flash madness
Jens Bladt wrote: 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 Because TTL flash is a dead end on digital. There's a good reason every other manufacturer abandoned it, and I expect Pentax will follow. It's unfortunate that they were late to the game with P-TTL, but at least they aren't in the situation that Nikon was with D-TTL, which quickly got abandoned, leaving all of the Nikon shooters with an option of buying either the top-end Nikon bodies (D2x, D2Hs) or new flashes, as the low and midrange bodies all abandoned it in favour of iTTL. Note the only DSLR on the market today which supports plain TTL is the DS2. -Adam
Re: DL TTL flash madness
-- Original message -- From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note the only DSLR on the market today which supports plain TTL is the DS2. And the D. Probably the DS as well, although I have no personal experience with that camera. However, both of my Ds work fine in TTL mode with the AF400T, and the manual indicates that TTL is supported. Paul
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
RE: DL TTL flash madness
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
Re: DL TTL flash madness
Jens Bladt wrote: What is E-TTL? I don't know. E-TTL is Canon's primary flash system, introduced in 1998 and recently updated to E-TTL 2 with the introduction of the 20d some 18 months ago or so. It's a pre-flash based system, but not intrusive (unlike the horrible A-TTL system Canon used through the 1990's) 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. The preflash is indistinguishable from the main flash with these systems. We're talking a few extra milliseconds for the preflash. We're not talking red-eye reduction and the consequent 1/2 second+ delays inherent to that. 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! Pre-flash systems meter more accurately with bounce flash than TTL does, especially with a balanced fill system. 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 Then you want balanced fill flash done with a preflash based system. It tends to be less intrusive and harsh than plain TTL as it automatically will handle balancing ambient and flash exposures. I'm not sure if P-TTL offers this, and if it does, it likely requires a hotshow flash, not the pop-up. -Adam 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
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
RE: DL TTL flash madness
You can bounce P-TTL flash just as you would any other flash. The preflash is barely noticed. It's insignificant. Paul -- 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
Re: DL TTL flash madness
On Apr 3, 2006, at 13:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can bounce P-TTL flash just as you would any other flash. The preflash is barely noticed. It's insignificant. Except that it makes my daughter blink every time, so almost every flash photo I take of her makes it look like she's half drunk. And she barely drinks at all! (She's 19 - so I'm not naive enough to believe that she *never* drinks even though legal drinking age is 21...) -Charles -- Charles Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org
RE: DL TTL flash madness
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
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
Re: DL TTL flash madness
The only way that I know that the E-TTL system on the Canon 10D is using a pre-flash is that I can see the flash in the viewfinder... same for the Pentax. It is, evidently, within the neuro-musculature perception of some folks to react to the pre-flash with an eye blink, but it is imperceptible to most conscious observation. Godfrey On Apr 3, 2006, at 1:38 PM, Adam Maas wrote: 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
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
Re: DL TTL flash madness
In brief: The AF500FTZ gives erratic results on the D, sometimes good and mostly overexposed. The Sigma EF500 DG works well on the D. The AF500FTZ works well on the DS. The AF500FTZ doesn't work at all with the DL (always full power). Dario - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 8:41 PM Subject: Re: DL TTL flash madness Dario Bonazza wrote: s I own the D (which also doesn't work as well as the DS with TTL). In what way doesn't the D work well with TTL? Please don't tell my two D cameras, because they both work fine with either TTL (AF 400T) or TTL-P (Sigma 500 Super). Paul
Re: DL TTL flash madness
In that kind of things but not photo related: In Belgium we have a couple stores named Exell which are computer stores. Well, most computer sciences student like to go to these when thay are bored so they can play with sales people. It's really really much fun. Of course when you hear what they advise to other buyers, then it's no fun anymore. I forgot to add that usually theses stores are about 10-15% higher priced than other little stores and about 30% higher than internet prices. -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: DL TTL flash madness
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Fri, 31 Mar 2006, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: It may seem cold to say so, but he should probably have done more thorough research if that was his intent. The DL is the bottom of the line DSLR body ... Why should one assume that all things from the past are compatible with the least expensive body, intended for newcomers to the brand? Features are dropped to allow lower pricing on such equipment. Your point about research is very valid. However, the -DL is the first Pentax since the Super-A not to feature TTL flash, thus the surprise. Also, Pentax at the time did not have but the puny 360 available, and still doesn't have something better. And I'm not even sure the 360 works well on the D. I didn't check that combo enough to be sure, but I have that feeling from a few shots I took. At the end of the day, I'm afraid that the only TTL flash working well on the D to be the Sigma EF500 DG. I do hope the next AF540FGZ will be capable to do the same, but I haven't had the chance to check it. Sure I will no longer buy a Pentax product without advance careful research and test on compatibility. Too high a risk to be fooled. Apologies for the conjecture, but I doubt salespersons have realised the chop unless someone has returned a body to them for that reason. I know I would. That's exactly what happened. Dario
Re: DL TTL flash madness
