[BruceBanner]

I'm not sure where to put this, but seeing as the flash is intended for the K-1 I'll try here.

Basically I am a complete noob when it comes to using a flash, my experience thus far have literally been with just the inbuilt K-50's and even then i seldom used.
I have never been a fan of flashes, and where possible have avoided like the plague, for two reasons;

1) I have no idea how to use a flash properly
2) The pictures I see that have used flash are usually quite obvious (and I can check Exif data etc to confirm such suspicions) and generally I find 'ruin' the picture.

When I say 'ruin' I realise that with lots of shots there is no alternative, the flash has to be used etc, with others it feels like a lower shutter speed, steadier hand and/or tripod use would have served better... I digress...

But nonetheless, I am now in the market to obtaining one as I am looking to launch a semi professional photography business later in the year and there's gonna be some situations where it's unavoidable, I have to have one, and I have to get good with it.

I'm reaching out the the pentaxforums for guidance in this matter. My photography business would be aimed at weddings, home visits to 'capture the moment' as well as some small studio set up work. I'm not really looking to drag around 3-4 lights and backgrounds with me, if I can avoid that and instead invest in a really good flash I would prefer that. Therefore I haven't actually put a budget limit on this future purchase, at this time I'm looking for feedback, guidance, education and suggestions.
If it's a case of spending $2k on a flash, that is gonna be more portable than lighting yet give exceptionally good results, I would like to consider that over say cheaper alternatives etc.

So... everyone please chime in

Cheers,

Bruce

[Theov39]

Nikon SB-24, 25, 26 or 28. All of these flashes can be bought cheap second hand on ebay and work great on any late model Pentax camera. Just set the flash in A (auto) mode and the camera in manual. I generally use 125 as my shutter speed and then just select an aperture you would like to use.

[BruceBanner]

Nikon SB-24, 25, 26 or 28. All of these flashes can be bought cheap second hand on ebay and work great on any late model Pentax camera. Just set the flash in A (auto) mode and the camera in manual. I generally use 125 as my shutter speed and then just select an aperture you would like to use.

Cheers, I'll look into them.

What about those circular flashes that mount around the lens, what's the purpose and advantage of them?

[Theov39]

They are for macro photography to provide very even light close up, something most normal flashes cannot do.

[pathdoc]

What about those circular flashes that mount around the lens, what's the purpose and advantage of them?

They are ring flashes, and their primary use is for macrophotography with appropriately specialised lenses. When you are up REALLY close and doing technical work (e.g. insects, medical, small parts), you want the light to be coming from all around, and a ring flash will do that for you. The better and more expensive ones talk to the camera and an appropriately modern lens via various proprietary TTL protocols, either firing a pre-flash and then letting go with the main burst based on that, or (back in the analogue days) by actually metering the light as it came in and actually cutting off the flash discharge when it had had enough. The advantage of the latter is that it allows use with very old lenses that don't explicitly signal their aperture to the camera, but among Pentax digital bodies it is restricted to the long-superceded *istD, DS and DS2 models and it requires the equally superceded AF080C ringflash or similar.

Because ring flashes are intended for use at very close range, they are generally not very powerful (often less powerful than most pop-up flashes on bodies that have them) and not much good for anything else except perhaps close-up portrait or fashion work (e.g. eyeglasses, jewellery, artistic compositions including only part of the face) where diffused light is important. The more sophisticated models can differentially light up sectors of the ring so as to provide shadow contrast for artistic rather than technical work.

[clackers]

When I say 'ruin' I realise that with lots of shots there is no alternative, the flash has to be used etc, with others it feels like a lower shutter speed, steadier hand and/or tripod use would have served better... I digress...

That's not the reason, Bruce.

Since light is everything in photography - whether you shoot weddings or wildlife - you have to learn to control it.

Natural light is something you learn very early on but then you expand your techniques to include all those that editorial or professional work require.

You choose the parameters. Terry Richardson loves full on frontal flash in his grungey high fashion shots, resembling the popup one on the camera.

Here are a couple of mine ... they both use flash (DFA 28-105 with a barebulb on-camera Pentax 540 speedlight in one, DA*55 with a Godox strobe off-camera with a gridded beauty dish in the other) but they have completely different feels. In one, the flash was used to reduce contrast in the final image (to fit in with the light, colourful, meditative mood), in the other, to increase it (ramping up the drama).

[BigMackCam]

I'd suggest a flash that supports P-TTL as well as full manual control. Yes, they're more expensive - but for on-the-fly work, P-TTL will be hugely advantageous. For those moments where you have time for a more considered shot, you can always switch to manual.

