Re: *ist D and flash overexposure
I hadn't checked. And you're right, the aperture blades are sluggish. Time for a CLA. That's a relief of sorts. Didn't want to have to deal with a camera problem. Thanks Bill. On Feb 6, 2004, at 9:02 PM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: "Paul Stenquist" Subject: *ist D and flash overexposure . I don't know what's going on here. Does anyone have a clue? It might not be the cameras fault. Have you checked to see if the 35mm lens is stopping down smartly? William Robb
Re: *ist D and flash overexposure
- Original Message - From: "Paul Stenquist" Subject: *ist D and flash overexposure > . I don't know what's going on here. Does > anyone have a clue? It might not be the cameras fault. Have you checked to see if the 35mm lens is stopping down smartly? William Robb
Re: *ist-D and Flash Auto-Zoom
it's showing the FOV equivalent lens on your *istD covered by the flash. IOW, the flash should be set to manual zoom and set to match the current focal length. Herb - Original Message - From: "Mark Cassino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 12:41 AM Subject: Re: *ist-D and Flash Auto-Zoom > By golly, you're right - just found it in the manual... > > But at the risk of revealing just how thick I really am, I honestly don't > get why it does that. It seems to be backwards. For example, if you put a > 70 mm lens on the camera, you are shooting at an effective 105mm, but the > flash shows 48mm. Shouldn't it be the other way around - i.e. - you put a > 48 mm lens on the camera and the flash displays the effective focal length > of 70? > > My camera is also acting inconsistent with the table in the manual - e.g. > my 50mm lens results in a flash display of 48mm when it should show 34mm, > per the manual. It does not seem to matter since, shutting the camera off > and getting the flash back into 35mm mode, it seems to be at the right > setting for the zoom. But it does seem quirky, IMO, unless I'm missing > something...
Re: *ist-D and Flash Auto-Zoom
By golly, you're right - just found it in the manual... But at the risk of revealing just how thick I really am, I honestly don't get why it does that. It seems to be backwards. For example, if you put a 70 mm lens on the camera, you are shooting at an effective 105mm, but the flash shows 48mm. Shouldn't it be the other way around - i.e. - you put a 48 mm lens on the camera and the flash displays the effective focal length of 70? My camera is also acting inconsistent with the table in the manual - e.g. my 50mm lens results in a flash display of 48mm when it should show 34mm, per the manual. It does not seem to matter since, shutting the camera off and getting the flash back into 35mm mode, it seems to be at the right setting for the zoom. But it does seem quirky, IMO, unless I'm missing something... - MCC At 07:29 PM 12/2/2003 -0500, you wrote: that's what the *istD manual says it is supposed to do. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Mark Cassino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 2:20 PM Subject: *ist-D and Flash Auto-Zoom > Just stumbled into something interesting... > > I popped my FA 20-35 on the *ist-D, along with the AF360FGZ. I wondered if > the flash auto zoom would match to the effective focal length of the lens > or the actual focal length. > > Checking to see what the auto zoom would do, I was surprised to see it > displaying focal lengths from 19mm to 34mm as I zoomed the lens in and > out... Pretty weird since the flash only goes down to 24mm. - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
Re: *ist D and Flash
- Original Message - From: "mike wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Speak for yourself. Never heard of snail racing? > You mean like, "let's get the heck outta here, guys, the chef speaks FRENCH!" Oh, well... I guess I could manage to get some decent shots at a tai-chi gathering or a chess tournament... Jostein
Re: *ist D and Flash
- Original Message - From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > a difference which makes no difference, is no difference. empirical > measurements indicate that there is no reason to dig further. > Yup, remember what www.pdml.net says on the meaning of the PDML abbreviation: Parsing Damned Minutiae Loudly... :-) Cheers, Jostein
Re: *ist D and Flash
Hi, Jostein wrote: > Which we don't need since none of us shoot sports events with an Optio > S anyway. :-) Speak for yourself. Never heard of snail racing? mike 8-)
Re: *ist D and Flash
