Thom Hogan on the K-3

Cynog Ap Brychan · 10-09-2013, 12:20 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Digitalis

If anyone did that to me, I'd chalk it up to sheer arrogance and snobbery. Considering that I already use Canon, Nikon and Leica camera systems I'm well aware of their deficiencies - which is one of the reasons I also use Pentax.

You're right, of course. I was just a little stung by Thom Hogan's (whom I respect, by the way) remark about Pentax owners not being able to gloat because the K-3 "only" had a flash synch speed of 1/180 (and something completely inaccurate about the bracketing). I've just looked at some of my old film cameras, used by professionals in days gone. Nikon F, F2 and F3 - synch speed 1/60; Canon F1 - synch speed 1/60; Pentax LX - synch speed somewhere between 1/60 and 1/125. However did people manage to make great photographs with such poor cameras? Now we have cameras that photographers even 20 years ago could never have dreamed at. And still people moan. When I have a Pentax K-5 in my hands, the only inadequate tool is me. I'm all for progress, but I will never complain about what a camera doesn't have. Of course I would like a camera that would instantly lock focus on a peregrine falcon in full stoop, and capture it with perfect exposure. But that's more to do with my lack of skill than the camera's lack of ability.

I guess I'm moaning about moaners. I'll stop now.

**Digitalis** · 10-09-2013, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by Cynog Ap Brychan

I've just looked at some of my old film cameras, used by professionals in days gone. Nikon F, F2 and F3 - synch speed 1/60; Canon F1 - synch speed 1/60

The Leica M7 ( introduced 2002) had a top sync speed of 1/50th.

Alizarine · 10-09-2013, 02:47 AM

Options, yes, like everything else in the machine, such as MP count (for majority of DSLR users whose final output is Facebook, what use is anything beyond 6mp?), very high fps, some may say video, etc. Like Thom says.. "everything scales". The K-3 is a high-end enthusiast DSLR. Some say, even "pro" level. Therefore, much is expected from it, in every aspect, by many types of users. Nothing's perfect but for its class, the K-3 is close. I think even Pentax engineers are going to have a hard time besting their own beast in the next two years.

I doubt I'll ever find everyday use for 1/500s flash sync, but having the option in a camera I'll be using all the time would be great

MPrince · 10-09-2013, 02:56 AM

Originally posted by Cynog Ap Brychan

Not being a professional, nor someone who uses flash often, I am at a loss to understand why the 1/180 sec flash sync speed is such a big deal. The Nikon D600 only has 1/200, and even 1/250 is only half a stop or so. I know there is a need sometimes to match the flash with ambient lighting when using fill-in, etc, but is half a stop really that important? Can't one just stick an ND filter on the lens, or something (OK, there might be a small hit in IQ)? Would someone please explain, so that if someone with a Canikon ever sneers at me, I'd at least know where they're coming from?

Yes, you can use an ND filter to make up the 1/2 stop disadvantage of Pentax's substandard sync speed, but since the ND filter affects both ambient and flash, your flash needs to be powerful enough, which definitely rules out onboard flash and can rule out a single hot shoe flash, requiring the use of multiple hot shoe flashes or a studio strobe.

Having said that, it is possible to turn day into night using a single speedlight and an ND filter.

This shot was taken on a bright sunny afternoon:

Of course, it helps that the subject was small.

Does Pentax's 1/2 stop disadvantage in sync speed make any practical difference in the real world? Probably not that much, but everyone else can make an APS-C camera with 1/250 sync speed. Why can't Pentax?

**RobA_Oz** · 10-09-2013, 03:17 AM

Originally posted by MPrince

Does Pentax's 1/2 stop disadvantage in sync speed make any practical difference in the real world? Probably not that much, but everyone else can make an APS-C camera with 1/250 sync speed. Why can't Pentax?

The answer probably lies in the price point that was set for the K-3. If it is the case that the higher sync speed would require a redesigned shutter, we'd likely have been paying more for the new camera.

Of course, some of us are old enough to remember coping with the 1/60 of the horizontal FP shutters. The present 1/180 sync speed is a whole 1.5 stops faster than that, but we were dealing with ISO 25 film back then. Maybe another way of dealing with it is to introduce a range of leaf shutter lenses.

**Rondec** · 10-09-2013, 03:34 AM

It is just 1/2 stop with regard to flash sync speed. I understand that every little bit makes a difference, but the issue I always hear is shooting flash in bright sun and I just don't buy the idea that are a bunch of situations where you will be over exposed at 1/180 second and perfectly exposed at 1/250 second. Could it happen? Sure, but people who use flash a lot have ND filters for a reason...

MPrince · 10-09-2013, 03:43 AM

Originally posted by RobA_Oz

The answer probably lies in the price point that was set for the K-3. If it is the case that the higher sync speed would require a redesigned shutter, we'd likely have been paying more for the new camera.

