Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-31-2007, 07:09 PM   #121
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,934
QuoteOriginally posted by nosnoop Quote
No, I fully understand all the flash systems, and my logic is sound. All the advanced flash features such a high speed sync and multiple wireless flash require a TTL metering system - and pre-flash (P-TTL) metering is the most efficient way to doing this. Without this efficient way of having TTL metering with the advanced flash feature, you won't see them implemented in all the bodies including entry ones.

Exactly - just think a minute and why have they adopted this approach? Why did Oly abandon their OTF TTL metering? Why has all the manufacturers decide on the same type of system? As I said, that's because it is the most efficient way of implementing flash TTL metering for all the advanced flash feature. There may be alternatives, but if they require complex circuitry or high cost to work with traditional TTL (e.g. radio trigger as other suggested), you simply won't see them implemented other than the top end body.

Aperture ring is not exactly the same. Though the main similarity to my logic is the redundancy as aperture can be controlled electronically; just like traditional TTL is a redundant system in a camera with P-TTL. Other than the extra expense of the mechanical aperture ring, it is also one of the main support issue when people forgot after they moved it off the "A" position.
I still can't see your logic nor it is considered to be "sound". There is always counter examples in the Pentax land, that is, the *ist D and *ist DS, which support traditional TTL auto flash without significant problems and issues, unlike the P-TTL which is renowned for underexposure and inconsistent results.

Still, you've forgot that the *ist D and DS Do support all advanced flash features (except that DS won't wireless flashed) you have insisted that old type TTL cannot co-exist with. But this is simply not the case. And, the *ist DS had never been an expensive camera you supposed to, neither.

Just think how much "expensive" that TTL mechanism would be. My bottom line of the film MZ-30 SLR has that. My MZ-30 costed me only $170 did have that and it works flawlessly, again.

The same case is for the aperture ring. It simply won't cost much as a $130 K-1000 could have it and still I can even use a digital Pentax lens on the K-1000 without any problem.

All in all, just don't try to speak too much for the manufacturers for what they have done to destroy compatibilities, i.e., simply defending for them from time to time. That's we, users and customers (actually you me are both brand supporters anyway), paid them and will pay them. But many of the times, owing the conflicts of interests, they would try to suck quality as well as compatibilities from we old users, and these acts are NOT PURELY because of technical reasons as you suppose, but MERELY because of financial and marketing reasons which are the true ones.

Afterall, we need to voice out our wills to keep our brand to drop as less compatibility features as they would do.

Also, for all we read here, we should know Pentax is not Canon and Nikon, they should keep the compatiblity better so as to maintain an edge over the big 2, but not follow they wrong ways to cheat money from their old customers.

12-31-2007, 07:33 PM   #122
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 131
is this really enough to beat out the competition? from what i'm seeing it doesnt offer much advantage over the d40x and 400d... the main advantage of the pentax i see is SR... but both canon and nikon will be offering SR in their kit lenses too(i doubt if many will buy more than the kit lenses)... plus i guess w/in half a year of the release of the k200d canikon will also release their new lower end models too... i fink they'll at least include a 3" lcd, which is very attractive to buyers at the lower end? also they'll hv time to react and offer better features... umm am i incorrect?
12-31-2007, 07:39 PM   #123
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,934
QuoteOriginally posted by jake123 Quote
is this really enough to beat out the competition? from what i'm seeing it doesnt offer much advantage over the d40x and 400d... the main advantage of the pentax i see is SR... but both canon and nikon will be offering SR in their kit lenses too(i doubt if many will buy more than the kit lenses)... plus i guess w/in half a year of the release of the k200d canikon will also release their new lower end models too... i fink they'll at least include a 3" lcd, which is very attractive to buyers at the lower end? also they'll hv time to react and offer better features... umm am i incorrect?
Yes, you're all correct, IMO. However, the K200D will have only a 2.5" mon which is the one used in the K100D, very likely.
12-31-2007, 09:23 PM   #124
Veteran Member
mattdm's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,964
QuoteOriginally posted by jake123 Quote
is this really enough to beat out the competition? from what i'm seeing it doesnt offer much advantage over the d40x and 400d...
We'll have to wait and see what the magic internals are, of course, but my guess is that the plan here is to compete mostly on price.

12-31-2007, 10:45 PM   #125
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,299
QuoteOriginally posted by RiceHigh Quote
I still can't see your logic nor it is considered to be "sound".
That's not surprising, isn't it?

QuoteQuote:
Still, you've forgot that the *ist D and DS Do support all advanced flash features (except that DS won't wireless flashed) you have insisted that old type TTL cannot co-exist with.
[sigh] I never said that. I said that old Pentax TTL cannot accomplish those advanced features (unless with significant redesign). *ist D/DS's advanced flash features depends on P-TTL to work.

