[texaspentaxeon]

My question is if there are any connectors to joining together Pentax 5P flash sync cords? I would really like to join together two 9.5' cables...


Photo From Adorama

[sholtzma]

I'm not aware of any and assume I would have come across the item at some point, if it existed. If they do exist, I'd like to know. Perhaps a third party connector is now made by someone?

[texaspentaxeon]

It would be a very simple product to manufacture... you would think someone would have!

[tom1803]

I haven't come across any joiners for this cable and I don't think you'll ever find one.

If you're handy with a soldering iron and a multimeter (continuity tester), you can always cut the existing cable and connect a 5 pin mini-din plug and socket on the ends. You can then use any length of commercially available 5 pin mini-din extension cable to suit your needs or again make your own.

Incidentally, any reason why wireless trigger is not a solution?

[texaspentaxeon]

Less to go wrong with a wired approach, especially when learning to do basic studio lighting.

I just thing that having two male terminals that both have screw in capability is at a great loss without a small joiner. I'm going the try to 3D print one with the threads, then insert the proper size of small copper tubes for each of five pins. Then I would have a permanent reliable link....

[bmw]

Less to go wrong with a wired approach, especially when learning to do basic studio lighting.

I just thing that having two male terminals that both have screw in capability is at a great loss without a small joiner. I'm going the try to 3D print one with the threads, then insert the proper size of small copper tubes for each of five pins. Then I would have a permanent reliable link....

Having done both wired and wireless, I can assure that there's just as much to go wrong with both methods -- just different problems with each. And I much prefer wireless. A big issue with wired is simply tripping over the cable.

What makes you think that joining two of these cables together will work? There's no guarantee that the circuitry in the camera is able to drive longer distances. This could explain why there are no joiners and no available longer sync cables.

When I was a complete flash beginner a few years ago I started out using the Pentax wireless P-TTL system. When I began using two flashes P-TTL failed so I switched to the cheap eBay wireless triggers and that's what I still use now. The main trouble with them is dirty contacts and not changing the AAA batteries often enough. Other than that, no trouble.

When I attend studio workshops I use whatever wireless system they have. My very first studio sessions -- I'd never even seen a monolight before -- were with wireless triggers.

Trust me (I know; you don't know me, but anyway ...) sync cables are so last century.

[Tanzer]

I guess the "official" method would be to use the "Hot Shoe Adapter F" (or FG), stacked on top of the "Off Camera Shoe Adapter". .
PENTAX Hot Shoe Adapter F reviews - Pentax Camera Accessory Review Database
PENTAX Off-camera Shoe Adapter F reviews - Pentax Camera Accessory Review Database

This is the solution that is shown in the various Pentax user manuals for daisy-chaining two wired off-camera flashes. The only difference is that you aren't using using the flash in the middle. I don't recall that there were any restrictions on overall cable length, nor do I know what happens if you try to connect 3 or more flashes.

Admittedly not the best solution, as those little adapters are expensive. Also, from a practical perspective, in addition to being a clunky junction that someone can easily step on or trip over, the hotshoe foot does not have a locking mechanism, so the two adapters could pull apart easily.

Now that you have mentioned it, I would have also thought that a simple barrel connector would be available. (If you create one, you should make up a few and sell them -- at least you will recover some cost!)

[texaspentaxeon]

I would love P-TTL, but I am running what I've got. It's an AF-500-FTZ, so I'm running TTL with the K-5 IIs. Unless there are other options for using this flash...?

[Tanzer]

Oooh, sorry to say this, but none of the DSLRs except the original *istD series will support TTL mode. Whether TTL or P-TTL, both the camera and the flash must be capable of supporting the desired mode.

Until very recently, the newer flashes such as the AF360FGZ and AF540FGZ would support both P-TTL and TTL depending on what camera body you were using. In other words, the flashes were generally backwards compatible with older bodies. (The very recent Mark II versions no longer support the TTL mode.)

However, the bodies have always tended to be not quite so backwards compatible. Even those bodies (*istD series, MZ-6 film body, etc) that are technically capable of supporting both P-TTL and TTL modes will always favor P-TTL mode on a multi-mode flash like the AF540FGZ, unless you force the flash to go into a TTL-only mode, for example, by setting the aperture ring of an A-series lens to a manual aperture setting. Point is, they really didn't really intend for you to use TTL, once P-TTL was available. I guess they figured that flashes needed to be backwards compatible, but someone who just spent big bucks on a new body wouldn't mind having to pony up a few more bucks for a new flash system.

