Possible Major Constraint on the 1/180s X-Sync Limitation

Ratmagiclady · 05-21-2009, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

That's probably because by that time no one gave a shit about rangefinders because we were all using SLR cameras for our professional work. When Nikon released the FM-2 in 1982 with a sync speed faster than what Pentax is doing over a quarter of a century later, it was seen as a huge improvement for flash photographers.

Yeah, but you didn't see people bashing Nikon when the F-3 stayed at 1/90 to be up to endurance and cold weather spec.

GoldenWreckedAngle · 05-21-2009, 11:38 AM

Yes, I know it's exactly the opposite of the way flashes currently work. In fact, extending the flash duration pretty much goes against everything flash engineers are trying to achieve right now. I'm trying to inspire some out-of-the box thinking on the part of the people who are actually intelligent enough to solve this problem rather than just speculate about it like me.

That Metz 1/125 limitation was one of the main reasons I didn't buy a Metz when I picked up my latest flash. The problem with small flash technology is that they don't really get more powerful as you up the juice, they just stay on longer to appear to get brighter.

What we need is a flash that actually gets brighter as synch speed increases. Come to think of it, there's not really a good way to do that with a Thyristor system... or is there? I'm starting to see some potential benifits in continuous lighting that I haven't considered before. Maybe using bright continuous light sources in conjunction with pulsing high speed synch flashes would get me in the neighborhood of what I need?

There's always the Joe Mcnally in the desert with a tree full of high-speed synch flashes option, for a price.

Wheatfield · 05-21-2009, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Ratmagiclady

Yeah, but you didn't see people bashing Nikon when the F-3 stayed at 1/90 to be up to endurance and cold weather spec.

It was a different era, with vertical shutters still having to prove their reliability to working pros.
Those days are long in the past.
If you wanted higher sync speed, the FM, and later the FM2 was available.

GoldenWreckedAngle · 05-21-2009, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by ryan s

Hello again

... As far as I can tell...the sync speed is the only Pentax didn't touch or improve in some way on the whole K-7 camera.

It did make up a lot of ground, and even broke some ground, that's for sure but there is one more thing...

It would also be nice to be able to leave my neutral density filters at home and shoot below ISO 100 instead. At the moment that's really my only two ongoing beefs with Pentax cameras (disclaiming whether or not the yada, yada, yada shortcomings are actually improved when the production models undergo the review microscopes next month). It would be one thing if everyone had to live with those limitations but they don't.

It's just hard to accept that 1/250 synch and 50 ISO are not doable on a Pentax when others have offered it for a while. I'm left with the impression that Pentax, like many in this thread, simply don't think photographers have a valid need for those things. From my perspective that would be a little out of touch for a camera that claims to have the soul of a true photographer. I can see a glimmer of that soul but there are a couple of minor demons in there that still need to be exercised.

GoldenWreckedAngle · 05-21-2009, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by Ratmagiclady

Yeah, but you didn't see people bashing Nikon when the F-3 stayed at 1/90 to be up to endurance and cold weather spec.

Hype it for a couple of months then bring it to market today as the camera with the soul of a modern photographer and it would get bashed, I assure you.

Edit: there were fewer forums back in the day too. That's worth accounting for.

GLXLR · 05-21-2009, 04:27 PM

Can't people just use high speed sync on their flashes?

jeffkrol · 05-21-2009, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by GoldenWreckedAngle

It's just hard to accept that 1/250 synch

Understood, but not complete agreement. Your right though Pentax, w/ the blessing of the beancounters, did basically say.. "1/160th good enough"

Originally posted by GoldenWreckedAngle

and 50 ISO are not doable on a Pentax when others have offered it for a while. I'm left with the impression that Pentax, like many in this thread, simply don't think photographers have a valid need for those things. From my perspective that would be a little out of touch for a camera that claims to have the soul of a true photographer. I can see a glimmer of that soul but there are a couple of minor demons in there that still need to be exercised.

You could just overexpose a RAW and post process it yourself. That's all these cameras are doing at 50 anyways.... losing DR in the process..
I'm sure I could find a few hundred of these as well as charts and graphs.
the Jeff is not me, and the thread is old:
Jeff:

"If the shot is correctly exposed, highlight issues will be the same regardless of the ISO."

That's not my experience with the 5D.