Seems consistent with what was already reported. My Metz 40MZ2 is behaving as a 500ftz IMO. Sometimes OK but usually too much. As I do NOT have any recent SCA adapter I can't even dial any correction :( On 4/1/06, Dario Bonazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In brief: The AF500FTZ gives erratic results on the D, sometimes good and mostly overexposed. The Sigma EF500 DG works well on the D. The AF500FTZ works well on the DS. The AF500FTZ doesn't work at all with the DL (always full power). Dario - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 8:41 PM Subject: Re: DL TTL flash madness Dario Bonazza wrote: s I own the D (which also doesn't work as well as the DS with TTL). In what way doesn't the D work well with TTL? Please don't tell my two D cameras, because they both work fine with either TTL (AF 400T) or TTL-P (Sigma 500 Super). Paul -- -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: DL TTL flash madness
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006, Dario Bonazza wrote: At the end of the day, I'm afraid that the only TTL flash working well on the D to be the Sigma EF500 DG. And that's P-TTL, right? Or are you saying that it has a TTL mode and it works well on the -D? Kostas
Re: DL TTL flash madness
Yes, P-TTL. My point is that, before exploring the nuances of TTL vs.P-TTL, one needs a reliable system. The D only gets that with the Sigma DG (P-TTL). The DS gets that with any TTL/P-TTL flash I've tried so far, old new. That's a big improvement IMO, too quickly thrown away with the DL. Dario - Original Message - From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 12:34 PM Subject: Re: DL TTL flash madness On Sat, 1 Apr 2006, Dario Bonazza wrote: At the end of the day, I'm afraid that the only TTL flash working well on the D to be the Sigma EF500 DG. And that's P-TTL, right? Or are you saying that it has a TTL mode and it works well on the -D? Kostas
Re: DL TTL flash madness
Well, DL was not supposed to replace the DS. DL is just a lower spec DS. Good or bad i don't know but it is logical something is missing on the DL compared to the DS and DL being a more coming from bridge type of camera I guess the middle user buying a DL shouldn't be bothered by the lack of plain TTL. Now, for us looking for a cheap body, it is PITA I confess. On 4/1/06, Dario Bonazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, P-TTL. My point is that, before exploring the nuances of TTL vs.P-TTL, one needs a reliable system. The D only gets that with the Sigma DG (P-TTL). The DS gets that with any TTL/P-TTL flash I've tried so far, old new. That's a big improvement IMO, too quickly thrown away with the DL. Dario - Original Message - From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 12:34 PM Subject: Re: DL TTL flash madness On Sat, 1 Apr 2006, Dario Bonazza wrote: At the end of the day, I'm afraid that the only TTL flash working well on the D to be the Sigma EF500 DG. And that's P-TTL, right? Or are you saying that it has a TTL mode and it works well on the -D? Kostas -- -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: DL TTL flash madness
The AF400T works great on the D. i think the reason Dario and others have experienced so many failures and erratic behavior patterns with certain flashes on the D is that the connectors on the D hotshoe sometimes have trouble making contact. That would explain the erratic results with some flash units. Mounting is critical. The AF 400T doesn't mount on the shoe of course. It uses a cable that attaches to the shoe. I think the weight of some flashes on the shoe causes them to rock back and forth a bit, interrupting contact. Even the Sigma has to be mounted carefully, and the wheel has to be tightened aggressively. Paul On Apr 1, 2006, at 5:34 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Sat, 1 Apr 2006, Dario Bonazza wrote: At the end of the day, I'm afraid that the only TTL flash working well on the D to be the Sigma EF500 DG. And that's P-TTL, right? Or are you saying that it has a TTL mode and it works well on the -D? Kostas
Re: DL TTL flash madness
Thibouille wrote: Well, DL was not supposed to replace the DS. DL is just a lower spec DS. Good or bad i don't know but it is logical something is missing on the DL compared to the DS and DL being a more coming from bridge type of camera I guess the middle user buying a DL shouldn't be bothered by the lack of plain TTL. Unfortunately, in practice the DL replaced the Ds, which in turn replaced the D. I know that's not supposed to be the case, but it was what happened in many countries, where Pentax importers only distributed a body at a time. In Italy, D distribution ended December 2004 (clearance sale of last 12 cameras happened in January 2005), while DS and DL overlapped for 2-3 months in late 2005. So, there's usually no real choice for anybody wanting to buy a Pentax DSLR over here: one model at a time, always stepping down as models are replaced :-( The situation might change this April, when the Samsung GX-1S (DS2) is supposed to be on sale. BTW, have you noticed that Samsung DSLR manuals are available for download at www.samsungcamera.com ? Dario
Re: DL TTL flash madness
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re: DL TTL flash madness The AF400T works great on the D. i think the reason Dario and others have experienced so many failures and erratic behavior patterns with certain flashes on the D is that the connectors on the D hotshoe sometimes have trouble making contact. That would explain the erratic results with some flash units. Mounting is critical. The AF 400T doesn't mount on the shoe of course. It uses a cable that attaches to the shoe. I think the weight of some flashes on the shoe causes them to rock back and forth a bit, interrupting contact. Even the Sigma has to be mounted carefully, and the wheel has to be tightened aggressively. This doesn't explain the poor TTL performance I have gotten with my Metz 60CT/2. It also uses a small box attached to the hot shoe, and the contacts were cleaned just prior to my last flash fiasco. William Robb
Re: DL TTL flash madness
Bill and others, I don't use flash, so I cannot recommend this from personal experience, however, a few people I know have suggested a product called Digital Flash Powder as something that can help the erratic performance of some flash units used on DSLR cameras. A Google search should turn up some hits and some information on the product, which, as I recall, is made by a small company in Montana. Shel [Original Message] From: William Robb This doesn't explain the poor TTL performance I have gotten with my Metz 60CT/2. It also uses a small box attached to the hot shoe, and the contacts were cleaned just prior to my last flash fiasco.
