K-5 with flash

**wizofoz** · 06-23-2011, 12:23 AM

Originally posted by filorp

i did check it as well, the overexpoure without built in diffuser of the flashgun is just a little bit less pronounced than with it... for about 0.7 EV. However im getting consistent results with and without diffuser, the only difference is i set -1.0EV flash compensation without diffuser and -1.07EV with diffuser. To get exact exposure i need to change compensation depending on iso applied, the higher iso the more compensation i need.

Filorp, I understand that the 540g is 'set' to it's widest flash angle when the diffuser is in place, (at least that's how mine works) so I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

How can you do the experiment of changing the flash angle with the diffuser (opaque screen) as opposed to the deflector (white plastic tab) in place?

Last edited by wizofoz; 06-23-2011 at 12:34 AM.

dtsui · 06-23-2011, 03:14 AM

wizofoz, I am convinced the different behaviour is the result of subtle difference in the camera hardware even though the firmware may be the same.

Can you tell me the serial no. of your K7 and K5 and the firmware version of the K7?

filorp · 06-23-2011, 03:32 AM

Originally posted by wizofoz

so I'm not quite sure what you mean here

of course when diffuser is pulled out there is no way to change the angle of the flash. What i understend from experiment is: the malfunction of the pTTL increase when you decrease the angle of the flash at 16mm i have more overexposure than with 70mm. And this is really remarkable discovery of the "bounced flash problem". Im using metz af48, with 540fgz it'll be tha seme i believe

Does anybody knows - if the malfunction persists after 8 month from release of the camera, if the camera had been in the service for 3 months all together, when one was promised releasing the firmware uptade solving the problem and nothing's happening... Can i assume that problem isnt solvable the camera is still broken and can i claim money refund and moove out to another ship? I am really refrain from using cusswords.... but this is outrage.

emberins · 07-10-2011, 04:01 PM

I know this does not make it any easier for you guys

, but I just joined this forum to share with you (and, perhaps, even more importantly - indirectly also PENTAX) that I have been on the verge of choosing/not choosing K-5 over Nikon D7000 for a good while now, but partly thanks to this thread it seems like I have finally made my decision. :ugh:

Rupert · 07-10-2011, 05:48 PM

I have noted before, my K5 3936XXX has never exhibited any flash problems with either the 540 or 360 units regardless of flash position. I can post examples, but they appear as normal as they do with my older K20D.
I have no idea what causes this problem for others, but I hope they can get a solution, I mostly use bounce flash and would be ticked off if I couldn't on my K5.
Best Regards

As for the D7000....from what I have been reading it has more problems than the K5 ever had....and they are not resolved. If anyone without a lot of glass in either brand can try both cameras, the K5 will win almost every time. I wish the K5 did not have any problems at all........D7000 too....I get no joy out of knowing that there are unhappy shooters of any brand.....and no one else should either really.

**Ash** · 07-10-2011, 07:11 PM

Fortunately for me with K-5 overexposure with flash it is definitively rectified with FEC -2.0

If others experience such a problem do try this first.

**Rondec** · 07-11-2011, 07:21 AM

What is really odd to me is that it seems like some K5s have major issues with flash and others are pretty much on. My K5 has no trouble with bounced or direct flash at all, but clearly many K5s have issues. Seems like it is a hardware issue then and not a software issue (although seems like it could be fixed with a firmware update).

dlacouture · 07-11-2011, 07:32 AM

Same for me, I have no problem with my sigma 530 Super, bounced or direct...
Only wireless shows a problem, image will be underexposed if focus distance is "far" ("far" being subject to change from lens to lens).

**Ash** · 07-11-2011, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by dlacouture

Same for me, I have no problem with my sigma 530 Super, bounced or direct...
Only wireless shows a problem, image will be underexposed if focus distance is "far" ("far" being subject to change from lens to lens).

...which would make sense if the flash is not powerful enough to adequately expose the subject from that distance.