If you use equivalent exposures, you have a greater chance of blowing the highlights on ISO 50 than on any other ISO setting on my version of the 5D. When I first starting using it, I assumed that lower ISO = better. Just like film. That's an incorrect assumption.

Eric
ISO 50 - when to use it? - Photo.net Canon EOS Forum
This still applies though things are better...a bit simplistic of course.
To do 50 on the bodies that support it, the shot is exposed with the sensor at 100 but the metering system at 50, and then it's adjusted digitally. That's why you get less dynamic range at 50 than at 100.

Canon ISO 50 - Photo.net Canon EOS Forum
Newer:
ISO 50 is actually ISO 100 overexposed one stop. The in-camera RAW converter takes this into account and compresses highlight for ISO 50 only to 0.2 EV.
http://www.libraw.org/articles/Canon-5Dmk2-headroom.html

Originally posted by GLXLR

Can't people just use high speed sync on their flashes?

Yes but it cuts down on the flash power. Flash is pulsed rapidly to follow the shutter curtain slit. You really never get full power (or range)

CreV · 05-21-2009, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by GLXLR

Can't people just use high speed sync on their flashes?

Well if it was so easy.

You can't use HSS if you are using studiolights. A flash is 15x weaker than a studiolight and as expensive as one.

15x400dollar

And you has to be in light of sight because you have to trigger the flashes by light. This is a problem for skiphoto, where you are 200m from your flashes and the subjects are 15m from the flash itself.

Originally posted by jeffkrol

Understood, but not complete agreement. Your right though Pentax, w/ the blessing of the beancounters, did basically say.. "1/160th good enough"

You could just overexpose a RAW and post process it yourself. That's all these cameras are doing at 50 anyways.... losing DR in the process..
I'm sure I could find a few hundred of these as well as charts and graphs.
the Jeff is not me, and the thread is old:

Not if you are fighting motionblur. 1/250 will give you 1/4 less motionblur. And instead of using 1/180, f16 you can use 1/250, f13 and the flash will be f1/2 brighter

Here is a good example what you can archieve with syncspeeds faster than x-sync. I really hope that pentax k-7 doesn't turn off hotshoe if you exceed its x-sync :ugh:
TheMgoods.com - View topic - Tutorial: Pushing flash sync

**jbinpg** · 05-21-2009, 05:43 PM

@GoldenWrecked Angle: Re. lower ISO settings - If you do Multiple Exposures with Auto EV setting, then the *effective* ISO will be the ISO you shot at divided by the number of exposures. So you can get down to 11.1 ISO with the max 9 shots at ISO 100. Granted, ME will not be an option for many shots.

Jack

**Douglas_of_Sweden** · 05-21-2009, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by GoldenWreckedAngle

Hype it for a couple of months then bring it to market today as the camera with the soul of a modern photographer and it would get bashed, I assure you.

Edit: there were fewer forums back in the day too. That's worth accounting for.

Are you sure? I mean, the F3 was constructed some time in the 80's...where there really not that many forums then? (sarcasm)

**Digitalis** · 05-21-2009, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by GoldenWreckedAngle

Hey, I shoot a ton of architectural so I get where you are coming from but I couldn't give a flip what my flash synch speed is when I'm on an architectural shoot either. My point is that there isn't a single flash enhanced image in your portfolio. Wouldn't you like to be able to pop a little fill into the shadows on your Dirtbike Enduro Challenge shot without having to drop the shutter speed?

Please don't take that as a criticism of the shot, it's not. It was the just only thing I could find in your portfolio to use as an example of something that might matter to me. I can see every spoke on the wheels at 1/640. What would the spokes look like at 1/250? How about 1/180? The only way to freeze the spokes in that shot is to keep the shutter speed up which means flash is off limits.

I can understand why you don't give a rip about something that is fairly irrelevant to you. What I don't understand is why you are trying to convince me that it shouldn't be relevant to me. It matters, and it matters big time to some of us.

hey I also do wildlife photography..didn't you notice the blue wrens?..I have been recently working at getting more wildlife images and yes, I often have to use HSS. I often find myself shooting at ISO 400 just to get the flash to provide enough range and that's just at f/11 @ 1/250th with a 300mm lens. The range with HSS is about 1m~8m which works fine for me because I often try to get as close as possible to my subjects (without startling them, and wrens are about as skittish as they get) I also use the accessory battery pack to speed up flash recycling times.

yes, 1/500s sync would be really nice but there will always be someone bitching that it isn't 1/1000s ad nauseum

here's an example of my common use of flash.

