I don't reallyh believe that. Flash light is often just 1/50.000 of one second. I find it hard to believe that reciprocity failure makes more than a marginal difference - hardly visible to the human eye. The problem must lie eleswhere. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 20. april 2004 00:23 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: TTL flash with the *ist D Perhaps the sensor has difficulty with 1/15,000th of a second exposures? It seems to have problems with 1 second exposures on the other end too. This it called with film. -- Jens Bladt wrote: > ...I wonder why they can't seem to cut off the flash light at the right > time?????. This isn't exactly new technology - at least 20 years old. > Jens > > > >>The nature of DSLR's >>in general seems to be weak TTL flash. I have heard the same >>complaint from both Nikon and Canon users. > > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > Fra: John Forbes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 19. april 2004 19:48 > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Emne: Re: TTL flash with the *ist D > > > I agree. I have the AF400FTZ and the AF240FT, and they are both hopeless > with the *ist D. Sadly, the problem is not consistent, so you can't > reliably compensate for it. > > What does work well, for me, is the AF240Z, which is a smallish dedicated, > non-TTL, flash with zoom, bounce and swivel. It works fine when both > flash and camera are in program mode. > > John > > On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 08:58:41 -0600, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Joseph Tainter" >>Subject: TTL flash with the *ist D >> >> >> >> >>>So...has anyone found a shoe-mounted flash that will do ordinary >> >>TTL >> >>>with the *ist D, at the full ISO range? I mean, one that works >> >>about >> >>>like it would on a 35 mm. body without glaring exposure problems. >>> >> >>The istD analogue TTL works more or less OK at ISO 400, not very well >>at 200, and I haven't tried it at faster speeds. The nature of DSLR's >>in general seems to be weak TTL flash. I have heard the same >>complaint from both Nikon and Canon users. >> >> >>>Question 2: >>> >>>While I'm at it, what is everyone's experience with the rtf? I >> >>tried it >> >>>the other day, at ISO 400, with the SMC F 70-210, at -0.5 EV. It >> >>was a >> >>>portrait of my dog's face, taken from about 3 meters. Even with the >>>negative exposure compensation, I thought it was a bit overexposed, >>>though nothing that I couldn't correct in PS. >> >>The RTF will have the same acuracy weakness as the larger flash, >>without the range to go along with it. I haven't found it to be >>overly accurate. I think the best option is a dedicated, non TTL >>flash. I am thinking the AF 280T might be a good one to try. >> >>William Robb >> >> >> > > > > > -- > Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ > > > > -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
