Just taking a WAG here...what metering pattern were you using...matrix or center weighted? Is it possible matrix metering was compensating for the closer target being over exposed?
-p Rick Womer wrote: > I was wondering why the flash exposures I get with my > K10D and Sigma EF500 DG Super aren't as reliable as > those I got in the hazy past with my PZ-1(p) and > ancient (but TTL capable) Sunpak flash. > > So I repeated an experiment I had performed with the > PZ-1p and Sunpak: I had two targets of similar shade, > one close (~1.5m) and one distant (~5m) in the same > ambient light in the same room. Focusing on the near > target and photographing it led to a perfectly exposed > near target and underexposed distant target (which is > as it should be). Focusing on the distant target led > to a perfectly exposed distant target and overexposed > near target, even though the two targets had the same > positions in the frame in the two situations. This > told me that the PZ-1(p) used distance information > from the lens in calculating flash exposure. > > Last evening I performed the experiment with the K10D > and Sigma flash. No matter which target I focused on, > the near target was always properly exposed and the > distant target underexposed. Thus it appears that > this camera-flash combination does not use distance > information in its flash exposure calculations. > > It would be interesting if someone with a Pentax 540 > flash would try the same experiment. Is it the camera > or the Sigma (reverse-engineered) flash that is unable > to use the distance information? > > Rick > > > http://www.photo.net/photos/RickW > > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