GoldenWreckedAngle · 05-21-2009, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by jbinpg

@GoldenWrecked Angle: Re. lower ISO settings - If you do Multiple Exposures with Auto EV setting, then the *effective* ISO will be the ISO you shot at divided by the number of exposures. So you can get down to 11.1 ISO with the max 9 shots at ISO 100. Granted, ME will not be an option for many shots.

Jack

Well, that might work but screwing an N.D. filter on the lens is a little easier IMHO. I definitely don't look down my nose at post processing but I like to reserve my energy for exploring a wild hair, not correcting exposure.

GoldenWreckedAngle · 05-21-2009, 08:36 PM

Well done Digitalis!

**Digitalis** · 05-21-2009, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by Cambo

Do you ever use your digital to set exposure for your 8x10?

Actually I use a pentax Digital spot meter because it has Zone system markings which guide you as to which zone a particular tone will be rendered as. the Histogram does have it's advantages...I wish modern exposure meters could generate them, though some of the sekonic hand held light meters have a contrast measure mode which you use in reflected metering mode and it tells you the contrast range between tones. I use that mode alot when i'm doing Digital HDR work.

lithos · 05-22-2009, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by RiceHigh

The 1/8000th is not the true speed of shutter blade movement, it is just a narrowed gap as "line scanned" when the maximum x-sync is exceeded. So, its easy to achieve even with the "existing" shutter.

Shit, really?

(NOTE: If someone can find me a smilie that's as subtly sarcastic and dry as I intended to deliver that above comment, please post it.)

05-21-2009, 12:53 PM	#80
GoldenWreckedAngle Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Abilene, TX Posts: 339	Originally posted by Ratmagiclady Yeah, but you didn't see people bashing Nikon when the F-3 stayed at 1/90 to be up to endurance and cold weather spec. Hype it for a couple of months then bring it to market today as the camera with the soul of a modern photographer and it would get bashed, I assure you. Edit: there were fewer forums back in the day too. That's worth accounting for. Last edited by GoldenWreckedAngle; 05-21-2009 at 01:22 PM.

05-21-2009, 04:56 PM	#83
CreV New Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: sweden Posts: 23	Originally posted by GLXLR Can't people just use high speed sync on their flashes? Well if it was so easy. You can't use HSS if you are using studiolights. A flash is 15x weaker than a studiolight and as expensive as one. 15x400dollar And you has to be in light of sight because you have to trigger the flashes by light. This is a problem for skiphoto, where you are 200m from your flashes and the subjects are 15m from the flash itself. Originally posted by jeffkrol Understood, but not complete agreement. Your right though Pentax, w/ the blessing of the beancounters, did basically say.. "1/160th good enough" You could just overexpose a RAW and post process it yourself. That's all these cameras are doing at 50 anyways.... losing DR in the process.. I'm sure I could find a few hundred of these as well as charts and graphs. the Jeff is not me, and the thread is old: Not if you are fighting motionblur. 1/250 will give you 1/4 less motionblur. And instead of using 1/180, f16 you can use 1/250, f13 and the flash will be f1/2 brighter Here is a good example what you can archieve with syncspeeds faster than x-sync. I really hope that pentax k-7 doesn't turn off hotshoe if you exceed its x-sync :ugh: TheMgoods.com - View topic - Tutorial: Pushing flash sync Last edited by CreV; 05-21-2009 at 05:12 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Is 1/180th Max Flash X-Sync A Major Limitation?	Christopher M.W.T	Flashes, Lighting, and Studio	20	07-10-2010 08:15 AM
Lens F/stop Limitation Question	seachunk2	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	10	02-26-2010 07:27 AM
Split screen viewing limitation qestion	winglik	Pentax DSLR Discussion	9	06-11-2009 04:05 AM
K20D Focus adjustment limitation	bc_the_path	Pentax DSLR Discussion	2	12-16-2008 03:04 PM

05-21-2009, 10:56 AM	#76
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Originally posted by Wheatfield That's probably because by that time no one gave a shit about rangefinders because we were all using SLR cameras for our professional work. When Nikon released the FM-2 in 1982 with a sync speed faster than what Pentax is doing over a quarter of a century later, it was seen as a huge improvement for flash photographers. Yeah, but you didn't see people bashing Nikon when the F-3 stayed at 1/90 to be up to endurance and cold weather spec.