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003, Robert Gonzalez wrote: > John Francis wrote: > > Ah, but we *do* know for a FACT that the sensor is being cleared. The > > sensor is used to provide live preview on the LCD display, and needs to > > be cleared before being used to capture the real image. > > Interesting. I know that it must clear the sensor array, that is a > given, otherwise the sensor sites, which are tiny capacitors, would > saturate. And this probably takes place (I'm speculating) for every > frame it puts out while providing a live image. I'm wondering whether > it needs to do a separate, special clear before it captures the image, > and if so why? And if so, how long? Any ideas? My suspicion is that > the frame rate to the LCD live display sets the mininum clear time and > that there is no "special" clear, only a longer or shorter, post-clear, > capture, which reflects the "shutter speed" of the image. When the cameras are showing the live display they are running in a lower resolution "movie" mode. They also don't clear the sites as well, on most cameras you can see this as blooming or smearing if the camera is aimed at a bright light in an otherwise dim room. It is at least true on the CCDs in the Sony DSC-F717 (also used in most other 5mp "prosumer" cameras) and the Sony DSC-S75 (used in the Canon G1 and many other 3mp "prosumer" cameras from that era). When it is time to take a real picture the CCD is switched into a full resolution still mode and all of the sensors are cleared. This is also the only time that the shutter on the camera is closed. I cited documentation on this a few weeks ago if you want to browse the archives. I don't have time to find it again right now though. alex
Re: *ist D and Flash
John Francis wrote: Ah, but we *do* know for a FACT that the sensor is being cleared. The sensor is used to provide live preview on the LCD display, and needs to be cleared before being used to capture the real image. Interesting. I know that it must clear the sensor array, that is a given, otherwise the sensor sites, which are tiny capacitors, would saturate. And this probably takes place (I'm speculating) for every frame it puts out while providing a live image. I'm wondering whether it needs to do a separate, special clear before it captures the image, and if so why? And if so, how long? Any ideas? My suspicion is that the frame rate to the LCD live display sets the mininum clear time and that there is no "special" clear, only a longer or shorter, post-clear, capture, which reflects the "shutter speed" of the image. And, in any case, sensor spec sheets have been quoted here which give the exact clear time for the sensor (and which confirm that the sensor must be cleared before an image can be captured). OK, now were talking fact. If there is a data sheet that has this spec, then that should quiet any argument claiming large sensor clearing lag. This is what I was looking for. Furthermore, just a reminder: my original post was made simply to try to put an end to speculation that the sensor clear accounted for any significant part of the total shutter lag - a theory which is totally contradicted both by sensor spec sheets and by empirical measurements. I had no doubt in my mind about this.
Re: *ist D and Flash
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: *ist D and Flash > Does the istD have a built in flash and does it > have a programmed autoflash mode suitable for > closeup photos? It has a prism mount flash. Do dedicated programmed exposure mode for close-ups, but I expect aperture preferred automatic, combined with a TTL flash would work well. William Robb
Re: *ist D and Flash
> > I'm not questioning anyone's measurements, as you pointed out, I get the > same thing. My original question was whether or not we had actual times > from some factual source or whether the times were being deduced, > hence "speculation". > > Here is an example of what I mean, taken from one of your previous > posting on this thread: > > > The additional sensor-clear lag is usually well under 1/10 of a second; > > If the sensor was being cleared, we could state something like this > since we know that minimum shutter lags without AF are < 1/10 sec. But > we don't even know if the sensor is being cleared, so we cannot say this > for a FACT. Ah, but we *do* know for a FACT that the sensor is being cleared. The sensor is used to provide live preview on the LCD display, and needs to be cleared before being used to capture the real image. And, in any case, sensor spec sheets have been quoted here which give the exact clear time for the sensor (and which confirm that the sensor must be cleared before an image can be captured). Furthermore, just a reminder: my original post was made simply to try to put an end to speculation that the sensor clear accounted for any significant part of the total shutter lag - a theory which is totally contradicted both by sensor spec sheets and by empirical measurements.
