K-3ii Wireless Flash Triggering

jawsy · 07-28-2016, 02:06 AM

I've read up on this and think I 'get it' but would like some confirmation.

If I fix a basic flash unit to the hot shoe of a K-3ii as a 'master', will a flash unit that is P-TTL slave capable of any brand result in a successful wireless flash fire?

mcgregni · 07-28-2016, 02:36 AM - **1 Like**

No. P-TTL wireless needs a Pentax or other dedicated system flash, both as master/controller and the slave.

---------- Post added 28-07-16 at 09:41 ----------

A 'basic' flash on the camera will be able to optically trigger a slave flash set to 'dumb slave' mode.... On Pentax flashes this is 'SL2'. However the flash will only work in manual mode. Also your on-camera flash will be lighting the scene also. With a P-TTL flash set to control mode that won't happen.

jawsy · 07-28-2016, 02:50 AM

Excellent. That's the clearest, most succinct explanation I've found on this subject.

UMC · 07-28-2016, 02:54 AM

This thread is putting salt into my wounds...

For me it is quite ok to offer cameras with GPS instead of flash. I barely ever used the built in flash of my previous K-5 anyway.

However, I wish Ricoh had gone the way till the end and offered a small, affordable flash like the AF 200FGZ or AF 201FGZ with capabilities to trigger wireless flashes. It is hard to understand what akward marketing decision lead to a situation where the smallest option for wireless trigger with a K-3 II or K-1 is the AF 360 FGZ or the AF 360 FGZ II.

I confess, there may be small and cheap options from Metz too, but given the fact that wireless P-TTL obviously has a quite proprietary protocol, I'm not so much in favor of 3rd party products just to be on the safe side for future cameras.

mcgregni · 07-28-2016, 03:48 AM

It's a common theme around here! Personally I find the extra versatility and power that an AF-360FGZII (or 540) offer well worth the money and space/weight costs, even just as controller flash. But I may be one of few who think that!

There are lots of others views, plus my own, on this related thread ....

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/326690-why-penta...lash-mode.html

**clackers** · 07-28-2016, 05:34 AM

Originally posted by UMC

However, I wish Ricoh had gone the way till the end and offered a small, affordable flash like the AF 200FGZ or AF 201FGZ with capabilities to trigger wireless flashes. It is hard to understand what akward marketing decision lead to a situation where the smallest option for wireless trigger with a K-3 II or K-1 is the AF 360 FGZ or the AF 360 FGZ II.

I'd say it's similar to the other brands and their TTL implementations, UMC.

In either case, radio triggers are so cost effective now that most Canikon owners use Pocket Wizards, Yongnuos, Cowboys, Catuses, etc ....

mcgregni · 07-28-2016, 05:41 AM

They have an advantage though, that some of these options provide good wireless TTL functioning ....

If we're going to start wishing for stuff, I'd be wanting Ricoh to develop their own proprietary flash system with a new radio remote option. A trigger device with groups control, P-TTL ratio and full remote manual power control, plus new flashes with radio transceivers to work together with the hotshoe trigger. A proper LCD interface and decent buttons to manage it all.

But, as I'm often asking now ..... Will Pentax users be willing to pay for it all?

beholder3 · 07-28-2016, 09:44 AM

If people are looking for "small" and "affordable" then they certainly don't mean a setup where the on-camera flash needs to contribute with own light.

So that is exactly the scenario where the affordable ($120 for a pair) and small Acon R930s shine. Plug an play with almost any PTTL flash. With the added benefit of it now being radio, so you can cover longer distances, bright daylight and obstructed flashes.

mcgregni · 07-28-2016, 09:58 AM

That gives a single P-TTL slave solution, yes I agree. Its the equivalent of a built-in flash in 'control' mode with the advantages of radio signals.

However, I find that I often use my on-camera flash in 'master' mode when triggering a P-TTL slave. Both flashes are working in P-TTL automatic mode with ratios and flash compensations set. The on-camera flash I find very handy for some bounced fill, say to lift shadows on the off-side from where the slaves light is coming from. This two flash arrangement adds greatly to the control of contrast and the creative options, but is good if things are moving around a bit, as you only have to re-position the one slave and make a quick head adjustment of the on-camera flash ..... quicker than re-positioning two slaves anyway.

I guess thats one reason why I keep saying that I actually value the full sized Pentax flashes for on-camera triggering purposes. Even if only used in 'control' mode then their extra reach and direction control of the flash head, plus more power and zoom options for improving the control signals reach, make them good value I believe .... certainly worth the extra cost and size/weight over, say, a Metz AF26 or AF201 ... even if those units DID offer wireless triggering!