05-21-2009, 11:38 AM	#77
GoldenWreckedAngle Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Abilene, TX Posts: 339	Yes, I know it's exactly the opposite of the way flashes currently work. In fact, extending the flash duration pretty much goes against everything flash engineers are trying to achieve right now. I'm trying to inspire some out-of-the box thinking on the part of the people who are actually intelligent enough to solve this problem rather than just speculate about it like me. That Metz 1/125 limitation was one of the main reasons I didn't buy a Metz when I picked up my latest flash. The problem with small flash technology is that they don't really get more powerful as you up the juice, they just stay on longer to appear to get brighter. What we need is a flash that actually gets brighter as synch speed increases. Come to think of it, there's not really a good way to do that with a Thyristor system... or is there? I'm starting to see some potential benifits in continuous lighting that I haven't considered before. Maybe using bright continuous light sources in conjunction with pulsing high speed synch flashes would get me in the neighborhood of what I need? There's always the Joe Mcnally in the desert with a tree full of high-speed synch flashes option, for a price.

05-21-2009, 12:00 PM	#78
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,975	Originally posted by Ratmagiclady Yeah, but you didn't see people bashing Nikon when the F-3 stayed at 1/90 to be up to endurance and cold weather spec. It was a different era, with vertical shutters still having to prove their reliability to working pros. Those days are long in the past. If you wanted higher sync speed, the FM, and later the FM2 was available.

05-21-2009, 12:50 PM	#79
GoldenWreckedAngle Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Abilene, TX Posts: 339	Originally posted by ryan s Hello again ... As far as I can tell...the sync speed is the only Pentax didn't touch or improve in some way on the whole K-7 camera. It did make up a lot of ground, and even broke some ground, that's for sure but there is one more thing... It would also be nice to be able to leave my neutral density filters at home and shoot below ISO 100 instead. At the moment that's really my only two ongoing beefs with Pentax cameras (disclaiming whether or not the yada, yada, yada shortcomings are actually improved when the production models undergo the review microscopes next month). It would be one thing if everyone had to live with those limitations but they don't. It's just hard to accept that 1/250 synch and 50 ISO are not doable on a Pentax when others have offered it for a while. I'm left with the impression that Pentax, like many in this thread, simply don't think photographers have a valid need for those things. From my perspective that would be a little out of touch for a camera that claims to have the soul of a true photographer. I can see a glimmer of that soul but there are a couple of minor demons in there that still need to be exercised.

05-21-2009, 04:27 PM	#81
GLXLR Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Sugar Land, TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 684	Can't people just use high speed sync on their flashes?

05-21-2009, 04:53 PM	#82
jeffkrol Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wisconsin USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,434	Originally posted by GoldenWreckedAngle It's just hard to accept that 1/250 synch Understood, but not complete agreement. Your right though Pentax, w/ the blessing of the beancounters, did basically say.. "1/160th good enough" Originally posted by GoldenWreckedAngle and 50 ISO are not doable on a Pentax when others have offered it for a while. I'm left with the impression that Pentax, like many in this thread, simply don't think photographers have a valid need for those things. From my perspective that would be a little out of touch for a camera that claims to have the soul of a true photographer. I can see a glimmer of that soul but there are a couple of minor demons in there that still need to be exercised. You could just overexpose a RAW and post process it yourself. That's all these cameras are doing at 50 anyways.... losing DR in the process.. I'm sure I could find a few hundred of these as well as charts and graphs. the Jeff is not me, and the thread is old: Jeff: "If the shot is correctly exposed, highlight issues will be the same regardless of the ISO." That's not my experience with the 5D. If you use equivalent exposures, you have a greater chance of blowing the highlights on ISO 50 than on any other ISO setting on my version of the 5D. When I first starting using it, I assumed that lower ISO = better. Just like film. That's an incorrect assumption. Eric ISO 50 - when to use it? - Photo.net Canon EOS Forum This still applies though things are better...a bit simplistic of course. To do 50 on the bodies that support it, the shot is exposed with the sensor at 100 but the metering system at 50, and then it's adjusted digitally. That's why you get less dynamic range at 50 than at 100. Canon ISO 50 - Photo.net Canon EOS Forum Newer: ISO 50 is actually ISO 100 overexposed one stop. The in-camera RAW converter takes this into account and compresses highlight for ISO 50 only to 0.2 EV. http://www.libraw.org/articles/Canon-5Dmk2-headroom.html Originally posted by GLXLR Can't people just use high speed sync on their flashes? Yes but it cuts down on the flash power. Flash is pulsed rapidly to follow the shutter curtain slit. You really never get full power (or range)