Re: *ist D and Flash
I'm not questioning anyone's measurements, as you pointed out, I get the same thing. My original question was whether or not we had actual times from some factual source or whether the times were being deduced, hence "speculation". Here is an example of what I mean, taken from one of your previous posting on this thread: The additional sensor-clear lag is usually well under 1/10 of a second; If the sensor was being cleared, we could state something like this since we know that minimum shutter lags without AF are < 1/10 sec. But we don't even know if the sensor is being cleared, so we cannot say this for a FACT. Do you understand the difference? I'm not trying to argue here, just trying to get an answer to my original question. rg John Francis wrote: Wrong. I have an Optio S. And although I can measure the times at different settings, I'm still speculating on what's going on inside, and so are you. AFAIK, there is no data in the camera that tells me what the timing breakdown is. If there is such a way, please point it out to us. I don't understand why there are such defensive responses such as this one when members question "expertise" which really amounts to guestimation. You aren't questioning expertise - you are attempting to put forward your own opinion in the teeth of all the evidence being presented to you, even when your own experimentation proves the point you are arguing against. I'll try again, just one more time: The objectionable shutter lag on point-and-shoot digital cameras is an artifact of the auto-focus system. Turn off auto-focus, and the delay all but goes away. The camera is capable of performing all the other calculations and operations (metering, sensor pre-clear, etc.) quite fast enough for it to be unmeasurable except on a lab bench. True, we aren't privy to what goes on inside the camera. But we can measure the total time being spent on everything except auto-focus, and show that it is insignificant as a contributor to the total delay. I'll repeat that, because it's an important point: absolutely everything else except auto-focus is 'almost instantaneous', even in a digital P&S. So - what *does* cause the shutter lag? Answer - turning on the auto- focus system. We're not trying to break it down any further than that; it might be becuse the camera processor is too slow; it might be because the auto-focus motor can't move the lens fast enough; it might be because the auto-focus software uses a poor algorithm; it might even be because the software writer has put in an idle loop to deliberately waste time. It doesn't matter. It's very simple - turn on the AF; get shutter lag. I also have the *istD, and shutter lag is all but nil there, so I can't even begin to speculate on the timing breakup there. On the *ist-D (and all other DSLRs with which I am familiar) the AF system is the same as that used in a typical film-based SLR, and is very fast. That is what is missing from a digital point-and-shoot. But, in any case, that's irrelevant. We don't need to know the breakdown of the timing of the *ist-D. We're not trying to allocate the finest details of timing - just pointing out where the P&S spends it's time. John Francis wrote: Yes, I know we can measure the whole thing. But we know diddly squat about how that time is broken up. It's obvious at this point that you don't have first-hand experience. I suggest you get your hands on a mid-range or higher digital camera and try it for yourself. Until then I don't really think any purpose is being served by you continuing to speculate about subjects outside your field of experience, especially when your opinion is at odds with that being expressed by everyone who has actually done the experiment.
Re: *ist D and Flash
I think we are in violent agreement about the measurements, I get the same thing. I am only questioning the level of "truth" being assigned to the conclusions reached. People are proclaiming their conclusions to be "fact" when in reality they are speculating on the facts based on their observations. This is why we have a plethora of conclusions and not very many real facts that can be traced to actual design data. Its ok for people speculate, but they should be prepared for intelligent discussion about the merits of their speculation. For all we know, P&S cameras have very little shutter lag and the manufactures are adding delays to fit their marketing requirements. ;) rg Herb Chong wrote: your camera doesn't have manual focus mode and manual exposure mode, only manual focus mode. even so, you should have deduced what John and are saying AF accounts for almost all of the delay. that is before even knowing that my Nikon Coolpix 5000 can set exposure and take a picture in 55 ms after it has focus locked. Herb - Original Message - From: "Robert Gonzalez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 4:08 PM Subject: Re: *ist D and Flash Wrong. I have an Optio S. And although I can measure the times at different settings, I'm still speculating on what's going on inside, and so are you. AFAIK, there is no data in the camera that tells me what the timing breakdown is. If there is such a way, please point it out to us.