I have no real desire to send my camera for 'repair' or service in Japan at my cost just for an internal FEC adjustment, which might take months for it to come back to me. So I'm keeping my otherwise perfectly functioning K-5 and enjoying shooting with it.

simico · 07-12-2011, 03:54 AM

Originally posted by Ash

Fortunately for me with K-5 overexposure with flash it is definitively rectified with FEC -2.0

It's an easy workaround if you get exactly the same overexposure (or underexposure) every time, but doesn't really help when some shots of the same scene are overexposed by 2-3EV then some are underexposed by 2-3EV and then some are somewhat correct. This is only with bounced flash, flashgun mounted on hotshoe. Direct flash or wireless flash always fine. That's my experience with multiple K-5's.

**Ash** · 07-12-2011, 04:02 AM

Indeed simico that would make for a highly disappointing P-TTL shoot. That's not acceptable and should be rectified by Pentax - should also be obvious for them to find the problem...

dlacouture · 07-12-2011, 04:14 AM

Originally posted by Ash

...which would make sense if the flash is not powerful enough to adequately expose the subject from that distance.

Well, I'm not talking about subject distance, just focus distance...
And it's the same with high-iso, wide apertures shots (where you can theoretically light something 100m away)...
In a small room (so, no subject distance involved), using W-P-TTL, you can see the slave flash going suddenly nearly dark when you go above a given focus distance. No change in composition is involved, just by defocusing the lens, you'll be able to reproduce this problem...

With my FA50, for instance, it happens at the 3m mark...
But with the tamron 28-75, it's slightly more (IIRC)...

**Ash** · 07-12-2011, 05:06 AM

Strange this is occurring based on focus distance, given this variable not being relayed to the camera or flash for a P-TTL exposure. In any case, this also negatively affects P-TTL reliability and could be something worth repairing if indeed there is a fault found.

twitch · 07-19-2011, 09:10 PM

I was very nervous about this issue as I use flash indoors a lot, and pTTL has been extremely reliable for me with my K-x, I usually use -0.3 FEC and get great results

I've just got a K-5, upgraded it to 1.11, and taken a couple of dozen flash photos indoors. The first shot I took at -0.3 had some hot spots, I dialed it down to -0.7 and it was perfect and stayed that way for the rest of the shots. Nice and consistant like my K-x. What a relief

For the record I used manual mode; 1/125, ISO500, f2.2.

filorp · 07-20-2011, 01:40 AM

holly sh..... !!!!!
Short story. On saturday and sunday, last week i had a wedding (on sunday just location shots). oN thursday i have upgraded to fw1.11. i havent got a chance to check the camera because i had to get to the location of wedding, during the reception when iv started to use the flashgun, i'v noticed something strange - all my photos came out very dark - i had -1.3 flash compensation turned on for all time. i switched to 0 compensation - everything went fine smothly with perfect exposure....
ITS ALIVE - AFTER 8 MONTHS SINCE I BOUGHT THE CAMERA FINALLY EVERYTHINS FINE!!!! It must have been silent upgrade definitely. At Home i checked all other option. When i set flash beam angle to 16mm the overexposure was still there, however when i leave the beam unset at default angle and without difusing panel, everything's fine.... after 8 months!!! FINALLY!!!

06-23-2011, 03:32 AM	#273
filorp Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Aberdeen Scotland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 398	Originally posted by wizofoz so I'm not quite sure what you mean here of course when diffuser is pulled out there is no way to change the angle of the flash. What i understend from experiment is: the malfunction of the pTTL increase when you decrease the angle of the flash at 16mm i have more overexposure than with 70mm. And this is really remarkable discovery of the "bounced flash problem". Im using metz af48, with 540fgz it'll be tha seme i believe Does anybody knows - if the malfunction persists after 8 month from release of the camera, if the camera had been in the service for 3 months all together, when one was promised releasing the firmware uptade solving the problem and nothing's happening... Can i assume that problem isnt solvable the camera is still broken and can i claim money refund and moove out to another ship? I am really refrain from using cusswords.... but this is outrage. Last edited by filorp; 06-23-2011 at 04:22 AM.

