mike wilson wrote: >> From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: 2007/03/05 Mon PM 11:16:19 GMT >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: older flashes with K10, Pentax's response >> >> Hello Pancho, >> >> My understanding of the move by all camera manufacturers away from TTL >> is that the reflectivity of the sensor/filter in front of it, made it >> problematic at best to read from that surface. Every manufacturer has >> found it necessary to pre-flash and read to set proper exposure rather >> than meter on the surface during exposure. If my *istD was any >> indicator, the Old TTL system was not too good. I don't think there >> was any major conspiracy to force us to buy new flashes. > > You aren't suggesting that digital does something as mundane and easy as TTL > flash in a worse way than film, are you? Naaah; not possible. The > manufacturers wouldn't stuff all those new, expensive flash guns under our > kilts, would they? >
Sensor reflectivity was a major issue with plain TTL and digital. Only Fuji and Pentax ever got it working with anything approaching reliability, and both dumped plain TTL quickly (Note that Fuji did so with no economic benefit, since they only sell bodies, Nikon sells the lenses and flashes for Fuji bodies). Canon and Minolta simply used their pre-existing preflash metering systems while abandoning plain TTL, Nikon screwed around with D-TTL until they got it right with i-TTL and Olympus got lucky since they were introducing a whole new system anyways and had no reason to support OM TTL flashes. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
