[traderdrew]

Samples with EXIF intact? This I have to see. The point I was trying to make that I DON'T want to have to use HSS.

After reading your first post again, sorry I didn't catch that. What exactly is it you want to see the 1/800 sync? I understand the loss of light power by using HSS. I'm not a believer in using my flash as the primary or strongest source of light anyway.

[thigmo]

It's not necessarily that one would want 1/800, although that would be nice. Every little bit helps if you are trying to overpower sunlight. I would love to see 1/250 as standard with a 1/320 cheat (a la Nikon on some bodies), with even a 1/500 cheat where you would get a half- to two-thirds exposure synced (and the other portion dark, but you would crop that out). All that really needs to happen is for the body to have the hotshoe contact or pc-sync port fire at all speeds and not limit it to 1/180.

For example, say you are trying to shoot a subject while balancing (or underexposing preferably) the ambient exposure, and you would like to keep the background blurred with a more open aperture. As it is, if I'm shooting at ISO100 on a bright day, you may have to stop down to f11 or f16 to get the ambient exposure correct at 1/180 (e.g. sunny 16 exposure would be 1/100 or so). Being able to shoot at even one stop equiv. faster shutter speed allows the following options:

- larger aperture (say f8 or less)
- better working distance with flash (bigger aperture compensating for light loss over distance); right now the flash has to be used fairly close to the subject
- use of light modifiers for flash (bigger aperture compensating for light loss due to diffusion from an umbrella for example)
- less flash power needed/faster recycling times (usually needing at least 2 flashes to work)

Not only do you get more options with lighting (it's not a a philosophical/religious choice, as many mention "believing" one thing or another related to), it's an artistic one. I'd rather have more options than fewer, and this artificial limitation really bothers me. I think many people associate "flash" lit shots with the typical deer-caught-in-the-headlights look of point and shoots, as opposed to being able to make more dramatic and/or 3-dimensional shots and/or HDR shots in-camera. Plus you can make it as subtle as you choose. If you have an SLR with the capability of using off-camera lights, why not take advantage? Not being able to is like saying no to any of the other capabilities that your camera has (e.g. "why have slow shutter speeds - I don't believe in motion blur" or "why have fast shutter speeds - I don't believe in freezing action).

For more examples and tutorial, see the strobist post here:
Strobist: Lighting 102: 3.2 - Balance | Flash/Sun Crosslighting

For more examples, see here:
strobist lighting102 exercise balance crosslight - Flickr: Search

[Cambo]

At least we get ISO 80 which makes daylight fill flash somewhat easier, though I wish the camera went as low as ISO 50, or 25.

I miss doing blurry water shots without 15 ND filters attached.

Cheers,
Cameron

[traderdrew]

That is interesting thigmo.

I am not a photographer but I have been trying to figure out how some people create their shots. I specialize in wildlife photos and I found to much flash makes the subject and some surrounding objects washed out with white light. I don't like to shoot in the midday sun either. I do use flash more often than not for close-up photography but, I will turn the dial down to just enough to add a touch of flash to compliment the ambient light. That is why I said "I don't believe in using to much flash".

A good number of those photos on the flickr page (I post my photos on flickr as well) have a neat 3-D effect. My interest has been piqued and thanks for taking the time to explain it.

The only 3-D effect I have been able to produce is turning the contrast down in post processing.

[thigmo]

Glad I could explain things... it's harder to explain than to show/do I think.

The 3-d "effect" is not so much an effect but the effective use of lighting (and all its variables) to "shape" your subject. For instance, an off-camera softbox provides a relatively big light source, wrapping its light around your subject (in a portrait for instance) and softening but emphasizing the texture and shape of the subject. The opposite would be straight on-camera flash, a relatively small source of light, in-line with the lens, creating a flat and harsh look so common in "snapshots." The contrast in the photo doesn't necessarily have much to do with the 3-d-ness of the image (although it can). It has more to do with the separation of lit foreground/midground/background.

Lighting is used to shape the subject, whether in photos or videos. Try deconstructing a fashion magazine shot or tv/movie scene and see what/how they achieve what they do. Everything you see is likely to be "artificially" lit - rare to use natural light for anything commercial, even if it looks it. Landscape/wildlife photographers are essentially doing the same thing but trying to find it rather than create it.

Anyway, getting back on topic, I just find it incredibly frustrating that the flash is deactivated by the manufacturer above the sync speed. I don't understand the reasoning for it (those who would be trying it would be in manual mode, not something someone not knowing what they're doing would likely be trying, let alone complaining about). All my previous film bodies and other manufacturers seem to allow it. It just seems like a waste of effort to deactivate this instead of leaving well enough alone. Surely a firmware update could allow a menu option for this.

[junyo]

This is only somewhat true. The flash could sync at as high a speed as you want, but the flash burn time is long enough at full output that a higher sync speed clips some of the flash output.
There are two ways to get a high amount of light out of a flash. One is a high output flash system with a short burn time, the other is a lower output system with a longer burn time.
I suspect Pentax went the former route because of cost issues (IE: too many users would whine about the cost of a flash with the necessarily beefed up components to allow a higher sync speed).

Even a full power dump of an AF360FGZ or AF540FGZ (or any other modern hotshoe strobe) wouldn't be constrained by 1/250th shutter speed. A studio flash, maybe.