Re: DL TTL flash madness
I doubt the connector is the problem. Install the flash/camera combo on a tripod, select a static subject, and expose a series of 4 shots with 200, 400, 800 and 1600 ISO. I don't see why the exposures shouldn't be identical. In real live with my D creates a series of underexposed, correctly exposed, over exposed and horribly overexposed depending on ISO setting. If I forget to use ISO 400 during flash use I'm in trouble. Toine On 4/1/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The AF400T works great on the D. i think the reason Dario and others have experienced so many failures and erratic behavior patterns with certain flashes on the D is that the connectors on the D hotshoe sometimes have trouble making contact. That would explain the erratic results with some flash units. Mounting is critical. The AF 400T doesn't mount on the shoe of course. It uses a cable that attaches to the shoe. I think the weight of some flashes on the shoe causes them to rock back and forth a bit, interrupting contact. Even the Sigma has to be mounted carefully, and the wheel has to be tightened aggressively. Paul On Apr 1, 2006, at 5:34 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Sat, 1 Apr 2006, Dario Bonazza wrote: At the end of the day, I'm afraid that the only TTL flash working well on the D to be the Sigma EF500 DG. And that's P-TTL, right? Or are you saying that it has a TTL mode and it works well on the -D? Kostas
Re: DL TTL flash madness
Made by a company known as Muskets for Freedom. Jack --- Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill and others, I don't use flash, so I cannot recommend this from personal experience, however, a few people I know have suggested a product called Digital Flash Powder as something that can help the erratic performance of some flash units used on DSLR cameras. A Google search should turn up some hits and some information on the product, which, as I recall, is made by a small company in Montana. Shel [Original Message] From: William Robb This doesn't explain the poor TTL performance I have gotten with my Metz 60CT/2. It also uses a small box attached to the hot shoe, and the contacts were cleaned just prior to my last flash fiasco. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: DL TTL flash madness
a few people I know have suggested a product called Digital Flash Powder as something that can help the erratic performance of some flash units used on DSLR cameras. Shel - thanks for the info While I haven't tried it yet, I've heard it's good bang for the buck. I hear it's really good especially the first application. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: DL TTL flash madness Bill and others, I don't use flash, so I cannot recommend this from personal experience, however, a few people I know have suggested a product called Digital Flash Powder as something that can help the erratic performance of some flash units used on DSLR cameras. A Google search should turn up some hits and some information on the product, which, as I recall, is made by a small company in Montana. Shel [Original Message] From: William Robb This doesn't explain the poor TTL performance I have gotten with my Metz 60CT/2. It also uses a small box attached to the hot shoe, and the contacts were cleaned just prior to my last flash fiasco.
Re: DL TTL flash madness
Hello Paul, When using the 400T, do you dial in any negative compensation? Also what ISO's have you tried it with. I have shot many weddings with mine, but I am usually at ISO 400 and compensation set to about -2. I haven't really fiddled with the connector at all and am wondering if perhaps I should. Any thoughts would be appreciated. -- Bruce Saturday, April 1, 2006, 5:47:07 AM, you wrote: PS The AF400T works great on the D. i think the reason Dario and others PS have experienced so many failures and erratic behavior patterns with PS certain flashes on the D is that the connectors on the D hotshoe PS sometimes have trouble making contact. That would explain the erratic PS results with some flash units. Mounting is critical. The AF 400T PS doesn't mount on the shoe of course. It uses a cable that attaches to PS the shoe. I think the weight of some flashes on the shoe causes them to PS rock back and forth a bit, interrupting contact. Even the Sigma has to PS be mounted carefully, and the wheel has to be tightened aggressively. PS Paul PS On Apr 1, 2006, at 5:34 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Sat, 1 Apr 2006, Dario Bonazza wrote: At the end of the day, I'm afraid that the only TTL flash working well on the D to be the Sigma EF500 DG. And that's P-TTL, right? Or are you saying that it has a TTL mode and it works well on the -D? Kostas
Re: DL TTL flash madness
Jack Davis wrote: Made by a company known as Muskets for Freedom. Jack Which bayonet mount does it use? --- Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill and others, I don't use flash, so I cannot recommend this from personal experience, however, a few people I know have suggested a product called Digital Flash Powder as something that can help the erratic performance of some flash units used on DSLR cameras. A Google search should turn up some hits and some information on the product, which, as I recall, is made by a small company in Montana. Shel [Original Message] From: William Robb This doesn't explain the poor TTL performance I have gotten with my Metz 60CT/2. It also uses a small box attached to the hot shoe, and the contacts were cleaned just prior to my last flash fiasco. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: DL TTL flash madness
mike wilson wrote: Jack Davis wrote: --- Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't use flash, so I cannot recommend this from personal experience, however, a few people I know have suggested a product called Digital Flash Powder Made by a company known as Muskets for Freedom. Jack Which bayonet mount does it use? Don't bother: It causes lots of barrel distortion. (I had to rifle through my notes to find this information.)