I kind of doubt that the answer is price point. The Nikon D7100 and Canon 70D are both available for about $1,200US and have 1/250 sync speed. Even the Canon T3i at $500 has a slightly faster sync speed at 1/200.

Andi Lo · 10-09-2013, 03:50 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Cynog Ap Brychan

Not being a professional, nor someone who uses flash often, I am at a loss to understand why the 1/180 sec flash sync speed is such a big deal. The Nikon D600 only has 1/200, and even 1/250 is only half a stop or so. I know there is a need sometimes to match the flash with ambient lighting when using fill-in, etc, but is half a stop really that important? Can't one just stick an ND filter on the lens, or something (OK, there might be a small hit in IQ)? Would someone please explain, so that if someone with a Canikon ever sneers at me, I'd at least know where they're coming from?

It's about choices when it's needed. Why do people complain about K-3 not having ISO 80, and DA 35 not opening to f 2 like it should be based on the original design? Those are just half stops as well. Would those not matter in practice as well? In practice if you dont use strobes with people very much, it really doesnt matter, but if you do that alot, it does.

If someone at Canonikon sneers at you, sneer back at them because they have nothing like the DA and (arguably) FA lims. 95% of their high performing lenses looks like they're compensating for something.

Thom complaining about the sync speed is just being sour grapes imo. I respect him as well but he likes his Nikons so he has his bias. Nikon has no "perfect camera" either. I dont see a problem of running two systems to get the best of each worlds. I wonder why Thom can't just do the same.

**RobA_Oz** · 10-09-2013, 04:12 AM

Originally posted by MPrince

I kind of doubt that the answer is price point. The Nikon D7100 and Canon 70D are both available for about $1,200US and have 1/250 sync speed. Even the Canon T3i at $500 has a slightly faster sync speed at 1/200.

Being a smaller manufacturer than Nikon or Canon, Pentax has to spread development costs over a lesser number of sales. The greater the number of bodies you can put a new feature into (and thereby, sales) the less impact development costs have on price. The K-3 already has quite a substantial number of new developments in it, and I would think the managers would have drawn a line on the list of revised features. From what I gather, the greatest issue for the K-3 was never flash synchronisation speed: it was always the AF system, which the K-3 seems to be addressing in a substantial manner. You'll probably have to wait for the next development to address this one.

konraDarnok · 10-09-2013, 04:15 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by Andi Lo

Why do people complain about K-3 not having ISO 80, and DA 35 not opening to f 2 like it should be based on the original design? Those are just half stops as well. Would those not matter in practice as well?

honestly, no. Cameras and lenses are so ridiculously affordable and capable these days people invent trivial things to complain about. It's human nature I suppose, but it's also easier than making artful images (not that I claim to make them) it's just easier to master technicalities than pinning down the ineffable ability to create striking and alluring art.

BrianR · 10-09-2013, 05:38 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

It is just 1/2 stop with regard to flash sync speed. I understand that every little bit makes a difference, but the issue I always hear is shooting flash in bright sun and I just don't buy the idea that are a bunch of situations where you will be over exposed at 1/180 second and perfectly exposed at 1/250 second. Could it happen? Sure, but people who use flash a lot have ND filters for a reason...

It's already been mentioned in this thread, but an ND filter does not do the same thing as a higher sync speed. Higher sync lets you lower the ambient light without affecting the flash exposure, an ND filter hits them both and only helps you adjust the flash/ambient ratio if your flash had more power available to it (or you can re-position it, or add more flashes, etc.).

Having the option of a higher sync available is always better for flash users. It's not an addition that would hurt those who don't use flash (aside from an undetermined $$ hit that no one can accurately predict) and it's something other manufacturers are able to do. Higher sync also not something that in my opinion makes or breaks the camera, but that's no reason people can't hope for and desire an improvement.

And for an earlier poster, if someone sneers at your camera because it only has 1/180th sync, this is someone who's clearly not worth the time to be around.

cali92rs · 10-09-2013, 06:15 AM - **2 Likes**

He pretty much said that this is the camera Nikon should've made, how great it is for APS-C pros, and all you guys can focus on is the two negatives he mentioned. It just smacks of inferiority complex. He is doing what he should do, it helps no one if everything is positive and rosey. No camera is perfect, it is up to the reviewrs to point out both the positives and negatives, and it is up to the consumers to weigh the positives against the negatives and see if it is worth the cost to them.

**Rondec** · 10-09-2013, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by BrianR

It's already been mentioned in this thread, but an ND filter does not do the same thing as a higher sync speed. Higher sync lets you lower the ambient light without affecting the flash exposure, an ND filter hits them both and only helps you adjust the flash/ambient ratio if your flash had more power available to it (or you can re-position it, or add more flashes, etc.).

Having the option of a higher sync available is always better for flash users. It's not an addition that would hurt those who don't use flash (aside from an undetermined $$ hit that no one can accurately predict) and it's something other manufacturers are able to do. Higher sync also not something that in my opinion makes or breaks the camera, but that's no reason people can't hope for and desire an improvement.

