On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 23:21, Bruce Dayton wrote:
One interesting difference with the *istD (or any DSLR for that
matter) is that it has a narrower latitude than print film. Coupled
with the ability to quickly and cheaply test, more is explored on it
and it's behaviors than previous film
I have also noticed that my Sunpak MZ-440AF just completely overexposes
everything when attached to my *istD. I was beginning to think something
was wrong with it. I've used it with my PZ-1p, and ZX-5n with no
problems, in fact been very happy with it. Shot a couple of weddings
with it in fact...
Hello Jeff,
I'm going to be doing a bunch more testing of the AF400T. Seems to
overexpose, but consistently. I'll try the mentioned shooting at 400
ISO along with exposure compensation. From my first tests, seems that
I will probably end up just using exposure compensation once I nail
down how
Hi Bruce,
on 05 Jan 04 you wrote in pentax.list:
Certainly an area that I am most interested in. I am not shooting
with the AF500FTZ. I have the AF360FGZ and 2 AF400T's and 1 AF280T.
Could you be a bit more specific about what your results are like?
There's a German thread on incorrect flash
* what are the best modes to use flash in?
I use usualy both - P or Av modes on *istD and the same with MZ-S.
--
Best Regards
Sylwek
Well to the wonderfull world of digital flash photography.vbg
I have recently bought the newest recommended flash
BINGO! You got to love this list!
Based on your remarks Heiko I tested with my Metz 40MZ-2 and SCA3701
adapter, which I used in TTL mode successfully on my PZ_1, but found
severe underexposure on my *ist D. All at 200ISO.
(On automatic, the flash uses it's own cell, it worked very fine, and
the
- Original Message -
From: mapson
Subject: Flash photography and *istD
Can anyone offer any help?
I use an old Metz 60 CT-2 with the analogue SCA module.
Works fine on the LX, works fine on the ist D, though I have never found
Pentax TTL to be overly accurate.
Consider going
Heiko Hamann wrote:
That makes me wonder, too. Any physicists here to explain? I simply
can't imagine, why the CCD's reflectivity should change with the ISO
value.
I'm a physicist and the suggestion makes no sense to me :-)
S
On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 17:04, Heiko Hamann wrote:
OTOH - you now can predict the TTL-behaviour of the *istD and use the
ISO setting for flash exposure compensation ;-)
Yes, I thought about this as well, flash compensation is something I
badly miss on my PZ-1, so now I have it on the *ist D.
I've had alot of trouble with the AF360FGZ. It underexposes. I have to
compensate *ALOT*. As much as +2 sometimes. Its really bad when I use
it to do bounce flash, which I prefer. I took some family portraits
recently and I had to play with it for a long time before I got the pics
with a
Heiko Hamann wrote:
Hi Frits,
That makes me wonder, too. Any physicists here to explain? I simply
can't imagine, why the CCD's reflectivity should change with the ISO
value.
I'm not a physicist, but I am an electrical engineer by training, and
the CCD's sensistivity/ISO setting does
Hi Steve,
on 06 Jan 04 you wrote in pentax.list:
I simply can't imagine, why the CCD's reflectivity should change with
the ISO value.
I'm a physicist and the suggestion makes no sense to me :-)
That calms me down, really. Whatever the cause is, it shouldn't be the
reflectiveness of the CCDs
Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 11:58 AM
Subject: Re: Flash photography and *istD
I've had alot of trouble with the AF360FGZ. It underexposes. I have to
compensate *ALOT*. As much as +2 sometimes. Its really bad when I use
it to do bounce flash
Hello Heiko,
Thanks for the information. Certainly something for me to check out.
My own observations are thus:
AF360FGZ seems to slighly underexpose - sometimes when vertical
shooting with flash mounted in hotshoe it underexposes by quite a bit.
AF400T seems to overexpose by at least a stop.
I have noticed that mine seems to expose differently depending on aperture -
from a distance of about ten feet, I used the FA* 24 f/2 and shot at a painting
in my bedroom. The smaller apertures showed a marked difference in exposure as
compared to the bigger ones. This is using the AF500FTZ.
On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 21:36, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 17:04, Heiko Hamann wrote:
OTOH - you now can predict the TTL-behaviour of the *istD and use the
ISO setting for flash exposure compensation ;-)
Frits wrote:
Yes, I thought about this as well, flash
Fritz wrote: I disafree here. With flash compensation I would be able to
control how
much flash I ad to the existing ambiant light. For instance, someone in
the sun, will have harsh shadows. These shadows can be reduced by the
usage of flash. If however, the flash has the same brightness as the
Tanya wrote:
She is very pretty btw...
My oldest daughter, three years ago in Scotland. They grow up so fast.
--
Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FWIW, I seem to have these same problems with mine and the 280T and the
200T.
Cory
- Original Message -
From: mapson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 1:22 AM
Subject: Re: Flash photography and *istD
Certainly an area that I am most interested
On 6 Jan 2004 at 10:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have noticed that mine seems to expose differently depending on aperture -
from a distance of about ten feet, I used the FA* 24 f/2 and shot at a painting
in my bedroom. The smaller apertures showed a marked difference in exposure as
Hello Tanya,
I think the jury is still out on this one. You have two different
issues for the *istD. First is P-TTL. This is the latest type of TTL
from Pentax. It was introduced when the MZ-S was released. This
emits a preflash that is measured before the main flash. Supposedly
it is more
With a recent purchase of *istD and an arsenal of other Pentax gear I
thought I could conquer the world.
HOWEVER I found it quite disappointing that the *istD produces far from
acceptable results when combined with AF-500FTZ ( I won't even mention
that Sigma EF-430ST) goes totally belly-up).
Hello mapson,
Certainly an area that I am most interested in. I am not shooting
with the AF500FTZ. I have the AF360FGZ and 2 AF400T's and 1 AF280T.
Could you be a bit more specific about what your results are like?
All underexposed/overexposed/all over the map? How is the flash
attached?
-Original Message-
From: mapson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here are my questions for the Pentax Brotherhood:
* is it the nature of digital cameras that they do not work
well with
flashes (probably not)
Actually, yes, ttl flash is tougher with digital cameras. As far as I
know,
Certainly an area that I am most interested in. I am not shooting
with the AF500FTZ. I have the AF360FGZ and 2 AF400T's and 1 AF280T.
Could you be a bit more specific about what your results are like?
most common - washed out - totally overexposed. Even inside.
Once I tried to get a nice
25 matches
Mail list logo