I use the Metz 52 AF-1 on both my Pentax and Sony cameras (different versions for different mounts, of course) and have found it to be very capable indeed. It's solidly-built, powerful and firmware-updateable. I seem to recall some users had problems with Metz flashes on the K-1 initially, but I believe firmware updates were provided. Worth checking, though.

EDIT: Thread moved to appropriate forum

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 06-16-2017 at 04:02 AM.

[clackers]

Cheers, I'll look into them.

What about those circular flashes that mount around the lens, what's the purpose and advantage of them?

Ring flashes are not just for macro - they're for portraits, too.

By lighting from below as well as above, left as well as right, they reduce skin defects by knocking out many of their shadows.

This kind of lighting is often used in glamour shots or commercial photography of makeup products ... it is very similar to what you would do with a 'clamshell' setup.

Below I use it on a guy, and it knocks years off his age:

[Kaisas]

What do u think about 540gfz ii ?

[CarlJF]

What do u think about 540gfz ii ?

Right now, it's probably the best you can get for a K-1.

No matter what, for a first do-it-all flash, be sure to get a P-TTL one with a swivel head (the 540 has both), both needed to get a versatile tool and be able to face almost any one flash situation. AFAIK, all P-TTL flashes can also be used in manual mode, but the reverse isn't true. From there, you get the most powerful your budget will allow.

To learn how to use it properly, you can get a lot of very good information by reading tutorials on the Strobist and Tangent websites. The first focusing mostly on manual flash but with very good explanations of the basics. The second one deal mostly with TTL flash techniques under more or less specific situations.

[pathdoc]

What do u think about 540gfz ii ?

I have one. It's a great flash IMHO, but it's not cheap. I agonised over whether to get the original model or this one because the original has internal thyristor control & can turn itself off when it's given off enough light, but the FGZ-II is much more compact and also WR and it was being bought to use outdoors.

IMHO the more power you have, the better, especially when outside or using bounce flash - better to have and not need than need and not have.

If you are using a hand-held meter with flash metering capabilities in a fixed studio setting, automation within the flash doesn't matter as much and you may as well go for something very cheap and comparably powerful. If you are moving around a lot taking candids, e.g. at a party or a wedding, it makes sense to have P-TTL or similar flash-handling protocols that can calculate flash exposure on the fly. Just be aware that you will need FA lenses or later (I think) to make full use of it.

[BigMackCam]

AFAIK, all P-TTL flashes can also be used in manual mode

That's largely true... however, some lower-priced models offer full P-TTL automation but only very limited manual control of power output - e.g. Sigma's EF-610 DG ST (not the "Super" version), which fires at either full or 1/16 power and nothing in between. Pentax's own AF200FG and AF201FG AW also have limited output options. There may be others, too, but they're all likely to be at the bottom of the range of P-TTL-capable units.

[pschlute]

The pictures I see that have used flash are usually quite obvious (and I can check Exif data etc to confirm such suspicions) and generally I find 'ruin' the picture.

When I say 'ruin' I realise that with lots of shots there is no alternative, the flash has to be used etc, with others it feels like a lower shutter speed, steadier hand and/or tripod use would have served better

I would suggest you are approaching this from the wrong angle.

As others have said photography is ONLY about light. To think that flash is only to use when ambient light is too low is to misunderstand the most important thing about photography. If you can use/create light sources , you will have interesting pictures. I too failed to learn about flash for the first 40 years of my photography but have embraced it this year. I have done a lot of learning online.

Have a look at this first to understand how a flash works Complete Pentax Flash Lighting Guide. Then do some online googling. It could open up a whole new world.

Here is a friends dog portrait I did yesterday.....There was plenty of ambient light both indoors and out. I could have taken this picture without flash. But the dog is a blessing to those who like high contrast pictures, and to show her off best a plain black or white background is the only choice. Photographing her against say a white wall in ambient light would not produce "seperation". So I used an illuminated Hilite background which was producing a stop more light than my key flash which was a reflective umbrella to throw even light everywhere.

[clackers]

Dynamic shot, Pete!

Whether we take pics of our child, our dog or our cousin getting married, we owe it to them to eliminate the shadows of their eye sockets and put a catchlight into those eyes, making them look at their best.

Sometimes where we are a pavement or wall might receive enough direct sunlight to provide this, at other times, we really have to take charge and reach into our gear bag.

[BruceBanner]

That's not the reason, Bruce.

