Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-23-2015, 10:17 AM   #781
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,236
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
This should be the next area of work for Pentax R&D (of course in concert with their suppliers). Or they should just pay up for a better shutter.
I am not sure the shutter on the K-5 and K-3 or even the K-7 and K20d was really the problem because they are already more advanced than the other bodies. How tough would it be to get 1/250 out of them?

04-23-2015, 10:47 AM   #782
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
enoeske's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surprise, Az
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,014
QuoteOriginally posted by Mistral75 Quote
Nope, not as long as the shutter speed is slower than the synch speed: the flash itself lasts less than 1/1,000s and the resulting flash lightening power will be the same, be the shutter speed 1/125s, 1/180s or 1/250s.

It's HSS at shutter speeds faster than the synch speed that results in lower flash power since the flash unit emits a series of short strobes of lesser power, each of them lightening a portion of the final image (the portion corresponding to the window between the two shutter curtains).
No, he's correct. Some flashes have long durations (T.1 vs T.5 times). I've seen units that take 1/100s at full power. That means if you shoot at 1/180ths, you are cutting off some of the flash and decreasing its exposure.
04-23-2015, 10:48 AM   #783
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RGlasel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Saskatoon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,759
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
This should be the next area of work for Pentax R&D
What benefits did you have in mind?

Assuming that the reason for Pentax using 1/180 as flash sync speed instead of 1/250 is that the leading and trailing curtains of the shutters Pentax uses move 28% slower (less than 1/2 stop) than the ones Nikon uses, does improving the shutter mean a faster minimum shutter speed? (Although the D7200 and K-3 have the same 1/8000 sec. spec)

Are you thinking of changing the style of shutter altogether? How many of us would give up faster shutter speeds (leaf shutters generally max out at 1/500 or slower) in order to get slightly faster flash sync?

Now, if the reason for Pentax lagging Nikon in terms of flash sync is that Pentax is using less reliable shutters, that can't be trusted to consistently leave the entire sensor exposed for less than 1/250, maybe all exposures could be improved with a better shutter?

Last edited by RGlasel; 04-23-2015 at 10:53 AM.
04-23-2015, 10:52 AM   #784
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,236
QuoteOriginally posted by RGlasel Quote
What benefits did you have in mind?

Assuming that the reason for Pentax using 1/180 as flash sync speed instead of 1/250 is that the leading and trailing curtains of the shutters Pentax uses move 28% slower than the ones Nikon uses, does improving the shutter mean a faster minimum shutter speed? (Although the D7200 and K-3 have the same 1/8000 sec. spec)

Are you thinking of changing the style of shutter altogether? How many of us would give up faster shutter speeds (leaf shutters generally max out at 1/500 or slower) in order to get slightly faster flash sync?

Now, if the reason for Pentax lagging Nikon in terms of flash sync is that Pentax is using less reliable shutters, that can't be trusted to consistently leave the entire sensor exposed for less than 1/250, maybe all exposures could be improved with a better shutter?
Do you have a citation from Pentax that states that the shutter in the K-5 and K-3 is the hitch with this mythical 28% stuff? I don't think it is.

04-23-2015, 11:00 AM   #785
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RGlasel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Saskatoon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,759
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
Do you have a citation from Pentax that states that the shutter in the K-5 and K-3 is the hitch with this mythical 28% stuff? I don't think it is.
I don't, and I think you are right that differences in shutters between brands of camera aren't the reason for differences in flash sync speed. I really don't understand this obsession with flash sync speed, but I might be missing something.
04-23-2015, 11:14 AM   #786
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
JimC1101's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Fremont, Ca
Photos: Albums
Posts: 395
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by RGlasel Quote
I don't, and I think you are right that differences in shutters between brands of camera aren't the reason for differences in flash sync speed. I really don't understand this obsession with flash sync speed, but I might be missing something.


I think this started with a comment where individuals had said they wish Pentax would increase the onboard flash sync speed to be greater than 1/180 just as Nikon does with 1/250 speed. I made a comment stating that Pentax fixed that problem by going from 1/180 to 0 on onboard now because there will not be an onboard flash on the K-3II. We all know that P-TTL HSS can go higher than 1/180. It kinda got off track and the point is moot, the K-3II and the upcoming FF will not have an onboard.
04-23-2015, 11:19 AM   #787
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,236
QuoteOriginally posted by RGlasel Quote
I don't, and I think you are right that differences in shutters between brands of camera aren't the reason for differences in flash sync speed. I really don't understand this obsession with flash sync speed, but I might be missing something.
The reason you don't see "black out" on digital is that the camera's electronics over rides the shutter speed when the flash is on. With nature photography especially with sun, it would allow faster shutter speeds to be used at greater distances using an external flash for fill.
04-23-2015, 09:34 PM   #788
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon Cascades
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,653
QuoteOriginally posted by JimC1101 Quote
Apologies to all. I have not been trying to stir anything up intentionally but in my many years here, I have never seen such posts where so polarizes for and against and some people are trying to make it a war. I don't think of it in that way. As I said, everyone has requirements and to me, they are all valid to each of us. I would never try to tell someone to stop posting and move on, unless they are harsh or unfounded, because this forum is about discussing our opinions. Once again, apologies.
None needed in my opinion. This discussion got a little more polarized than usual. You have a (valid) opinion and nothing wrong with posting it. I don't agree (for me) but that's no reason for things to get heated. And if I was a little strong you have my apologizes.