Re: DL TTL flash madness
One that didn't sell well. IOW, turned out to be a 'flash in the pan'. Sorry! J --- mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jack Davis wrote: Made by a company known as Muskets for Freedom. Jack Which bayonet mount does it use? --- Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill and others, I don't use flash, so I cannot recommend this from personal experience, however, a few people I know have suggested a product called Digital Flash Powder as something that can help the erratic performance of some flash units used on DSLR cameras. A Google search should turn up some hits and some information on the product, which, as I recall, is made by a small company in Montana. Shel [Original Message] From: William Robb This doesn't explain the poor TTL performance I have gotten with my Metz 60CT/2. It also uses a small box attached to the hot shoe, and the contacts were cleaned just prior to my last flash fiasco. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: DL TTL flash madness
It sounds almost like a simple software oversight involving 3rd grade mathematics. Tom C. From: Toine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: DL TTL flash madness Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 17:24:51 +0200 I doubt the connector is the problem. Install the flash/camera combo on a tripod, select a static subject, and expose a series of 4 shots with 200, 400, 800 and 1600 ISO. I don't see why the exposures shouldn't be identical. In real live with my D creates a series of underexposed, correctly exposed, over exposed and horribly overexposed depending on ISO setting. If I forget to use ISO 400 during flash use I'm in trouble. Toine On 4/1/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The AF400T works great on the D. i think the reason Dario and others have experienced so many failures and erratic behavior patterns with certain flashes on the D is that the connectors on the D hotshoe sometimes have trouble making contact. That would explain the erratic results with some flash units. Mounting is critical. The AF 400T doesn't mount on the shoe of course. It uses a cable that attaches to the shoe. I think the weight of some flashes on the shoe causes them to rock back and forth a bit, interrupting contact. Even the Sigma has to be mounted carefully, and the wheel has to be tightened aggressively. Paul On Apr 1, 2006, at 5:34 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Sat, 1 Apr 2006, Dario Bonazza wrote: At the end of the day, I'm afraid that the only TTL flash working well on the D to be the Sigma EF500 DG. And that's P-TTL, right? Or are you saying that it has a TTL mode and it works well on the -D? Kostas
Re: DL TTL flash madness
Mark Roberts wrote: mike wilson wrote: Jack Davis wrote: --- Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't use flash, so I cannot recommend this from personal experience, however, a few people I know have suggested a product called Digital Flash Powder Made by a company known as Muskets for Freedom. Jack Which bayonet mount does it use? Don't bother: It causes lots of barrel distortion. (I had to rifle through my notes to find this information.) Sorry but I think you're spouting a lot of balls.
Re: DL TTL flash madness
Hi Bruce, I it at 200 and 400 without any compensation. But I always use an omni reflector or soft box attachment. Paul On Apr 1, 2006, at 12:02 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: Hello Paul, When using the 400T, do you dial in any negative compensation? Also what ISO's have you tried it with. I have shot many weddings with mine, but I am usually at ISO 400 and compensation set to about -2. I haven't really fiddled with the connector at all and am wondering if perhaps I should. Any thoughts would be appreciated. -- Bruce Saturday, April 1, 2006, 5:47:07 AM, you wrote: PS The AF400T works great on the D. i think the reason Dario and others PS have experienced so many failures and erratic behavior patterns with PS certain flashes on the D is that the connectors on the D hotshoe PS sometimes have trouble making contact. That would explain the erratic PS results with some flash units. Mounting is critical. The AF 400T PS doesn't mount on the shoe of course. It uses a cable that attaches to PS the shoe. I think the weight of some flashes on the shoe causes them to PS rock back and forth a bit, interrupting contact. Even the Sigma has to PS be mounted carefully, and the wheel has to be tightened aggressively. PS Paul PS On Apr 1, 2006, at 5:34 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Sat, 1 Apr 2006, Dario Bonazza wrote: At the end of the day, I'm afraid that the only TTL flash working well on the D to be the Sigma EF500 DG. And that's P-TTL, right? Or are you saying that it has a TTL mode and it works well on the -D? Kostas
Re: DL TTL flash madness
The DL was aimed at a market segment totally dominated by price. I'd bet that well over 90% of DL purchasers will never own any flash other than the pop-up flash on the camera. On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 01:07:54PM +0200, Dario Bonazza wrote: Yes, P-TTL. My point is that, before exploring the nuances of TTL vs.P-TTL, one needs a reliable system. The D only gets that with the Sigma DG (P-TTL). The DS gets that with any TTL/P-TTL flash I've tried so far, old new. That's a big improvement IMO, too quickly thrown away with the DL. Dario - Original Message - From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 12:34 PM Subject: Re: DL TTL flash madness On Sat, 1 Apr 2006, Dario Bonazza wrote: At the end of the day, I'm afraid that the only TTL flash working well on the D to be the Sigma EF500 DG. And that's P-TTL, right? Or are you saying that it has a TTL mode and it works well on the -D? Kostas
Re: DL TTL flash madness