Re: *ist D and Flash
> > Wrong. I have an Optio S. And although I can measure the times at > different settings, I'm still speculating on what's going on inside, and > so are you. AFAIK, there is no data in the camera that tells me what > the timing breakdown is. If there is such a way, please point it out to us. > > I don't understand why there are such defensive responses such as this > one when members question "expertise" which really amounts to guestimation. You aren't questioning expertise - you are attempting to put forward your own opinion in the teeth of all the evidence being presented to you, even when your own experimentation proves the point you are arguing against. I'll try again, just one more time: The objectionable shutter lag on point-and-shoot digital cameras is an artifact of the auto-focus system. Turn off auto-focus, and the delay all but goes away. The camera is capable of performing all the other calculations and operations (metering, sensor pre-clear, etc.) quite fast enough for it to be unmeasurable except on a lab bench. True, we aren't privy to what goes on inside the camera. But we can measure the total time being spent on everything except auto-focus, and show that it is insignificant as a contributor to the total delay. I'll repeat that, because it's an important point: absolutely everything else except auto-focus is 'almost instantaneous', even in a digital P&S. So - what *does* cause the shutter lag? Answer - turning on the auto- focus system. We're not trying to break it down any further than that; it might be becuse the camera processor is too slow; it might be because the auto-focus motor can't move the lens fast enough; it might be because the auto-focus software uses a poor algorithm; it might even be because the software writer has put in an idle loop to deliberately waste time. It doesn't matter. It's very simple - turn on the AF; get shutter lag. > I also have the *istD, and shutter lag is all but nil there, so I can't > even begin to speculate on the timing breakup there. On the *ist-D (and all other DSLRs with which I am familiar) the AF system is the same as that used in a typical film-based SLR, and is very fast. That is what is missing from a digital point-and-shoot. But, in any case, that's irrelevant. We don't need to know the breakdown of the timing of the *ist-D. We're not trying to allocate the finest details of timing - just pointing out where the P&S spends it's time. > John Francis wrote: > >>Yes, I know we can measure the whole thing. But we know diddly squat > >>about how that time is broken up. > > > > > > It's obvious at this point that you don't have first-hand experience. > > I suggest you get your hands on a mid-range or higher digital camera > > and try it for yourself. Until then I don't really think any purpose > > is being served by you continuing to speculate about subjects outside > > your field of experience, especially when your opinion is at odds with > > that being expressed by everyone who has actually done the experiment. > > > > > >
Re: *ist D and Flash
If you press the shutter 1/2 way and let the camera autofocus and set exposure, shutter release is nearly instantaneous. Bill - Original Message - From: "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 3:06 PM Subject: Re: *ist D and Flash > Here's some experience with the Optio S: > > In dumb mode, the camera takes a good while between button pressed and > picture taken. Sometimes as much as 1,5 seconds. > Turn off the AF, and the time goes down noticeably. > Add a setting of the white balance to something other than Auto, and the > time is again noticeably reduced. > No rigid numbers for you, but the effect is definately there. Seems like the > camera reads the chip three times; for white balance, AF and for shooting. > > Jostein > - > Pictures at: http://oksne.net > - > - Original Message - > From: "Robert Gonzalez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 6:42 PM > Subject: Re: *ist D and Flash > > > > Yes, I know we can measure the whole thing. But we know diddly squat > > about how that time is broken up. We *are* just speculating. I've > > never seen anyone post a link to a manufacturers site that shows the > > breakdown. There have been numerous opinions on this list, some that > > say most of the time is taken up by the sensor clearing, some that say > > that its the AF that is taking up all the time, some that say its > > something else. If you set one of those things on a tripod and keep > > taking pictures of something at a fixed distance, the shutter lag seems > > to be the same, without knowing what the mechanism/algorithm breakdown > > is, everyone's guess is as good as anyone else's. It could also just be > > the digital processor. These cheaper P&S's may not have the processing > > power that the better cameras have and this may slow down the whole > > process. And that is speculation also. :) > > > > > > > > > > Herb Chong wrote: > > > you don't need to speculate and you don't need to read any specs. use a > high > > > end P&S digital camera and measure. everything other than AF time is too > > > small to measure reliably by a stopwatch run by a person. > > > > > > Herb > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Robert Gonzalez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 11:37 AM > > > Subject: Re: *ist D and Flash > > > > > > > > > > > >>Do we know this for sure, i.e. times for individual events like > > >>auto-focus, sensor-clear, etc., from some technical spec, or are we just > > >>speculating? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: *ist D and Flash