**clackers** · 07-28-2016, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by mcgregni

If we're going to start wishing for stuff, I'd be wanting Ricoh to develop their own proprietary flash system with a new radio remote option.

Canon did that with their RT flashes, and I don't think it's really worked for them. Very expensive, and owners just buy third-party triggers.

When you hire a studio for a professional shoot, you just use a generic rather than proprietary trigger with their various provided octaboxes, softboxes, etc. Works with any camera.

Class A · 07-31-2016, 03:52 AM

Originally posted by jawsy

If I fix a basic flash unit to the hot shoe of a K-3ii as a 'master', will a flash unit that is P-TTL slave capable of any brand result in a successful wireless flash fire?

You have been given a correct answer already, but you also asked in a rather specific way.

Depending on what you really mean by "wireless flash fire", other options are possible. "Wireless" (i.e., here that means "optical") triggering does not require P-TTL flashes at both ends.

If your on-camera flash is "basic" and your slave flashes are "basic" then optical triggering will work.

If your on-camera flash is "basic" and your slave flashes are P-TTL flashes then it depends whether they support optical triggering from basic flashes. Some flash models do.

If your on-camera flash is a P-TTL flash then many "basic" flashes can still be optically triggered because they offer a mode in which the pre-flash from the P-TTL flash is ignored.

So while the "both P-TTL" case is a clear cut one, all other three cases also support "wireless triggering". They do not support P-TTL exposure control but some flashes support a so-called "A mode" which is a different form of automatic exposure control. Also, your question does not imply the desire for automatic exposure control, so I think all four combinations are possible answers to a certain interpretation of your question.

Originally posted by UMC

I confess, there may be small and cheap options from Metz too, but given the fact that wireless P-TTL obviously has a quite proprietary protocol, I'm not so much in favor of 3rd party products just to be on the safe side for future cameras.

Metz just released firmware updates to make their older flash models compatible with the K-1. Seems like at least in the case of Metz there is no need to be overly concerned.

07-28-2016, 02:06 AM	#1
jawsy Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 422	K-3ii Wireless Flash Triggering I've read up on this and think I 'get it' but would like some confirmation. If I fix a basic flash unit to the hot shoe of a K-3ii as a 'master', will a flash unit that is P-TTL slave capable of any brand result in a successful wireless flash fire?

07-28-2016, 02:36 AM - 1 Like	#2
mcgregni Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Surrey, England Posts: 2,603	No. P-TTL wireless needs a Pentax or other dedicated system flash, both as master/controller and the slave. ---------- Post added 28-07-16 at 09:41 ---------- A 'basic' flash on the camera will be able to optically trigger a slave flash set to 'dumb slave' mode.... On Pentax flashes this is 'SL2'. However the flash will only work in manual mode. Also your on-camera flash will be lighting the scene also. With a P-TTL flash set to control mode that won't happen. Last edited by mcgregni; 07-28-2016 at 02:42 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Cactus RF60 Wireless Flash With Wireless Flash Transceiver V6 question	Spodeworld	Flashes, Lighting, and Studio	21	04-04-2016 09:49 PM
Wireless Remote for K-3II	C_Jones	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	6	11-16-2015 08:53 AM
K-3II No Flash Mounted Using External Flash	C_Jones	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	13	09-18-2015 11:35 AM
Wireless flash triggering on a K-30?	gorski	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	2	06-21-2012 05:33 AM
K-5 intermittent flash triggering.	mrjamesabels	Flashes, Lighting, and Studio	2	07-01-2011 09:23 PM

07-28-2016, 02:50 AM	#3
jawsy Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 422 Original Poster	Excellent. That's the clearest, most succinct explanation I've found on this subject.

07-28-2016, 02:54 AM	#4
UMC Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Vienna Photos: Gallery Posts: 205	This thread is putting salt into my wounds... For me it is quite ok to offer cameras with GPS instead of flash. I barely ever used the built in flash of my previous K-5 anyway. However, I wish Ricoh had gone the way till the end and offered a small, affordable flash like the AF 200FGZ or AF 201FGZ *with* capabilities to trigger wireless flashes. It is hard to understand what akward marketing decision lead to a situation where the smallest option for wireless trigger with a K-3 II or K-1 is the AF 360 FGZ or the AF 360 FGZ II. I confess, there may be small and cheap options from Metz too, but given the fact that wireless P-TTL obviously has a quite proprietary protocol, I'm not so much in favor of 3rd party products just to be on the safe side for future cameras.