07-10-2011, 04:01 PM	#274
emberins New Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: London Posts: 2	Slight offtopic I know this does not make it any easier for you guys , but I just joined this forum to share with you (and, perhaps, even more importantly - indirectly also PENTAX) that I have been on the verge of choosing/not choosing K-5 over Nikon D7000 for a good while now, but partly thanks to this thread it seems like I have finally made my decision. :ugh:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sigma 530 Super flash doesn't fire multi flash, any advice?	pasipasi	Pentax DSLR Discussion	4	11-25-2010 02:04 AM
For Sale - Sold: Metz 48 AF-1 Flash; Pentax off-camera flash cable set (Adapter F, FG (US/UK/CA	bigben91682	Sold Items	4	10-12-2010 04:23 AM
Basic Pentax K-x, hot-shoe, flash, flash bracket, wireless question	MrPetkus	Flashes, Lighting, and Studio	5	04-27-2010 10:57 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax AF200S flash, Vivitar 2800 macro flash, Lowepro Lens case 4	Light_Horseman	Sold Items	8	03-06-2010 10:13 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax TC's, Kenko TC, SF10 (x2), AF540 flash, Promaster FTD 7000M flash	Marc Langille	Sold Items	17	08-16-2008 10:29 AM

06-23-2011, 12:23 AM	#271
wizofoz Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Melbourne, Outer east. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,695	Originally posted by filorp i did check it as well, the overexpoure without built in diffuser of the flashgun is just a little bit less pronounced than with it... for about 0.7 EV. However im getting consistent results with and without diffuser, the only difference is i set -1.0EV flash compensation without diffuser and -1.07EV with diffuser. To get exact exposure i need to change compensation depending on iso applied, the higher iso the more compensation i need. Filorp, I understand that the 540g is 'set' to it's widest flash angle when the diffuser is in place, (at least that's how mine works) so I'm not quite sure what you mean here. How can you do the experiment of changing the flash angle with the diffuser (opaque screen) as opposed to the deflector (white plastic tab) in place? Last edited by wizofoz; 06-23-2011 at 12:34 AM.

06-23-2011, 03:14 AM	#272
dtsui Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Adelaide, Australia Posts: 29	wizofoz, I am convinced the different behaviour is the result of subtle difference in the camera hardware even though the firmware may be the same. Can you tell me the serial no. of your K7 and K5 and the firmware version of the K7?

07-10-2011, 05:48 PM	#275
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	I have noted before, my K5 3936XXX has never exhibited any flash problems with either the 540 or 360 units regardless of flash position. I can post examples, but they appear as normal as they do with my older K20D. I have no idea what causes this problem for others, but I hope they can get a solution, I mostly use bounce flash and would be ticked off if I couldn't on my K5. Best Regards As for the D7000....from what I have been reading it has more problems than the K5 ever had....and they are not resolved. If anyone without a lot of glass in either brand can try both cameras, the K5 will win almost every time. I wish the K5 did not have any problems at all........D7000 too....I get no joy out of knowing that there are unhappy shooters of any brand.....and no one else should either really.

07-10-2011, 07:11 PM	#276
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Fortunately for me with K-5 overexposure with flash it is definitively rectified with FEC -2.0 If others experience such a problem do try this first.

07-11-2011, 07:21 AM	#277
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	What is really odd to me is that it seems like some K5s have major issues with flash and others are pretty much on. My K5 has no trouble with bounced or direct flash at all, but clearly many K5s have issues. Seems like it is a hardware issue then and not a software issue (although seems like it could be fixed with a firmware update).