Here's some experience with the Optio S: In dumb mode, the camera takes a good while between button pressed and picture taken. Sometimes as much as 1,5 seconds. Turn off the AF, and the time goes down noticeably. Add a setting of the white balance to something other than Auto, and the time is again noticeably reduced. No rigid numbers for you, but the effect is definately there. Seems like the camera reads the chip three times; for white balance, AF and for shooting. Jostein - Pictures at: http://oksne.net - - Original Message - From: "Robert Gonzalez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 6:42 PM Subject: Re: *ist D and Flash > Yes, I know we can measure the whole thing. But we know diddly squat > about how that time is broken up. We *are* just speculating. I've > never seen anyone post a link to a manufacturers site that shows the > breakdown. There have been numerous opinions on this list, some that > say most of the time is taken up by the sensor clearing, some that say > that its the AF that is taking up all the time, some that say its > something else. If you set one of those things on a tripod and keep > taking pictures of something at a fixed distance, the shutter lag seems > to be the same, without knowing what the mechanism/algorithm breakdown > is, everyone's guess is as good as anyone else's. It could also just be > the digital processor. These cheaper P&S's may not have the processing > power that the better cameras have and this may slow down the whole > process. And that is speculation also. :) > > > > > Herb Chong wrote: > > you don't need to speculate and you don't need to read any specs. use a high > > end P&S digital camera and measure. everything other than AF time is too > > small to measure reliably by a stopwatch run by a person. > > > > Herb > > - Original Message - > > From: "Robert Gonzalez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 11:37 AM > > Subject: Re: *ist D and Flash > > > > > > > >>Do we know this for sure, i.e. times for individual events like > >>auto-focus, sensor-clear, etc., from some technical spec, or are we just > >>speculating? > > > > > > > > > >
Re: *ist D and Flash
I never said "cleaning", read again, it says "clearing". I.e. electrical zeroing out of the sensor sites. Herb Chong wrote: i have no idea where you read that there is any sensor cleaning going on in a P&S digital camera. there isn't any camera out there without a removeable lens that needs sensor cleaning. as for AF delay, take a picture in AF mode and take picture in MF mode. that's all you need to know. anything else is pure BS. Herb - Original Message - From: "Robert Gonzalez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 12:42 PM Subject: Re: *ist D and Flash Yes, I know we can measure the whole thing. But we know diddly squat about how that time is broken up. We *are* just speculating. I've never seen anyone post a link to a manufacturers site that shows the breakdown. There have been numerous opinions on this list, some that say most of the time is taken up by the sensor clearing, some that say that its the AF that is taking up all the time, some that say its something else. If you set one of those things on a tripod and keep taking pictures of something at a fixed distance, the shutter lag seems to be the same, without knowing what the mechanism/algorithm breakdown is, everyone's guess is as good as anyone else's. It could also just be the digital processor. These cheaper P&S's may not have the processing power that the better cameras have and this may slow down the whole process. And that is speculation also. :)
Re: *ist D and Flash
i have no idea where you read that there is any sensor cleaning going on in a P&S digital camera. there isn't any camera out there without a removeable lens that needs sensor cleaning. as for AF delay, take a picture in AF mode and take picture in MF mode. that's all you need to know. anything else is pure BS. Herb - Original Message - From: "Robert Gonzalez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 12:42 PM Subject: Re: *ist D and Flash > Yes, I know we can measure the whole thing. But we know diddly squat > about how that time is broken up. We *are* just speculating. I've > never seen anyone post a link to a manufacturers site that shows the > breakdown. There have been numerous opinions on this list, some that > say most of the time is taken up by the sensor clearing, some that say > that its the AF that is taking up all the time, some that say its > something else. If you set one of those things on a tripod and keep > taking pictures of something at a fixed distance, the shutter lag seems > to be the same, without knowing what the mechanism/algorithm breakdown > is, everyone's guess is as good as anyone else's. It could also just be > the digital processor. These cheaper P&S's may not have the processing > power that the better cameras have and this may slow down the whole > process. And that is speculation also. :)
Re: *ist D and Flash
get one and measure. any top of the line P&S digital camera allows you to control each separately. the ones that don't have one to try are blowing smoke. Herb - Original Message - From: "Robert Gonzalez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 12:42 PM Subject: Re: *ist D and Flash > Yes, I know we can measure the whole thing. But we know diddly squat > about how that time is broken up. We *are* just speculating. I've > never seen anyone post a link to a manufacturers site that shows the > breakdown.
