Years ago I called Pentax to check on the serial number of my Metz CT1
and they warned me it would damage the electronics of a MZ-5n.
Apperently the voltage of the CT1 was to high. I have no idea what
voltage the istD can handle on the PC flash connector. I don't have
the guts to give it a try.

On 11/9/05, Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It probably won't. I use it - and a lot of other old Metz flashes. Somone
> else here might offer better advice, based on the electronic information
> (voltage) etc., though.
> Regards
> Jens Bladt
> http://www.jensbladt.dk
>
> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra: Jack Isidore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sendt: 8. november 2005 20:36
> Til: [email protected]
> Emne: Re: flash issues with IstD and 500FTZ
>
>
> I wonder if my old Metz CT-1 would damage the istD? It's the only
> flash I have which does plain autoflash.
>
> On 11/7/05, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jack Isidore"
> > Subject: flash issues with IstD and 500FTZ
> >
> >
> > >I have an istD with 330FTZ, 400FTZ and 500FTZ flashes.
> > > The camera is in green mode and I take flash shots at ISO 200, 400 and
> > > 800 ASA all from a tripod, the same subject and the flashes in
> > > auto-TTL mode.
> > > The 200 ISO shots are all underexposed, 400 ISO is more or less
> > > correctly exposed and 800 ISO are all overexposed.
> > >
> > > The IstD manual recommends 200-800 ASA for these flashes.
> > >
> > > The solution would be to allways use ISO 400 for flash which would be
> > > very strange.
> >
> > Apparently, on the istD, the TTL flash circuit is optimized for 400 iso.
> > I have never seen a less accurate TTL flash circuit than the one in the
> > istD.
> > Apparently, it's on par with DSLR TTL circuits in general though.
> >
> > I do find that if I shoot several pictures in fairly rapid succession, the
> > flash control goes from innacurate to completely inaccurate.
> > I cured this by stopping usng my TTL flash adaptor, and going back to
> plain
> > autoflash.
> >
> > William Robb
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Reply via email to