In summary, the old Pentax TTL flashes can only be used in manual mode on your K-5iis. Since the AF500FTZ doesn't have manual power settings or an auto-thyristor mode, it will always fire at full power (and that model is a very powerful flash indeed). So you will need to manually calculate aperture based on guide number and distance to subject, and/or use filters.

Some other options are to sell the AF500FTZ and get a newer P-TTL flash, or a flash that supports variable power settings and/or an auto mode. You can pick up a new flash with variable power settings for quite cheap. And for a controlled studio environment, that will give you the most consistent results anyhow.

Another option is to find an older *istD series that will communicate with your AF500FTZ. That approach mostly appeals to those who regularly shoot with manual lenses, do macro, etc.

[bmw]

Texaspentaxeon: since you earlier stated that you are "learning to do basic studio lighting", and given the restrictions that Tanzer points out, you should probably consider an inexpensive flash like the Neewer TT560 or one of the Yongnuo's. The TT560 is only $50 and other than lacking zooming is a very capable basic manual-only flash. I have two of them I'm using for rim and hair lights in studio work. I've also used them inside softboxes and they are only 2/3 stop less powerful than my AF540FGZ's.

Funny how much a request for a sync cable extender has morphed. :-)

[texaspentaxeon]

It actually appears to have full manual settings. I can set powers of 1/1-1/32 and I can set lens focal lengths of 24, 28, 35, 50, 70, and 85mm. I'll probably keep it as a secondary flash. That said I think just getting a used modern flash. I have an *ist-D that came with the flash, but I want a good flash for my reporting that would allow me to do subject shot as well as portraits. The AF540FGZ flash looks great... what would be a fair price for a used one?

And thanks for the help and pointers!

[texaspentaxeon]

Actually what would be a similar modern flash for use on my K-5 IIs?

[Tanzer]

SORRY, I stand corrected. The AF500FTZ does indeed have variable power settings, so that will work well, especially in a studio environment.

For a modern P-TTL equivalent, the AF560FGZ would be the most similar. The number (560 -> 56) is a clue to the guide number, which is close to the power of your old flash (500 -> 50). But it is not cheap. And the Mark II version is REALLY prohibitively expensive, so I'd try to get the original version if it is still available. It tilts and swivels and can also take an external power pack.

The AF360FGZ and Mark II version are more reasonably priced, but they have a lower guide number (36). That is enough for a lot of work, but can be a little short if you like to do a lot of bounce flash indoors on high ceilings, or outdoors against the sun. It all depends on how you like to shoot. The Mark II has much better construction, and can swivel whereas the original has a super flimsy battery door and won't swivel.

The AF200 is like a joke, not a serious flash.

There are some well respected alternatives like the Sigma 610 Super and some Metz units, but I don't have any experience with those and can't really comment.

Good luck!

[texaspentaxeon]

SORRY, I stand corrected. The AF500FTZ does indeed have variable power settings, so that will work well, especially in a studio environment.

For a modern P-TTL equivalent, the AF560FGZ would be the most similar. The number (560 -> 56) is a clue to the guide number, which is close to the power of your old flash (500 -> 50). But it is not cheap. And the Mark II version is REALLY prohibitively expensive, so I'd try to get the original version if it is still available. It tilts and swivels and can also take an external power pack.

The AF360FGZ and Mark II version are more reasonably priced, but they have a lower guide number (36). That is enough for a lot of work, but can be a little short if you like to do a lot of bounce flash indoors on high ceilings, or outdoors against the sun. It all depends on how you like to shoot. The Mark II has much better construction, and can swivel whereas the original has a super flimsy battery door and won't swivel.

The AF200 is like a joke, not a serious flash.

There are some well respected alternatives like the Sigma 610 Super and some Metz units, but I don't have any experience with those and can't really comment.

Good luck!

Thank you much for the explanation Tanzer! Those model numbers were pretty Greek to me, but now it all is falling into place. I think since I have the 500 for full power, I might use the AF360FGZ.

Anyone else have experience the the Sigma or the Metz? (I trust Sigma product quality, but I've never heard of Metz. That said if its good, I'd love to know!)

[sterretje]

I'm still happily using a 20plus year old Metz 45 CT1 at occasion