Re: *ist D and Flash
Yes, I know we can measure the whole thing. But we know diddly squat about how that time is broken up. We *are* just speculating. I've never seen anyone post a link to a manufacturers site that shows the breakdown. There have been numerous opinions on this list, some that say most of the time is taken up by the sensor clearing, some that say that its the AF that is taking up all the time, some that say its something else. If you set one of those things on a tripod and keep taking pictures of something at a fixed distance, the shutter lag seems to be the same, without knowing what the mechanism/algorithm breakdown is, everyone's guess is as good as anyone else's. It could also just be the digital processor. These cheaper P&S's may not have the processing power that the better cameras have and this may slow down the whole process. And that is speculation also. :) Herb Chong wrote: you don't need to speculate and you don't need to read any specs. use a high end P&S digital camera and measure. everything other than AF time is too small to measure reliably by a stopwatch run by a person. Herb - Original Message - From: "Robert Gonzalez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 11:37 AM Subject: Re: *ist D and Flash Do we know this for sure, i.e. times for individual events like auto-focus, sensor-clear, etc., from some technical spec, or are we just speculating?
Re: *ist D and Flash
you don't need to speculate and you don't need to read any specs. use a high end P&S digital camera and measure. everything other than AF time is too small to measure reliably by a stopwatch run by a person. Herb - Original Message - From: "Robert Gonzalez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 11:37 AM Subject: Re: *ist D and Flash > Do we know this for sure, i.e. times for individual events like > auto-focus, sensor-clear, etc., from some technical spec, or are we just > speculating?
Re: *ist D and Flash
Do we know this for sure, i.e. times for individual events like auto-focus, sensor-clear, etc., from some technical spec, or are we just speculating? John Francis wrote: It keeps dust off the sensor during lens changes. I expect point and shoots use non shutters, but their response times are pretty abysmal, partially, I expect, due to how they have to desensitize then resensitize the sensor. Will this never die? We've hashed this out here at great length before, wth references taken from Phil Askey's camera tests on dpreview.com The main reason for shutter lag in point-and-shoots is the time it takes for the auto-focus and metering circuitry to come up with an answer. The additional sensor-clear lag is usually well under 1/10 of a second; practically un-noticeable when bundled in with the half a second or more that's typical of even the more expensive point-and-shoots.
Re: *ist D and Flash
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, mike wilson wrote: > What a bummer! I thought that the "shutter" would be entirely > electronic, removing the potential for failure of a (at least partly) > mechanical device. What do digicams use? Usually they use leaf shutters. This is why many of them will only allow higher shutter speeds in smaller apertures. alex
Re: *ist D and Flash
- Original Message - From: "mike wilson" Subject: Re: *ist D and Flash > > > Can you not use _any_ "shutter" speed? Or does it actually have an fp > > > shutter? > > > > It has a cute little focal plane shutter. > > What a bummer! I thought that the "shutter" would be entirely > electronic, removing the potential for failure of a (at least partly) > mechanical device. What do digicams use? > It keeps dust off the sensor during lens changes. I expect point and shoots use non shutters, but their response times are pretty abysmal, partially, I expect, due to how they have to desensitize then resensitize the sensor. William Robb
Re: *ist D and Flash
Hi, William Robb wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "mike wilson" > Subject: Re: *ist D and Flash > > > > > > > Can you not use _any_ "shutter" speed? Or does it actually have an fp > > shutter? > > > > It has a cute little focal plane shutter. What a bummer! I thought that the "shutter" would be entirely electronic, removing the potential for failure of a (at least partly) mechanical device. What do digicams use? m
Re: *ist D and Flash
- Original Message - From: "mike wilson" Subject: Re: *ist D and Flash > > > Can you not use _any_ "shutter" speed? Or does it actually have an fp > shutter? > It has a cute little focal plane shutter. William Robb
Re: *ist D and Flash
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, mike wilson wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Did this test. > > Using the 200T and 280T in TTL mode, all shots were reasonably well exposed, > > though certainly not the same, at F4 and F11 or 13. I also tried one shot > > at F11 with the flash head at 90* and one at 0* and they looked ok. > > All shots were at 1/150th. > > So, good news? > > > Can you not use _any_ "shutter" speed? Or does it actually have an fp > shutter? > You can use anything that is slower than the flash sync speed. If you want to test you should use the flash sync speed though so that you are only seeing light from the flash and not ambient light.
