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.
These are with ISO set to 200. I'll have to try 400 and see what happens. Again, thanks for the info. Bruce Tuesday, January 6, 2004, 2:32:00 AM, you wrote: HH> Hi Bruce, HH> 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? HH> There's a German thread on incorrect flash exposures at HH> http://www.digitalfotonetz.de/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4997&highlight= HH> A source at Pentax Germany has explained that there exists a problem HH> with the TTL-metering (I only repeat some statements of the mentioned HH> link): The TTL-sensor measures the light that is reflected from the HH> CCD's surface. But it seemes, that the reflection of the CCD differs HH> depending on the chosen ISO setting. The exposure will be correct only HH> at ISO400 as the development and testing of the TTL-measurement was HH> apparently made at ISO400, only. HH> At ISO settings below 400 the camera will under-expose, at setting above HH> 400 it will over-expose. HH> This problem can probably not be solved by a firmware update as there is HH> no upgradeble TTL-software but some kind of hardware solution. The HH> problem does not exist if you use P-TTL. HH> I didn't try that myself (although I have an AF500FTZ I'm not a great HH> flash user), but maybe this informations brings some light into the HH> flash behaviour of the *istD. HH> Cheers, Heiko