I think you may be onto something here. I don't do a lot of flash photography, and when I am using flash it's still my old AF500FTZ. But I always used to wonder about these complaints; I've never considered the combination to be unreliable. But now, on reading your post, I'm reminded that I did once run into a problem with the flash behaving somewhat erratically. All I did then, though, was to take the flash off, clean the contacts, and put it back on the camera (making sure it was clamped on tightly). That was it - just one occasion. But since then I am very careful to make sure the flash is well seated. On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 08:47:07AM -0500, Paul Stenquist wrote: The AF400T works great on the D. i think the reason Dario and others have experienced so many failures and erratic behavior patterns with certain flashes on the D is that the connectors on the D hotshoe sometimes have trouble making contact. That would explain the erratic results with some flash units. Mounting is critical. The AF 400T doesn't mount on the shoe of course. It uses a cable that attaches to the shoe. I think the weight of some flashes on the shoe causes them to rock back and forth a bit, interrupting contact. Even the Sigma has to be mounted carefully, and the wheel has to be tightened aggressively. Paul On Apr 1, 2006, at 5:34 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Sat, 1 Apr 2006, Dario Bonazza wrote: At the end of the day, I'm afraid that the only TTL flash working well on the D to be the Sigma EF500 DG. And that's P-TTL, right? Or are you saying that it has a TTL mode and it works well on the -D? Kostas
Re: DL TTL flash madness
I thought this was mentioned here on this list previously, and I know I saw it mentioned on the DPReview.com forum. One of the primary differences between the DL and DS bodies is that they removed all capability to do straight TTL flash metering with the DL body, where the DS body performs TTL metering with older Pentax-dedicated external flash units. The DL is a P-TTL only body: with older flash units it lacks any capability of controlling their flash metering. The external flash compatibility table (p153) in the DL manual suggests this. Compared to the DS manual (also p153), all they refer to is the P-TTL capable AF360FGZ where they list compatibility with the DS for older flash unit models. Godfrey On Mar 31, 2006, at 6:58 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote: ARG I've just discovered that the DL doesn't manage TTL flash with flash units older than the AF360FGZ. All pictures taken with AF500FTZ, AF400FTZ, and the like, are badly washed out (apparently, the flash unit always emits full power). Am I the only one previously unaware of that? Dario
Re: DL TTL flash madness
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I thought this was mentioned here on this list previously, and I know I saw it mentioned on the DPReview.com forum. Thanks Godfrey. Probably it was mentioned here, but I missed it (among the may messages I cannot read for not having enough time to spare). One of the primary differences between the DL and DS bodies is that they removed all capability to do straight TTL flash metering with the DL body, where the DS body performs TTL metering with older Pentax-dedicated external flash units. The DL is a P-TTL only body: with older flash units it lacks any capability of controlling their flash metering. I think of it as a crippled flash interface. The external flash compatibility table (p153) in the DL manual suggests this. Compared to the DS manual (also p153), all they refer to is the P-TTL capable AF360FGZ where they list compatibility with the DS for older flash unit models. I saw that. A warning should be in order though. Dario
Re: DL TTL flash madness
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006, Dario Bonazza wrote: I think of it as a crippled flash interface. I share your disappointment. Kostas
Re: DL TTL flash madness
On Mar 31, 2006, at 7:58 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote: ... I think of it as a crippled flash interface. ... I understand your disappointment; it is one of the reasons I prefer the DS body. However, for the newcomer to SLR cameras who is going to buy new flash equipment along with body and lens, I imagine it isn't even a consideration. Crippled is kind of a strong word ... If you bought a DL and the appropriate AF360FGZ (or Sigma EF 500 DG Super) flash unit, the system is anything but crippled. For my own use, although I prefer to have the potential capability in the DS body, I don't own any dedicated flash unit. I use a generic, inexpensive Sunpak 383 and a couple of Paterson ELite flash panels. The Sunpak has its own exposure metering and does a great job with flash metering, beyond that I use a flash meter to measure things and set the ISO/aperture/exposure time accordingly. A different way of working with flash, yes. One of these days I'll get a dedicated flash unit too, I imagine. I just haven't seen the need as yet. Godfrey
Re: DL TTL flash madness
On 3/31/06, Dario Bonazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think of it as a crippled flash interface. Dario Yeah. Considering it's probably just a $5 circuit. :-) Dave -- All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy. - Spike Milligan
Re: DL TTL flash madness
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Mar 31, 2006, at 7:58 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote: ... I think of it as a crippled flash interface. ... I understand your disappointment; it is one of the reasons I prefer the DS body. However, for the newcomer to SLR cameras who is going to buy new flash equipment along with body and lens, I imagine it isn't even a consideration. Crippled is kind of a strong word ... If you bought a DL and the appropriate AF360FGZ (or Sigma EF 500 DG Super) flash unit, the system is anything but crippled. Just like a DA/FA lens on a crippled KAF mount. I think of a crippled mechanism when a well-thought evolution has kept the best possible compatibility among old and new stuff, and then someone decides it's time to get rid of some parts, messing up compatibility. Of course, there's no crippling betweeen two devices designed to work together. There's cripplig when two devices that could work well together are forced not to (by some kind of surgery). For my own use, although I prefer to have the potential capability in the DS body, I don't own any dedicated flash unit. I use a generic, inexpensive Sunpak 383 and a couple of Paterson ELite flash panels. The Sunpak has its own exposure metering and does a great job with flash metering, beyond that I use a flash meter to measure things and set the ISO/aperture/exposure time accordingly. A different way of working with flash, yes. One of these days I'll get a dedicated flash unit too, I imagine. I just haven't seen the need as yet. That's fine. The problem is for those who bought the DL thinking to use their AF500FTZ and then discover they cannot. It's not me, as I own the D (which also doesn't work as well as the DS with TTL). However, a folk I know bought the DL 4 days ago and today he sent it back to the seller because of this unexpected flash compatibility issue. He wasn't completyely sure he wanted to stay with Pentax for a DSLR. Then he had decided to buy the DL (the only Pentax DSLR available in Italy). Today he has changed his mind. Gone. Dario