Re: *ist D and Flash
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Did this test. > Using the 200T and 280T in TTL mode, all shots were reasonably well exposed, > though certainly not the same, at F4 and F11 or 13. I also tried one shot > at F11 with the flash head at 90* and one at 0* and they looked ok. > All shots were at 1/150th. > So, good news? Can you not use _any_ "shutter" speed? Or does it actually have an fp shutter? mike
Re: *ist D and Flash
- Original Message - From: "Bruce Dayton" Subject: *ist D and Flash > Concerning using the *ist D with older analog TTL Flashes. Wondering > if it will work in TTL mode with my AF400T's or AF280T? I assume > manual and Auto mode of the flash would work, but would TTL work? I used mine in TTL auto the other day with a Metz 60 CT-2, which is nearly 20 years old, with perfect results. If it'll work with this flash, it will work with the AF280T or AF400T. William Robb
Re: *ist D and Flash
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Bruce Dayton wrote: > Concerning using the *ist D with older analog TTL Flashes. Wondering > if it will work in TTL mode with my AF400T's or AF280T? I assume > manual and Auto mode of the flash would work, but would TTL work? TTL works fine on the AF280T. alex
Re: *ist D and Flash
The manual tells you didly about the older TTL flashes. Only mentions the AF500,400, and 330 FTZ, the 240FT and the 360FGZ. I have the *D and a 280T but, frankly don't know how to check to see if TTL is actually working or not. Cory - Original Message - From: "Dave Miers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 6:35 PM Subject: Re: *ist D and Flash > Maybe maybe not. Some of the pentax models in the z line up did not support > the auto setting, only ttl if I remember right. The manual should tell you. > - Original Message - > From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 6:23 PM > Subject: *ist D and Flash > > > > Concerning using the *ist D with older analog TTL Flashes. Wondering > > if it will work in TTL mode with my AF400T's or AF280T? I assume > > manual and Auto mode of the flash would work, but would TTL work? > > > > -- > > Bruce > > > > > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.536 / Virus Database: 331 - Release Date: 11/3/2003
Re: ist-D and Flash
on 10.08.03 0:29, Leon Altoff at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If the 500 works then the 400, 330 & 240 should as well. These would > not be listed as they are not current models. Yes, but maybe AF500 is mentioned there because it will work with *istD in manual only mode? None of DSLRs on the market could use classic TTL, they all need pre-flash metering. There is little chance that *stD will work in "normal" TTL then... -- Regards Sylwek
Re: ist-D and Flash
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: > None of DSLRs on the market could use classic TTL, they all need > pre-flash metering. There is little chance that *stD will work in > "normal" TTL then... Actually, Fujifilm FinePix digital SLR (such as S2 pro) can use standard TTL. But ironically, Nikon DSLRs cannot. One can explain the lack of it in a low cost Pentax body, but the absence of standard TTL is harder to explain in the top end Nikon and Canon models. -- --Lawrence Kwan--SMS Info Service/Ringtone Convertor--PGP:finger/www-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.vex.net/~lawrence/ -Key ID:0x6D23F3C4--
Re: ist-D and Flash
On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 20:31:56 +0200, Rolf Brenner wrote: >Hi all, >does anybody knows which Flashes i can use with the ist-D. Is it like >with Canon that i can only use Flashes with E-TTL in this case P-TTL >(that means only the 360FGZ) or can i use normal TTL (like the 500FTZ). Rolf, Every review I have read says P-TTL in the flash options but not TTL. Knowing that Pentax quite often don't list all the features means that it may well work with TTL flashes, but we may not know for a while. As I've gone completely to the AF360FGZ it's not a problem for me - P-TTL gives MUCH better results than TTL - but for someone who has not got the new flashes it may be a concern. There should be no reason why it can't run TTL flashes. Don't listen to those who say that a sensor reflects a different amount of light to film, this just means that they have to recalibrate the system. It should even work more reliably because the reflectivity of the sensor will always be the same while film varies from one type to another. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
Re: ist-D and Flash
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 10:19:17 +0200, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: >on 10.08.03 0:29, Leon Altoff at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> If the 500 works then the 400, 330 & 240 should as well. These would >> not be listed as they are not current models. >Yes, but maybe AF500 is mentioned there because it will work with *istD in >manual only mode? None of DSLRs on the market could use classic TTL, they >all need pre-flash metering. There is little chance that *stD will work in >"normal" TTL then... Why does it "need" pre-flash metering? Digital sensors are not 100% black. They reflect light, this means they can do standard TTL. If the camera manufacturers don't put that feature in it's only because of their marketing strategy to sell more of the latest equipment. Pentax is not known for this, so hopefully they will break the mould. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