Since light is everything in photography - whether you shoot weddings or wildlife - you have to learn to control it.

Natural light is something you learn very early on but then you expand your techniques to include all those that editorial or professional work require.

You choose the parameters. Terry Richardson loves full on frontal flash in his grungey high fashion shots, resembling the popup one on the camera.

Here are a couple of mine ... they both use flash (DFA 28-105 with a barebulb on-camera Pentax 540 speedlight in one, DA*55 with a Godox strobe off-camera with a gridded beauty dish in the other) but they have completely different feels. In one, the flash was used to reduce contrast in the final image (to fit in with the light, colourful, meditative mood), in the other, to increase it (ramping up the drama).

That's true. I think I need to clarify myself, I mean to emphasize that I personally have not seen many pictures where flash has been used in such a manner that it doesn't look glaringly obvious i.e. there are more bad flash pics out there than good ones.
For example, the two pictures you submitted here, the bottom looks far more subtle in use (which I prefer of the two), and the above yoga one more obvious (however yours is far more passable than most I see). I understand that from where you were, in terms of time of day, wanting the skyline behind yet the sun is also in that direction, it makes a hard shot without flash. I get that (and I tried to put that point across earlier). But perhaps it's the post processing afterwards, but the bottom pic of the fella with the beard, the flash comes off as a plausible natural source of light, like a sunset type thing, where the top picture looks like artificial lighting (it's still a great photo tho!). Even if it looks obviously artificial light source, I don't mean to say it always looks 'bad', there are awesome obvious flash shots too, I simple mean to say that more often than not good ones are harder to find.

I just think successful flash usage seems to be really tricky to manage, and I'm gonna have to start practicing quickly!

I'd suggest a flash that supports P-TTL as well as full manual control. Yes, they're more expensive - but for on-the-fly work, P-TTL will be hugely advantageous. For those moments where you have time for a more considered shot, you can always switch to manual.

I use the Metz 52 AF-1 on both my Pentax and Sony cameras (different versions for different mounts, of course) and have found it to be very capable indeed. It's solidly-built, powerful and firmware-updateable. I seem to recall some users had problems with Metz flashes on the K-1 initially, but I believe firmware updates were provided. Worth checking, though.

EDIT: Thread moved to appropriate forum

Good to know, thanks and I'm away researching and understanding what P-TTL is now

Ring flashes are not just for macro - they're for portraits, too.

By lighting from below as well as above, left as well as right, they reduce skin defects by knocking out many of their shadows.

This kind of lighting is often used in glamour shots or commercial photography of makeup products ... it is very similar to what you would do with a 'clamshell' setup.

Below I use it on a guy, and it knocks years off his age:

Yes I can see that, how far away from the subject were you when you fired off that shot? What lens and flash was used (if you don't mind me asking).

That's largely true... however, some lower-priced models offer full P-TTL automation but only very limited manual control of power output - e.g. Sigma's EF-610 DG ST (not the "Super" version), which fires at either full or 1/16 power and nothing in between. Pentax's own AF200FG and AF201FG AW also have limited output options. There may be others, too, but they're all likely to be at the bottom of the range of P-TTL-capable units.

Good to know. I just don't want to spend $300 for a flash if it is only giving a limited capability, if it means stepping up to $600 for a proper flash I think I would be more gung ho for that. Or perhaps two flashes at $300 each that serve different purposes perhaps...

I would suggest you are approaching this from the wrong angle.

As others have said photography is ONLY about light. To think that flash is only to use when ambient light is too low is to misunderstand the most important thing about photography. If you can use/create light sources , you will have interesting pictures. I too failed to learn about flash for the first 40 years of my photography but have embraced it this year. I have done a lot of learning online.

Have a look at this first to understand how a flash works Complete Pentax Flash Lighting Guide. Then do some online googling. It could open up a whole new world.

Here is a friends dog portrait I did yesterday.....There was plenty of ambient light both indoors and out. I could have taken this picture without flash. But the dog is a blessing to those who like high contrast pictures, and to show her off best a plain black or white background is the only choice. Photographing her against say a white wall in ambient light would not produce "seperation". So I used an illuminated Hilite background which was producing a stop more light than my key flash which was a reflective umbrella to throw even light everywhere.

Thanks for that, I will read that info. By the way, excellent pic of the dog, this shot highlights my point about flash sometimes being used in a manner that it is not glaringly obvious. I find the same result with a lot of macro flash photography, perhaps the ring flash gives more 'natural' effect?