Re: DL TTL flash madness
On Mar 31, 2006, at 9:47 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote: That's fine. The problem is for those who bought the DL thinking to use their AF500FTZ and then discover they cannot. It's not me, as I own the D (which also doesn't work as well as the DS with TTL). However, a folk I know bought the DL 4 days ago and today he sent it back to the seller because of this unexpected flash compatibility issue. He wasn't completyely sure he wanted to stay with Pentax for a DSLR. Then he had decided to buy the DL (the only Pentax DSLR available in Italy). Today he has changed his mind. Gone. It may seem cold to say so, but he should probably have done more thorough research if that was his intent. The DL is the bottom of the line DSLR body ... Why should one assume that all things from the past are compatible with the least expensive body, intended for newcomers to the brand? Features are dropped to allow lower pricing on such equipment. Someone said they thought it would cost $0.50 per body to support the TTL metering. That may not seem like much to you, but I've seen weeks of debate in an engineering/marketing meeting to get $0.01 more cost out of a component intended for production. It is particularly the case that this kind of trade-off goes on for the low-end products because profit margins on low-end products are very very low. I figure Pentax business is their concern. I don't worry about whether they lose or gain customers. Godfrey
Re: DL TTL flash madness
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Someone said they thought it would cost $0.50 per body to support the TTL metering. That may not seem like much to you, but I've seen weeks of debate in an engineering/marketing meeting to get $0.01 more cost out of a component intended for production. It is particularly the case that this kind of trade-off goes on for the low-end products because profit margins on low-end products are very very low. But it's particularly this kind of stupidity that lowers profit margins. Likely thousands or tens of thousands of dollars in productive time wasted to save pennies that will never be recouped. Tom C.
Re: DL TTL flash madness
Dario Bonazza wrote: s I own the D (which also doesn't work as well as the DS with TTL). In what way doesn't the D work well with TTL? Please don't tell my two D cameras, because they both work fine with either TTL (AF 400T) or TTL-P (Sigma 500 Super). Paul
Re: DL TTL flash madness
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: It may seem cold to say so, but he should probably have done more thorough research if that was his intent. The DL is the bottom of the line DSLR body ... Why should one assume that all things from the past are compatible with the least expensive body, intended for newcomers to the brand? Features are dropped to allow lower pricing on such equipment. Your point about research is very valid. However, the -DL is the first Pentax since the Super-A not to feature TTL flash, thus the surprise. Also, Pentax at the time did not have but the puny 360 available, and still doesn't have something better. Apologies for the conjecture, but I doubt salespersons have realised the chop unless someone has returned a body to them for that reason. I know I would. Kostas
Re: DL TTL flash madness
On Mar 31, 2006, at 10:14 AM, Tom C wrote: From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Someone said they thought it would cost $0.50 per body to support the TTL metering. That may not seem like much to you, but I've seen weeks of debate in an engineering/marketing meeting to get $0.01 more cost out of a component intended for production. It is particularly the case that this kind of trade-off goes on for the low-end products because profit margins on low-end products are very very low. But it's particularly this kind of stupidity that lowers profit margins. Likely thousands or tens of thousands of dollars in productive time wasted to save pennies that will never be recouped. I disagree. $0.01 in production cost on an item that will be manufactured in the tens of thousands runs into thousands of dollars of manufacturing cost, and with retail markup from manufacturing cost being on the order of 5x to 10x cost, it save substantially on product cost to the purchaser. From the other direction, what drives profit margins down on low end products is competition from other vendors, not time spent reducing cost of manufacture. These notions are part and parcel of volume manufacturing economics. The people spending time in the engineering department and at meetings are being paid on fixed salaries most of the time, their reason for being hired in the first place is to do these sorts of things, so it is not tens of thousands of dollars in productive time wasted. They're doing the job they were intended to do, that cost is part of the overall investment in development of any product, not the running costs of manufacture. Godfrey
Re: DL TTL flash madness
Paul, This is weird. I have a Sunpak flash that works beautifully in TTL mode on my Super Program, PZ-1, and PZ-1p, and doesn't work worth poop on the istD--everything is grossly (but variably) overexposed. Rick --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dario Bonazza wrote: s I own the D (which also doesn't work as well as the DS with TTL). In what way doesn't the D work well with TTL? Please don't tell my two D cameras, because they both work fine with either TTL (AF 400T) or TTL-P (Sigma 500 Super). Paul http://www.photo.net/photos/RickW __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: DL TTL flash madness
My D only exposes TTL flash correctly when set at 400 ISO. 200 ISO is app. .7 EV underexposed and 800 ISO .7 EV overexposed. Since I use RAW it's not important only strange behaviour of the D. On 3/31/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dario Bonazza wrote: s I own the D (which also doesn't work as well as the DS with TTL). In what way doesn't the D work well with TTL? Please don't tell my two D cameras, because they both work fine with either TTL (AF 400T) or TTL-P (Sigma 500 Super). Paul
Re: DL TTL flash madness