QuoteQuote:
Just think how much "expensive" that TTL mechanism would be. My bottom line of the film MZ-30 SLR has that. My MZ-30 costed me only $170 did have that and it works flawlessly, again.
Tradition TTL became a redundant system when P-TTL came onboard. MZ-30 did not have P-TTL and have to rely on tradition TTL for flash exposure. And if you have duplicate systems, you incur extra costs.

QuoteQuote:
But many of the times, owing the conflicts of interests, they would try to suck quality as well as compatibilities from we old users, and these acts are NOT PURELY because of technical reasons as you suppose, but MERELY because of financial and marketing reasons which are the true ones.
You can believe what you want to believe. But I don't think that's the case for P-TTL. If traditional TTL can be a viable alternatives to pre-flash systems, someone would bound to jump on it. And of course, financial consideration is an important factor too. As I said, if you want to match P-TTL functionalities with off-the-sensor approach, it may be technological feasible but economically not viable because of significant increase in cost, then it won't fly.

QuoteQuote:
Afterall, we need to voice out our wills to keep our brand to drop as less compatibility features as they would do.
I, for one, don't miss old TTL one bit.
P-TTL works well for me. And if you understand how it works, and the matrix metering exposure priorities, you can get very consistent and excellent results.
12-31-2007, 10:52 PM   #126
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,934
QuoteOriginally posted by nosnoop Quote
I, for one, don't miss old TTL one bit.
P-TTL works well for me. And if you understand how it works, and the matrix metering exposure priorities, you can get very consistent and excellent results.
I bet you don't miss it just because you're just a new Pentax user.

But for those who have used the old TTL flash and used other brand's flash system(s) as well, the P-TTL is just horrible.

You should see those numerous number of complaints on the poor accuracy and reliability of the latest Pentax P-TTL daily at DPR or any other Pentax DSLR forums. Just do a search yourself!

Btw, here is a recent reported case (again, and again!):

A little disapointed... [Page 1]: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
12-31-2007, 11:05 PM   #127
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 166
QuoteOriginally posted by RiceHigh Quote
I can say what you guessed is absolutely wrong as there is the counterexample of the *ist D and my TTL Pentax flash guns which were made in the 80s. No issue here, very accurate and consistent even at ISO 400. No problem in total darkness and under daylight outdoor.

If the flash system works flawlessly up to ISO 400, what else do you actually need? To shoot with flash at ISO 1600 ??
Well, I tested it as well, and it was less reliable than an SB-24 in Auto mode on the *istD. And no, I don't care about flash at ISO 1600, but ISO 100 on the other hand...

And you've yet to note how such as system is supposed to handle reflections off a moving surface, which it will have to deal with on SR equipped bodies (I'm certainly NOT giving up SR for slow-sync work).

TTL-OTF flash is dead. Complain that Pentax can't offer a flash system as accurate as Nikon's, not that they don't support a few flashes that are noted for their lack of system compatibility (The ones you can't use in Auto mode can't be used on analog TTL bodies either for the most part).
12-31-2007, 11:13 PM   #128
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,299
QuoteOriginally posted by RiceHigh Quote
I bet you don't miss it just because you're just a new Pentax user.
Nope, my first camera was a KX, and I still have my ME Super and Super A with me. So I have tons of experience in using TTL flash with Super A.

QuoteQuote:
But for those who have used the old TTL flash and used other brand's flash system(s) as well, the P-TTL is just horrible.
It is not, I love P-TTL.

QuoteQuote:
You should see those numerous number of complaints on the poor accuracy and reliability of the latest Pentax P-TTL daily at DPR or any other Pentax DSLR forums. Just do a search yourself!
Btw, here is a recent reported case (again, and again!):
A little disapointed... [Page 1]: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
You can probably see my response there. P-TTL is not fool proof. But in fact, it is no different from non-flash matrix metering. Once you understand why the particular shot was exposed that way, you will know how to avoid the downfall. The usual complaints on "underexposure" was not really underexposed; the main reason is the matrix metering bias towards avoiding blown highlights - and this is with good reason in digital imaging.

You can also see numerous number of satisfied users with P-TTL:

540 Initial Impression: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

540+Tammy 18-250 (1 IMG): Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Hands up if you LIKE the AF 540 FGZ flash. [Page 1]: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

12-31-2007, 11:13 PM   #129
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 166
QuoteOriginally posted by OniFactor Quote
kunzite, read into Minolta's wireless TTL flash capabilities. it was an OTF TTL metering system, that they discontinued once they went digital, because the OTF functions were not exposing properly because of the differences between film and sensor. otherwise, it was a VERY advanced wireless system.
Actually, it was discontinued with the introduction of the Maxxum 7 film body and ADI metering, in order to enable wireless flash with sync speeds over 1/60 without going to HSS mode and to solve the poor exposure accuracy problem that had long plagued Minolta's flash system(which it didn't do). The 'modern' ADI version of Minolta's TTL wireless flash system is in fact identical in function to P-TTL and I would not be shocked to find out that P-TTL was essentially licensed from Minolta (Certain similarities, like the requirement of having the slave flash on the body to change channels, are oddly identical).

