Yeah, this would check that the flash beam is not narrower than it needs to be, but I am concerned that the opposite is hapenning. The flash beam if left unchanged from normal behaviour would be wider than necessary, and Pentax seem to have adjusted it to be even wider rather than narrower. So it will always cover more than the area of the paper. This is fine except it reduces the effective range of the flash.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 22 October 2003 17:30 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Flash on *istD > > > Hi! > > On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:08:26 +0100 > "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I think so, but it is confusing the hell out of me at the moment. I > >just don't see how they could have got this so wrong?!? How > could they > >realise it was worth compensating, then compensate the wrong way? > >Surely I am missing something? > > > >Mind you, it shouldn't matter if the flash FOV is wider than > the area > >covered by the sensor on the camera - just means less range > than would > >have otherwise been possible. > > Pardon my intrusion, but with __digital__ camera, isn't it just a > matter of simple experiment?! Take a piece of newspaper, hang it on > the wall. Make sure room is dark. Make sure the 'paper fills most of > the frame. Take a shot, look at it closely. Repeat, for various focal > lengths?! > > Or I'm totally out of my mind again? > > Boris > > _____ > "Антивирус Касперского Personal Pro + Антихакер по > специальной цене $85" http://www.kaspersky.ru/offer/ > >