The problem is there are three options:
WiFi
GPS
Flash

Some want one, or two. Some want none, or all. It appears that Ricoh feels the FLUCard solves the WiFi (on this model), and that GPS built in is more important than flash built in. From an engineering standpoint this solution is the only one that works if you only have room for flash or GPS because external GPS prevents flash use of any kind, while built in GPS still allows flash (using an external model).

Is that ideal? Obviously not to everyone. And I would really, really like to hear from Ricoh the reasoning behind dropping the internal flash. I'm curious if there is more to it than just lack of space.

04-24-2015, 03:06 AM   #789
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,330
QuoteOriginally posted by RGlasel Quote
What benefits did you have in mind?

Assuming that the reason for Pentax using 1/180 as flash sync speed instead of 1/250 is that the leading and trailing curtains of the shutters Pentax uses move 28% slower (less than 1/2 stop) than the ones Nikon uses, does improving the shutter mean a faster minimum shutter speed? (Although the D7200 and K-3 have the same 1/8000 sec. spec)

Are you thinking of changing the style of shutter altogether? How many of us would give up faster shutter speeds (leaf shutters generally max out at 1/500 or slower) in order to get slightly faster flash sync?

Now, if the reason for Pentax lagging Nikon in terms of flash sync is that Pentax is using less reliable shutters, that can't be trusted to consistently leave the entire sensor exposed for less than 1/250, maybe all exposures could be improved with a better shutter?
Isn't the solution for faster sync speeds to use an electronic shutter for those situations? I don't know how much better 1/250 is versus 1/180. It is a half stop? Lets you open your lens from f2.8 to f2.4 more with a Nikon than with a Pentax. On the other hand, the Nikon D40 had a 1/500 flash sync speed (even though it wasn't a very good camera otherwise) because it used an electronic shutter. But I'm not an engineer to know how possible this sort of thing is.
04-24-2015, 04:43 AM   #790
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,721
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
None needed in my opinion. This discussion got a little more polarized than usual. You have a (valid) opinion and nothing wrong with posting it. I don't agree (for me) but that's no reason for things to get heated. And if I was a little strong you have my apologizes.

The problem is there are three options:
WiFi
GPS
Flash

Some want one, or two. Some want none, or all. It appears that Ricoh feels the FLUCard solves the WiFi (on this model), and that GPS built in is more important than flash built in. From an engineering standpoint this solution is the only one that works if you only have room for flash or GPS because external GPS prevents flash use of any kind, while built in GPS still allows flash (using an external model).

Is that ideal? Obviously not to everyone. And I would really, really like to hear from Ricoh the reasoning behind dropping the internal flash. I'm curious if there is more to it than just lack of space.
In the Q&A addendum of the Press Release Ricoh says space was the problem. For internal GPS removing the flash was the only option.
04-24-2015, 09:42 AM   #791
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RGlasel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Saskatoon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,759
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
For internal GPS removing the flash was the only option
It probably makes a difference that the standalone unit used the hotshoe circuitry, putting the internal GPS module there would require fewer changes than just about any hardware upgrade that Pentax could think of. As for built-in Wifi, if the original K-3 circuit boards have to be reconfigured to accommodate Wifi, that's a major engineering change, and as we all know, engineering changes don't happen overnight.
04-25-2015, 12:16 AM   #792
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,559
IMO the reason for flash sync is SR. They need to provision the time for the sensor to move.
04-25-2015, 12:57 PM   #793
Pentaxian
Zygonyx's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ile de France
Posts: 3,244
You mean the reason for 1/180s max. flash synch. ?
04-25-2015, 01:06 PM   #794
Pentaxian
Mistral75's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 3,459
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
IMO the reason for flash sync is SR. They need to provision the time for the sensor to move.
It might be but, on the other hand, Sony 24x36 bodies (Alpha 850, 900 and 99) and high-end APS-C bodies (Alpha 700, 77 and 77 Mk II) have both SR and a 1/250s flash synch.
04-25-2015, 11:06 PM   #795
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,559
QuoteOriginally posted by Mistral75 Quote
It might be but, on the other hand, Sony 24x36 bodies (Alpha 850, 900 and 99) and high-end APS-C bodies (Alpha 700, 77 and 77 Mk II) have both SR and a 1/250s flash synch.
If I remember well they don't: you either have 1/250 and no SR or slower and SR.
At least that was the case in the early days of Sony DSLRs. I admit I really didn't bother to check since.
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!
buyer, camera, da*, ff, gr, hump, ii, k-3, k-3 prestige edition, k-s1, k-s2, k3, lenses, line, march, mark, market, name, no flash riot, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, people, post, purchase, ricoh, target, video, viewfinder
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Whoa . . . Hello All (Soon to be a K-50 owner) Echo.Delta Welcomes and Introductions 11 12-21-2014 04:41 AM
Hello from soon to be Pentax K-30 owner ExpatKiwi Welcomes and Introductions 6 08-03-2013 01:33 PM
Soon to be K-30 owner, need lens advice filterxg Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 07-17-2013 10:04 AM
Soon to be K-30 owner Takumar55 Welcomes and Introductions 6 07-01-2013 12:20 PM
Soon to be K-30 owner... dlarkin_dc Welcomes and Introductions 6 06-25-2013 02:02 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:53 PM. | 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