Re: ist-D and Flash
Doesn't it have a pc connector? If so, it may support analogue ttl. Alan Chan wrote: The Japan web site lists 500 & 360 only. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan does anybody knows which Flashes i can use with the ist-D. Is it like with Canon that i can only use Flashes with E-TTL in this case P-TTL (that means only the 360FGZ) or can i use normal TTL (like the 500FTZ). _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: ist-D and Flash
On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 15:24:55 -0700, Alan Chan wrote: >The Japan web site lists 500 & 360 only. > >Alan Chan >http://www.pbase.com/wlachan > >>does anybody knows which Flashes i can use with the ist-D. Is it like with >>Canon that i can only use Flashes with E-TTL in this case P-TTL (that means >>only the 360FGZ) or can i use normal TTL (like the 500FTZ). If the 500 works then the 400, 330 & 240 should as well. These would not be listed as they are not current models. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
Re: *ist D and flash
on 23.07.03 19:38, Lon Williamson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > As an additional note: The ZX-L supports wireless, too. I don't > know that it supports as many flash options as the MZ-S, but it has > more flash options than any other Z body. Anyone know if the *ist > is as capable with flash as the -S and -L? > *ist besides normal x-sync speed (1/125 s vs. 1/180), has exactly the same flash capabilities as MZ-S. It is slightly better than ZX-L (MZ-6) because it can invoke modelling flash (even with many wireless flashes) wirelles - it was impossible with ZX-L. -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: *ist D and flash
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Lon Williamson wrote: > Anyone know if the *ist is as capable with flash as the -S and -L? Yes (except *ist has a lower X-sync speed than MZ-S when not using high speed sync). In other aspect, *ist may actually be superior, as its matrix metering could be set as focal point dependent. So off center subject should have more accurate flash exposure. -- --Lawrence Kwan--SMS Info Service/Ringtone Convertor--PGP:finger/www-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.vex.net/~lawrence/ -Key ID:0x6D23F3C4--
Re: *ist D and flash
new flashes on digital cameras probably would use P-TTL for highest accuracy. first flash to determine exposure and second to expose image. otherwise, it's old fashioned Auto mode with a separate sensor on the flash. Herb - Original Message - From: "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 08:42 Subject: Re: *ist D and flash > My thoughts about this is that however they implement the metering system, > there will be electronic components in the camera communicating with the > flash, between the light metering and the hotshoe. Therefore, I can't see > any reason why today's digital flashes cannot be used (AF-300FTZ, AF-500FTZ > and AF360FGZ).
Re: *ist D and flash
Shady, What to expect of flashes and digital is not a trivial question at all. The film-based TTL flash metering happens off the film during exposure, and some have argued that it will not be possible to meter off a chip in the same way. If they are right, it might mean that the whole TTL system will need rethinking, and maybe new flashes to be constructed. My thoughts about this is that however they implement the metering system, there will be electronic components in the camera communicating with the flash, between the light metering and the hotshoe. Therefore, I can't see any reason why today's digital flashes cannot be used (AF-300FTZ, AF-500FTZ and AF360FGZ). Wrt. the old analogue TTL-flashes, I'm not so sure. I guess it depends on whether they make the *istD compatible with it. I sure hope they do, since there currently is no digital macro flash, for instance. The MZ-S / AF360FGZ combo has some functions new to the lineup, like wireless TTL and such. I think it's reasonable to expect that this functionality will be implemented with the *istD also. The sync top speed used to depend entirely on the capacity of the shutter. The 13 years old Z-1/Z-1p cameras peaked the sync speed of the lineup with 1/250th. With the MZ-S / AF360FGZ combo, shorter sync is possible because the flash is capable of issuing longer bursts of light than earlier flashes. Again, whatever they have put in the MZ-S to deal with this, I think they will put in the *istD also. just my two cents worth of opinion... cheers, Jostein - Original Message - From: "Shady Janzeir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 6:06 AM Subject: *ist D and flash > Ok, here's my first stupid question: > Does anyone have any idea on the imminent *ist D's TTL flash ability, and > does it support TTL high-speed sync? > > YT, > Shady > >