[skid2964]

I do real estate photography (virtual tours, etc.).

I have been using my Pentax AF360FGZ until I got a Metz 48 AF-1. I use a flash off-camera with a cord for the panorama shots by holding it near the camera bouncing off the ceiling. For still shots I use it in wireless mode.

I got annoyed with the flaky battery door on the Pentax so I started looking for a replacement. I chose the Metz 48 because it had a swivel head and I figured I could leave it on the camera while I did the panoramas and still use it in wireless mode for the stills.

Well, the Metz performed perfectly EXCEPT for it's failure to fire about 20% of the time while in wireless mode. The Pentax HAS NEVER failed to fire in wireless mode! I guess I can live with the battery door problem!

Maybe it is unfair to choose the Pentax over the Metz based completely on it's ability to fire every time in wireless mode. The Metz DID a fine job in every other way, but for me, I must have 100% reliability while folks are waiting for me to finish shooting their home while I am fumbling with equipment that, to them, appears defective.

I contacted Metz about it, they told me my *istD did not have the ability to fire the Metz in wireless mode due it not having the controller feature. Well, the *istD does, the DS and DL do not. Strange, because my question was about it's reliability in wireless mode, not any in-ability to be used in that way. I stated in my email that I was using both flashes in wireless mode. Oh well.

[m88k]

I'm afraid I have a k100d (no wireless trigger mode), I can possibly spread a little light here. The Metz supports ONLY intelligent wireless P-TTL, whereas the 360 will also act as a dumb trigger.

Also, do you have the Metz aimed so that it's receiver is aimed toward the camera's on-board flash? I believe it's the little red window under the battery compartment.

If the istD is the problem, using the 360 as an on-camera trigger is one way around it. That may add too much size for you though.


Whoops, just realized this is a year-old thread. haven't switched my brain to 2010 yet!

[LeDave]

Never owned the AF 360, but I own the 48 AF-1 and I agree the wireless is pretty weak. I do have a set of trigger/receivers so it works great on those.

[skid2964]

The 360 always fires regardless of how I hold it.
I have since gone back to the 360, I have two of them now.

I'm afraid I have a k100d (no wireless trigger mode), I can possibly spread a little light here. The Metz supports ONLY intelligent wireless P-TTL, whereas the 360 will also act as a dumb trigger.

Also, do you have the Metz aimed so that it's receiver is aimed toward the camera's on-board flash? I believe it's the little red window under the battery compartment.

If the istD is the problem, using the 360 as an on-camera trigger is one way around it. That may add too much size for you though.


Whoops, just realized this is a year-old thread. haven't switched my brain to 2010 yet!

[lesmore49]

I've got a Pentax 360. Disappointed in it. First piece of Pentax gear I have bought in 42 years that I regret buying.

Also have a 25 year old Vivitar 285 HV. Now there's a flash. I don't use it on my digital equipment, but use it on 35 mm...Pentax, Leica, Mamiya Medium Format.

[Russell-Evans]

Well, the Metz performed perfectly EXCEPT for it's failure to fire about 20% of the time while in wireless mode. The Pentax HAS NEVER failed to fire in wireless mode! I guess I can live with the battery door problem!

Is the side window under the battery door of the Metz pointed away from the camera when this is happening? The Metz sensor is under that and is not on the front of the flash. Interestingly enough, the front window doesn't have anything to do with wireless, block the side window and nothing happens. I thought both would allow light to hit the sensor, and it took me awhile to realize this wasn't so.

Thank you
Russell

[NeverSatisfied]

Is the side window under the battery door of the Metz pointed away from the camera when this is happening? The Metz sensor is under that and is not on the front of the flash. Interestingly enough, the front window doesn't have anything to do with wireless, block the side window and nothing happens. I thought both would allow light to hit the sensor, and it took me awhile to realize this wasn't so.

Thank you
Russell

I experienced the same problem with Metz 58. The sensor is poorly located IMO. The Pentax sensor for 360 and 540 is behind the red plastic window on the front. I have never had any problem with misfires in wireless using the Pentax flashes and so I too have switched back to Pentax. Plus I think the controls are quicker and easier to figure out (but that's just me).

[Russell-Evans]

I experienced the same problem with Metz 58. The sensor is poorly located IMO.

I like it as it puts the controls to the side when using a light modifier instead of having them blocked or less accessible. I usually can get to the controls without having to remove the flash from the shoe so this speeds things up. I have also yet to have any issues with the flash not firing once I realized how to position it, so that helps.

I do wish Metz made a right and a left flash however. This would make some things a lot easier.

Thank you
Russell

[mattdm]

I do wish Metz made a right and a left flash however. This would make some things a lot easier.

Or put a sensor on both sides. (Just like Pentax puts IR remote senors on both the front and back of camera bodies.)

[jerrymouse]

Or put a sensor on both sides. (Just like Pentax puts IR remote senors on both the front and back of camera bodies.)

Off Topic: I was wondering how can that wireless remote work from behind of the camera

On topic:
I replaced AF 360 FGZ with Metz 48-1 to realize it won't fire when I need it in wireless and it doesn't have manual control of flash power in wireless mode (just P-TTL). So I bought second hand AF 540 FGZ and I'm a happy camper

[Ash]

You solved your own question there jerry.
The 540 as a control flash can have its head directed towards the slave flash behind you. (sounds like you already did that...)