Over the weekend, I tried to use the flash with the direct beam assistance, and I like the results.
I was taking photos of my daughter at a relatively close distance in a relatively dim room. So, the flash was pointing up to the ceiling, and the front (secondary) beam of Metz 58 was removing the shadows at the bottom and adding the catch light. (I am yet to look at the results - on the computer screen.) Igor > Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:49:08 -0500 (EST) > From: Igor Roshchin <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Flash for K5/K20D Metz or Pentax or ?... > > > I've used AF540 for a little one and returned it (the > swivel/tilt was defective). > Then I decided to by Metz 58AF-1. > I've been using it for close to 2 years now, and mostly happy with it. > > I've also used Pentax AF500FTZ flash with my ZX5n and *istDS, > so 540 was a little bit of a disappointment, because it kept switching to > P-TTL mode, unless I set the camera in M mode. I totally disliked that. > > > I see several advantages (differences) in Metz 58AF-1 vs. AF540: > 1. Use in modes other than P-TTL. > I often switch it to the "A" mode. (I guess most recently I use it > 60-70% of time in A mode, and 30-40% of time in P-TTL, depending > on the light/room situation, etc.) > > 2. Metz has a secondary (direct) flash - can be enabled when you > tilt the main one up. > I tried it, but didn't find useful for my situations. > I actually might re-evaluate it now, for a different type of shots. > > 3. The power difference is not that significant. > More over, because of the difference in the zoom settings, > while one is more powerful at close distances, the other one > is more powerful if you are shooting something far away. > > 4. Flash mount: I don't remember if I had any issues with 540. > With Metz 58AF-1 I didn't have major issues. > However, after 2 years of frequent use, the plastic mount became > slightly worn, and required that I need to make sure > that it is tightened well and correctly (otherwise the contacts wouldn't > match.) > However, I think this is the result of how I used it. So, while the > metal shoe of the newer model (58AF-2) might be an improvement over > this, I think the original one is still fine. > > 5. Metz has a little bit more complicated set of menues - and some > things that are done from the panel controls for the 540 - are in the > menues. So, that's a bit less convenient, as it takes a bit longer to > switch between different modes. But I got used to it. > > In general, I am very happy I chose Metz over Pentax in this case. > > HTH, > > Igor > > > > On 1/27/2012 10:28 AM, Robert and Leigh Woerner wrote: > > I am going to buy a new flash soon. I currently have the AF360 and > > want to > > upgrade. Any thoughts/opinions/real experience with the Pentax AF540 > > vs a Metz > > 58 AF2? I am also open to other recommendations. I am mainly concerned > > ref > > reported build quality issues of the Pentax unit and hot shoe sticking > > problems. > > > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > > Robert > > > -- 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.