Sounds like you're getting full manual due to a bad connection. The flash TTL contact probably isn't connecting properly to the hot shoe. I notice that I have to be careful fully insert the hot shoe cord of my Pentax AF400T. Sometimes I even wet it a bit with saliva, which seems to improve the connection. If the connection is bad, everything is overexposed. -- Original message -- From: Rick Womer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Paul, This is weird. I have a Sunpak flash that works beautifully in TTL mode on my Super Program, PZ-1, and PZ-1p, and doesn't work worth poop on the istD--everything is grossly (but variably) overexposed. Rick --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dario Bonazza wrote: s I own the D (which also doesn't work as well as the DS with TTL). In what way doesn't the D work well with TTL? Please don't tell my two D cameras, because they both work fine with either TTL (AF 400T) or TTL-P (Sigma 500 Super). Paul http://www.photo.net/photos/RickW __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: DL TTL flash madness
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: But it's particularly this kind of stupidity that lowers profit margins. Likely thousands or tens of thousands of dollars in productive time wasted to save pennies that will never be recouped. I disagree. $0.01 in production cost on an item that will be manufactured in the tens of thousands runs into thousands of dollars of manufacturing cost, and with retail markup from manufacturing cost being on the order of 5x to 10x cost, it save substantially on product cost to the purchaser. From the other direction, what drives profit margins down on low end products is competition from other vendors, not time spent reducing cost of manufacture. These notions are part and parcel of volume manufacturing economics. The people spending time in the engineering department and at meetings are being paid on fixed salaries most of the time, their reason for being hired in the first place is to do these sorts of things, so it is not tens of thousands of dollars in productive time wasted. They're doing the job they were intended to do, that cost is part of the overall investment in development of any product, not the running costs of manufacture. It's also worth noting that besides some circuitry in the camera they save the cost of the additional metering sensor in the mirror box and, at least as significantly, its calibration during manufacturing. Simplifying manufacturing is being pursued with a vengeance everywhere. We probably should have seen this change coming when the MZ-S was introduced with P-TTL in 2001. I expect the only reason it took so long was that there were so few P-TTL flash options. Now we have the AF360FGZ and AF540FGZ from Pentax and the EF500DG Super and EF500ST from Sigma - and probably others coming soon. One benefit of Samsung selling Pentax cameras now is that the increased volume will make supporting Pentax more attractive to third party manufacturers.
Re: DL TTL flash madness
On Mar 31, 2006, at 10:44 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: Your point about research is very valid. However, the -DL is the first Pentax since the Super-A not to feature TTL flash, thus the surprise. Also, Pentax at the time did not have but the puny 360 available, and still doesn't have something better. Apologies for the conjecture, but I doubt salespersons have realised the chop unless someone has returned a body to them for that reason. I have little faith in most sales personnel these days, sadly enough. Most of them seem to have difficulty understanding even basic differences between models other than price and how many megapixels... The reason why TTL is a less important feature today is that it seems to be accepted that TTL off-the-sensor flash measurement is less successful than TTL off-the-film flash measurement. Why this is so I am not entirely certain although I could venture a guess that it is the specular reflectivity of the sensor surface that makes it difficult to accomplish. P-TTL reads the ambient and flash exposure together, integrates them, and then makes the actual exposure. This has its own plusses and minusses, but it makes sense that one would buy the flash designed to work best with the DL body if you're just entering the DSLR world from a point and shoot digicam. That's the market the DL body is supposed to be for. Users with existing, older equipment should always research such details to determine compatibility. Easily said, often overlooked... and it's not just in camera equipment. I've been caught by such things too. Godfrey
Re: DL TTL flash madness
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006, Mark Roberts wrote: Now we have the AF360FGZ and AF540FGZ from Pentax Is it out? How much? Kostas
Re: DL TTL flash madness
On Mar 31, 2006, at 10:14 AM, Tom C wrote: From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Someone said they thought it would cost $0.50 per body to support the TTL metering. That may not seem like much to you, but I've seen weeks of debate in an engineering/marketing meeting to get $0.01 more cost out of a component intended for production. It is particularly the case that this kind of trade-off goes on for the low-end products because profit margins on low-end products are very very low. But it's particularly this kind of stupidity that lowers profit margins. Likely thousands or tens of thousands of dollars in productive time wasted to save pennies that will never be recouped. I disagree. $0.01 in production cost on an item that will be manufactured in the tens of thousands runs into thousands of dollars of manufacturing cost, and with retail markup from manufacturing cost being on the order of 5x to 10x cost, it save substantially on product cost to the purchaser. From the other direction, what drives profit margins down on low end products is competition from other vendors, not time spent reducing cost of manufacture. My point was long the lines that if $10,000 is wasted to save $.01 on a single unit, it will take a million sales of the unit to make that up. These notions are part and parcel of volume manufacturing economics. The people spending time in the engineering department and at meetings are being paid on fixed salaries most of the time, their reason for being hired in the first place is to do these sorts of things, so it is not tens of thousands of dollars in productive time wasted. They're doing the job they were intended to do, that cost is part of the overall investment in development of any product, not the running costs of manufacture. Godfrey I understand what you're saying, and agree from a certain viewpoint, but that cost is still a cost. It's just that the corporation doesn't recognize it because it's somewhat intangible. As you say, it's viewed as money that's already spent. Come upon hard times, and often the first place corporations look to reduce cost is by reducing the workforce. If that workforce had been more efficient and productive... Tom C.