07-11-2011, 07:32 AM	#278
dlacouture Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Var, South of France Photos: Albums Posts: 1,074	Same for me, I have no problem with my sigma 530 Super, bounced or direct... Only wireless shows a problem, image will be underexposed if focus distance is "far" ("far" being subject to change from lens to lens).

07-11-2011, 01:42 PM	#279
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by dlacouture Same for me, I have no problem with my sigma 530 Super, bounced or direct... Only wireless shows a problem, image will be underexposed if focus distance is "far" ("far" being subject to change from lens to lens). ...which would make sense if the flash is not powerful enough to adequately expose the subject from that distance. I have no real desire to send my camera for 'repair' or service in Japan at my cost just for an internal FEC adjustment, which might take months for it to come back to me. So I'm keeping my otherwise perfectly functioning K-5 and enjoying shooting with it.

07-12-2011, 03:54 AM	#280
simico Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Budapest Posts: 821	Originally posted by Ash Fortunately for me with K-5 overexposure with flash it is definitively rectified with FEC -2.0 It's an easy workaround if you get exactly the same overexposure (or underexposure) every time, but doesn't really help when some shots of the same scene are overexposed by 2-3EV then some are underexposed by 2-3EV and then some are somewhat correct. This is only with bounced flash, flashgun mounted on hotshoe. Direct flash or wireless flash always fine. That's my experience with multiple K-5's.

07-12-2011, 04:02 AM	#281
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Indeed simico that would make for a highly disappointing P-TTL shoot. That's not acceptable and should be rectified by Pentax - should also be obvious for them to find the problem...

07-12-2011, 04:14 AM	#282
dlacouture Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Var, South of France Photos: Albums Posts: 1,074	Originally posted by Ash ...which would make sense if the flash is not powerful enough to adequately expose the subject from that distance. Well, I'm not talking about subject distance, just focus distance... And it's the same with high-iso, wide apertures shots (where you can theoretically light something 100m away)... In a small room (so, no subject distance involved), using W-P-TTL, you can see the slave flash going suddenly nearly dark when you go above a given focus distance. No change in composition is involved, just by defocusing the lens, you'll be able to reproduce this problem... With my FA50, for instance, it happens at the 3m mark... But with the tamron 28-75, it's slightly more (IIRC)...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-12-2011, 05:06 AM	#283
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Strange this is occurring based on focus distance, given this variable not being relayed to the camera or flash for a P-TTL exposure. In any case, this also negatively affects P-TTL reliability and could be something worth repairing if indeed there is a fault found.

07-19-2011, 09:10 PM	#284
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	I was very nervous about this issue as I use flash indoors a lot, and pTTL has been extremely reliable for me with my K-x, I usually use -0.3 FEC and get great results I've just got a K-5, upgraded it to 1.11, and taken a couple of dozen flash photos indoors. The first shot I took at -0.3 had some hot spots, I dialed it down to -0.7 and it was perfect and stayed that way for the rest of the shots. Nice and consistant like my K-x. What a relief For the record I used manual mode; 1/125, ISO500, f2.2.

07-20-2011, 01:40 AM	#285
filorp Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Aberdeen Scotland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 398	holly sh..... !!!!! Short story. On saturday and sunday, last week i had a wedding (on sunday just location shots). oN thursday i have upgraded to fw1.11. i havent got a chance to check the camera because i had to get to the location of wedding, during the reception when iv started to use the flashgun, i'v noticed something strange - all my photos came out very dark - i had -1.3 flash compensation turned on for all time. i switched to 0 compensation - everything went fine smothly with perfect exposure.... ITS ALIVE - AFTER 8 MONTHS SINCE I BOUGHT THE CAMERA FINALLY EVERYTHINS FINE!!!! It must have been silent upgrade definitely. At Home i checked all other option. When i set flash beam angle to 16mm the overexposure was still there, however when i leave the beam unset at default angle and without difusing panel, everything's fine.... after 8 months!!! FINALLY!!!