07-28-2016, 03:48 AM	#5
mcgregni Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Surrey, England Posts: 2,603	It's a common theme around here! Personally I find the extra versatility and power that an AF-360FGZII (or 540) offer well worth the money and space/weight costs, even just as controller flash. But I may be one of few who think that! There are lots of others views, plus my own, on this related thread .... https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/326690-why-penta...lash-mode.html

07-28-2016, 05:34 AM	#6
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by UMC However, I wish Ricoh had gone the way till the end and offered a small, affordable flash like the AF 200FGZ or AF 201FGZ *with* capabilities to trigger wireless flashes. It is hard to understand what akward marketing decision lead to a situation where the smallest option for wireless trigger with a K-3 II or K-1 is the AF 360 FGZ or the AF 360 FGZ II. I'd say it's similar to the other brands and their TTL implementations, UMC. In either case, radio triggers are so cost effective now that most Canikon owners use Pocket Wizards, Yongnuos, Cowboys, Catuses, etc ....

07-28-2016, 05:41 AM	#7
mcgregni Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Surrey, England Posts: 2,603	They have an advantage though, that some of these options provide good wireless TTL functioning .... If we're going to start wishing for stuff, I'd be wanting Ricoh to develop their own proprietary flash system with a new radio remote option. A trigger device with groups control, P-TTL ratio and full remote manual power control, plus new flashes with radio transceivers to work together with the hotshoe trigger. A proper LCD interface and decent buttons to manage it all. But, as I'm often asking now ..... Will Pentax users be willing to pay for it all?

07-28-2016, 09:44 AM	#8
beholder3 Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 3,112	If people are looking for "small" and "affordable" then they certainly don't mean a setup where the on-camera flash needs to contribute with own light. So that is exactly the scenario where the affordable ($120 for a pair) and small Acon R930s shine. Plug an play with almost any PTTL flash. With the added benefit of it now being radio, so you can cover longer distances, bright daylight and obstructed flashes.

07-28-2016, 09:58 AM	#9
mcgregni Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Surrey, England Posts: 2,603	That gives a single P-TTL slave solution, yes I agree. Its the equivalent of a built-in flash in 'control' mode with the advantages of radio signals. However, I find that I often use my on-camera flash in 'master' mode when triggering a P-TTL slave. Both flashes are working in P-TTL automatic mode with ratios and flash compensations set. The on-camera flash I find very handy for some bounced fill, say to lift shadows on the off-side from where the slaves light is coming from. This two flash arrangement adds greatly to the control of contrast and the creative options, but is good if things are moving around a bit, as you only have to re-position the one slave and make a quick head adjustment of the on-camera flash ..... quicker than re-positioning two slaves anyway. I guess thats one reason why I keep saying that I actually value the full sized Pentax flashes for on-camera triggering purposes. Even if only used in 'control' mode then their extra reach and direction control of the flash head, plus more power and zoom options for improving the control signals reach, make them good value I believe .... certainly worth the extra cost and size/weight over, say, a Metz AF26 or AF201 ... even if those units DID offer wireless triggering!

07-28-2016, 04:23 PM	#10
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by mcgregni If we're going to start wishing for stuff, I'd be wanting Ricoh to develop their own proprietary flash system with a new radio remote option. Canon did that with their RT flashes, and I don't think it's really worked for them. Very expensive, and owners just buy third-party triggers. When you hire a studio for a professional shoot, you just use a generic rather than proprietary trigger with their various provided octaboxes, softboxes, etc. Works with any camera.

07-31-2016, 03:52 AM	#11
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by jawsy If I fix a basic flash unit to the hot shoe of a K-3ii as a 'master', will a flash unit that is P-TTL slave capable of any brand result in a successful wireless flash fire? You have been given a correct answer already, but you also asked in a rather specific way. Depending on what you really mean by "wireless flash fire", other options are possible. "Wireless" (i.e., here that means "optical") triggering does not require P-TTL flashes at both ends. If your on-camera flash is "basic" and your slave flashes are "basic" then optical triggering will work. If your on-camera flash is "basic" and your slave flashes are P-TTL flashes then it depends whether they support optical triggering from basic flashes. Some flash models do. If your on-camera flash is a P-TTL flash then many "basic" flashes can still be optically triggered because they offer a mode in which the pre-flash from the P-TTL flash is ignored. So while the "both P-TTL" case is a clear cut one, all other three cases also support "wireless triggering". They do not support P-TTL exposure control but some flashes support a so-called "A mode" which is a different form of automatic exposure control. Also, your question does not imply the desire for automatic exposure control, so I think all four combinations are possible answers to a certain interpretation of your question. Originally posted by UMC I confess, there may be small and cheap options from Metz too, but given the fact that wireless P-TTL obviously has a quite proprietary protocol, I'm not so much in favor of 3rd party products just to be on the safe side for future cameras. Metz just released firmware updates to make their older flash models compatible with the K-1. Seems like at least in the case of Metz there is no need to be overly concerned.