05-21-2009, 05:43 PM	#84
jbinpg Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Prince George, BC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,546	@GoldenWrecked Angle: Re. lower ISO settings - If you do Multiple Exposures with Auto EV setting, then the effective ISO will be the ISO you shot at divided by the number of exposures. So you can get down to 11.1 ISO with the max 9 shots at ISO 100. Granted, ME will not be an option for many shots. Jack

05-21-2009, 05:51 PM	#85
Douglas_of_Sweden Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Stockholm Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,374	Originally posted by GoldenWreckedAngle Hype it for a couple of months then bring it to market today as the camera with the soul of a modern photographer and it would get bashed, I assure you. Edit: there were fewer forums back in the day too. That's worth accounting for. Are you sure? I mean, the F3 was constructed some time in the 80's...where there really not that many forums then? (sarcasm)

05-21-2009, 08:19 PM	#86
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by GoldenWreckedAngle Hey, I shoot a ton of architectural so I get where you are coming from but I couldn't give a flip what my flash synch speed is when I'm on an architectural shoot either. My point is that there isn't a single flash enhanced image in your portfolio. Wouldn't you like to be able to pop a little fill into the shadows on your Dirtbike Enduro Challenge shot without having to drop the shutter speed? Please don't take that as a criticism of the shot, it's not. It was the just only thing I could find in your portfolio to use as an example of something that might matter to me. I can see every spoke on the wheels at 1/640. What would the spokes look like at 1/250? How about 1/180? The only way to freeze the spokes in that shot is to keep the shutter speed up which means flash is off limits. I can understand why you don't give a rip about something that is fairly irrelevant to you. What I don't understand is why you are trying to convince me that it shouldn't be relevant to me. It matters, and it matters big time to some of us. hey I also do wildlife photography..didn't you notice the blue wrens?..I have been recently working at getting more wildlife images and yes, I often have to use HSS. I often find myself shooting at ISO 400 just to get the flash to provide enough range and that's just at f/11 @ 1/250th with a 300mm lens. The range with HSS is about 1m~8m which works fine for me because I often try to get as close as possible to my subjects (without startling them, and wrens are about as skittish as they get) I also use the accessory battery pack to speed up flash recycling times. yes, 1/500s sync would be really nice but there will always be someone bitching that it isn't 1/1000s ad nauseum here's an example of my common use of flash.

05-21-2009, 08:34 PM	#87
GoldenWreckedAngle Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Abilene, TX Posts: 339	Originally posted by jbinpg @GoldenWrecked Angle: Re. lower ISO settings - If you do Multiple Exposures with Auto EV setting, then the effective ISO will be the ISO you shot at divided by the number of exposures. So you can get down to 11.1 ISO with the max 9 shots at ISO 100. Granted, ME will not be an option for many shots. Jack Well, that might work but screwing an N.D. filter on the lens is a little easier IMHO. I definitely don't look down my nose at post processing but I like to reserve my energy for exploring a wild hair, not correcting exposure.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-21-2009, 08:36 PM	#88
GoldenWreckedAngle Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Abilene, TX Posts: 339	Well done Digitalis!

05-21-2009, 08:55 PM	#89
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by Cambo Do you ever use your digital to set exposure for your 8x10? Actually I use a pentax Digital spot meter because it has Zone system markings which guide you as to which zone a particular tone will be rendered as. the Histogram does have it's advantages...I wish modern exposure meters could generate them, though some of the sekonic hand held light meters have a contrast measure mode which you use in reflected metering mode and it tells you the contrast range between tones. I use that mode alot when i'm doing Digital HDR work.

05-22-2009, 12:20 AM	#90
lithos Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS Posts: 3,261	Originally posted by RiceHigh The 1/8000th is not the true speed of shutter blade movement, it is just a narrowed gap as "line scanned" when the maximum x-sync is exceeded. So, its easy to achieve even with the "existing" shutter. Shit, really? (NOTE: If someone can find me a smilie that's as subtly sarcastic and dry as I intended to deliver that above comment, please post it.)