The reason why Pre-flash based TTL is necessary to advanced wireless capabilities is that the metering and wireless communication function are performed at the same time. The wireless flash quench control that Minolta used with its older system required rather slow sync speeds to work at all.
01-01-2008, 04:57 AM   #130
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,245
QuoteOriginally posted by mawz Quote
The 'modern' ADI version of Minolta's TTL wireless flash system is in fact identical in function to P-TTL and I would not be shocked to find out that P-TTL was essentially licensed from Minolta (Certain similarities, like the requirement of having the slave flash on the body to change channels, are oddly identical).
Mmm K10D indeed can use only 1 channel in wireless mode but that's a K10D limitation.
The ist-D could use the three different channels AFAIK, at least mine.
01-01-2008, 05:12 AM   #131
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Perth
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 669
Ricehigh, can you please post a shot from your 5d taken with a flash and a shot from your K100d with a flash. I am interested to see a comparison between your superior canon system and the (to you ) inferior Pentax system.

I would ask for a K10D sample - but I know you don't have one.
01-01-2008, 06:09 AM   #132
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,934
QuoteOriginally posted by nosnoop Quote
Nope, my first camera was a KX, and I still have my ME Super and Super A with me. So I have tons of experience in using TTL flash with Super A.

It is not, I love P-TTL.

You can probably see my response there. P-TTL is not fool proof. But in fact, it is no different from non-flash matrix metering. Once you understand why the particular shot was exposed that way, you will know how to avoid the downfall. The usual complaints on "underexposure" was not really underexposed; the main reason is the matrix metering bias towards avoiding blown highlights - and this is with good reason in digital imaging.

You can also see numerous number of satisfied users with P-TTL:

540 Initial Impression: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

540+Tammy 18-250 (1 IMG): Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Hands up if you LIKE the AF 540 FGZ flash. [Page 1]: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

The problem of P-TTL is that it is a matrix metering and the user is not easy to "predict" its judgements and outcomes as plain old centre weighted TTL flash did. In fact, it tends to "preserve" highlights as you can say but in my dictionary is underexposing.
01-01-2008, 06:49 AM   #133
Veteran Member
Mike Cash's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,952
QuoteOriginally posted by Falcons Quote
Ricehigh, can you please post a shot from your 5d taken with a flash and a shot from your K100d with a flash. I am interested to see a comparison between your superior canon system and the (to you ) inferior Pentax system.

I would ask for a K10D sample - but I know you don't have one.
Has anyone ever seen a photo he's taken of anything with anything at all? Other than maybe for his measurbating purposes, I mean.

He's sort of like a guy who buys computers for the sole purpose of running benchmark tests on them or someone who buys sports cars and never takes them off the dynamometer.
01-01-2008, 07:26 AM   #134
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Perth
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 669
The sad fact is that RH doesn't even measurebate anymore (if ever) - he just trawls the Internet for little nuggets of anti pentax sentiment then puts it on to his blog. I don't believe he ever uses his K100D.

He also states on his Blog that he has been a photographer for 30 years -

yet I have only seen one of his photos from his beloved canon 5d in which he proudly announced himself to a canon forum and explained how his photos with his $3,000 canon are superior to his $600 pentax and he has finally found a camera to do his photography justice. The canon people tore his, picture and his photographic technique to shreds (as only canon users can) - funny thing is he never went back.

Still find it odd why he continues with his anti pentax crusade but then again I suppose someone like him craves attention of any sort.
01-01-2008, 08:16 AM   #135
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Norway
Posts: 267
Nosnoop and others.

Could you please stop this endless debates with him that can not be mentioned?
I find it very distracting. There are so many good threads going down in noise because of this.

:-) Tim
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k200d, k20d, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A variety of images with FA* 200/4 Macro (no bugs) - VLF competition images Marc Langille Post Your Photos! 28 08-22-2008 07:28 PM
K200D Burst of RAW images? ogl Pentax News and Rumors 6 03-12-2008 10:59 AM
K200D Burst of RAW images? ogl Pentax DSLR Discussion 1 03-10-2008 04:23 PM
Pentax K200D - images out in the wild USCdeacon Pentax DSLR Discussion 8 01-02-2008 09:11 PM
High ISO concert images with Tam 28-300 (Images) jsundin Post Your Photos! 2 07-05-2007 08:19 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:25 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top