Re: DL TTL flash madness
On Mar 31, 2006, at 12:09 PM, Tom C wrote: My point was long the lines that if $10,000 is wasted to save $.01 on a single unit, it will take a million sales of the unit to make that up. ... I understand what you're saying, and agree from a certain viewpoint, but that cost is still a cost. It's just that the corporation doesn't recognize it because it's somewhat intangible. As you say, it's viewed as money that's already spent. Come upon hard times, and often the first place corporations look to reduce cost is by reducing the workforce. If that workforce had been more efficient and productive... To consider the numbers as you are stating is overly simplistic. No manufacturing company that survives works that way. Think of it from the point of view of aggregates. You don't invest $10,000 in development to save $.01 per unit alone, presupposing recouping that cost on a million units. You invest $10,000 in multi- targeted cost-reduction development to reduce costs on several dozen parts of the total by a penny here, a nickel there, etc, making the aggregate savings such that it pays for that extra development work in the first 10,000 units you produce. That's well worth the expense if you're going to make 20,000 units, and a profit increase if you're going to make 100,000 units. By the time you reach 1,000,000 units, you've paid for all those engineers' retirement plans. ;-) Godfrey
Re: DL TTL flash madness
No... P30, A3000 and MZ-M do not support TTL. -- -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: DL TTL flash madness
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I have little faith in most sales personnel these days, sadly enough. Most of them seem to have difficulty understanding even basic differences between models other than price and how many megapixels... Good point. If I were to meet a camera salesman in a proper photo store who understood the difference between TTL and P-TTL I would be very impressed. If I met one in a mainstream Ritz/CompUSA/BestBuy/etc store (where the majority of cameras - even DSLR's, I'd wager - are sold) who understood the difference I'd faint.
Re: DL TTL flash madness
I note with both the MZ-S and the *ist-D that the AF330FTZ can sit slightly sideways in the accessory shoe, and this can cause problems with the connections. I now always make sure that it is in straight before locking it on. John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 5:03 AM Subject: Re: DL TTL flash madness Sounds like you're getting full manual due to a bad connection. The flash TTL contact probably isn't connecting properly to the hot shoe. I notice that I have to be careful fully insert the hot shoe cord of my Pentax AF400T. Sometimes I even wet it a bit with saliva, which seems to improve the connection. If the connection is bad, everything is overexposed. -- Original message -- From: Rick Womer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Paul, This is weird. I have a Sunpak flash that works beautifully in TTL mode on my Super Program, PZ-1, and PZ-1p, and doesn't work worth poop on the istD--everything is grossly (but variably) overexposed. Rick --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dario Bonazza wrote: s I own the D (which also doesn't work as well as the DS with TTL). In what way doesn't the D work well with TTL? Please don't tell my two D cameras, because they both work fine with either TTL (AF 400T) or TTL-P (Sigma 500 Super). Paul http://www.photo.net/photos/RickW __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: DL TTL flash madness
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: DL TTL flash madness In what way doesn't the D work well with TTL? The part where the camera is supposed to control flash output. William Robb
Re: DL TTL flash madness
Mark Roberts wrote: Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I have little faith in most sales personnel these days, sadly enough. Most of them seem to have difficulty understanding even basic differences between models other than price and how many megapixels... Good point. If I were to meet a camera salesman in a proper photo store who understood the difference between TTL and P-TTL I would be very impressed. If I met one in a mainstream Ritz/CompUSA/BestBuy/etc store (where the majority of cameras - even DSLR's, I'd wager - are sold) who understood the difference I'd faint. Depends on the store. There's a local Black's (Canada's answer to Ritz or Wolf Camera) that has absolutely superb salespeople, mostly guys who didn't like the attitude at the local pro shops and went elsewhere. Unfortunately the lone Pentax shooter among them recent quit. -Adam
Re: DL TTL flash madness
In my case, I use a Vivitar 3700 flash with TTL flash module with a D. I need to set flash exposure to -1.5 stop to get correct flash exposures at ISO 200. I have not tried other ISO settings. I used to use the 3700 flash with a PZ-1P, Super Program, and ZX-7 without any need to adjust flash exposure. --- Rick Womer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul, This is weird. I have a Sunpak flash that works beautifully in TTL mode on my Super Program, PZ-1, and PZ-1p, and doesn't work worth poop on the istD--everything is grossly (but variably) overexposed. Rick --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dario Bonazza wrote: s I own the D (which also doesn't work as well as the DS with TTL). In what way doesn't the D work well with TTL? Please don't tell my two D cameras, because they both work fine with either TTL (AF 400T) or TTL-P (Sigma 500 Super). Paul http://www.photo.net/photos/RickW __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