And for an earlier poster, if someone sneers at your camera because it only has 1/180th sync, this is someone who's clearly not worth the time to be around.

I understand what you are saying. I just don't know how much of a difference you really get in real life situations between a sync speed of 1/180 second and 1/250 second. I would love to see these sorts of situations demonstrated, because to me it is a relatively small difference. It reminds of me of the way Pentax users (me included) gloat over the fact that the sensor in the K5 got two points on the sensor score at DXO mark over the sensor in the D7000, when I am sure you can't really tell the difference in real life shooting.

**Rondec** · 10-09-2013, 06:32 AM

Originally posted by Andi Lo

It's about choices when it's needed. Why do people complain about K-3 not having ISO 80, and DA 35 not opening to f 2 like it should be based on the original design? Those are just half stops as well. Would those not matter in practice as well? In practice if you dont use strobes with people very much, it really doesnt matter, but if you do that alot, it does.

If someone at Canonikon sneers at you, sneer back at them because they have nothing like the DA and (arguably) FA lims

Thom complaining about the sync speed is just being sour grapes imo. I respect him as well but he likes his Nikons so he has his bias. Nikon has no "perfect camera" either. I dont see a problem of running two systems to get the best of each worlds. I wonder why Thom can't just do the same.

Well, I have complained about the K3 not having ISO 80. But I did feel like having iso 80 on the K5 was one answer to the faster sync speed on Nikon/Canon cameras. But I don't use flash that much, so I should probably weigh out of this discussion.

jake14mw · 10-09-2013, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by Cynog Ap Brychan

Not being a professional, nor someone who uses flash often, I am at a loss to understand why the 1/180 sec flash sync speed is such a big deal. The Nikon D600 only has 1/200, and even 1/250 is only half a stop or so. I know there is a need sometimes to match the flash with ambient lighting when using fill-in, etc, but is half a stop really that important? Can't one just stick an ND filter on the lens, or something (OK, there might be a small hit in IQ)? Would someone please explain, so that if someone with a Canikon ever sneers at me, I'd at least know where they're coming from?

I thought there was a good debate about it here -
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/198977-why-higher-...ss-pentax.html

So, there is a half stop difference between 1/180 and 1/250, and we also just lost a fifth? of a stop by no longer having ISO 80, I'm bad at math, what does that add up to?

10-09-2013, 03:50 AM - 1 Like	#38
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	Originally posted by Cynog Ap Brychan Not being a professional, nor someone who uses flash often, I am at a loss to understand why the 1/180 sec flash sync speed is such a big deal. The Nikon D600 only has 1/200, and even 1/250 is only half a stop or so. I know there is a need sometimes to match the flash with ambient lighting when using fill-in, etc, but is half a stop really that important? Can't one just stick an ND filter on the lens, or something (OK, there might be a small hit in IQ)? Would someone please explain, so that if someone with a Canikon ever sneers at me, I'd at least know where they're coming from? It's about choices when it's needed. Why do people complain about K-3 not having ISO 80, and DA 35 not opening to f 2 like it should be based on the original design? Those are just half stops as well. Would those not matter in practice as well? In practice if you dont use strobes with people very much, it really doesnt matter, but if you do that alot, it does. If someone at Canonikon sneers at you, sneer back at them because they have nothing like the DA and (arguably) FA lims. 95% of their high performing lenses looks like they're compensating for something. Thom complaining about the sync speed is just being sour grapes imo. I respect him as well but he likes his Nikons so he has his bias. Nikon has no "perfect camera" either. I dont see a problem of running two systems to get the best of each worlds. I wonder why Thom can't just do the same. Last edited by Andi Lo; 10-09-2013 at 06:46 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Thom Hogan - 4/3 Camera Manufacturers	interested_observer	Photographic Industry and Professionals	14	08-04-2013 02:18 PM
Cameras as Donuts - Thom Hogan	seventhdr	Pentax DSLR Discussion	2	10-17-2012 05:53 PM
Thom Hogan - PRIC Branding	cali92rs	Pentax News and Rumors	58	07-30-2012 11:18 AM
Thom Hogan Reviews X-Pro 1	cali92rs	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	4	06-07-2012 12:19 AM
Thom Hogan weighs in	Wheatfield	General Talk	19	11-25-2010 04:39 PM

10-09-2013, 12:20 AM - 1 Like	#31
Cynog Ap Brychan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Gloucester Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,199	Originally posted by Digitalis If anyone did that to me, I'd chalk it up to sheer arrogance and snobbery. Considering that I already use Canon, Nikon and Leica camera systems I'm well aware of their deficiencies - which is one of the reasons I also use Pentax. You're right, of course. I was just a little stung by Thom Hogan's (whom I respect, by the way) remark about Pentax owners not being able to gloat because the K-3 "only" had a flash synch speed of 1/180 (and something completely inaccurate about the bracketing). I've just looked at some of my old film cameras, used by professionals in days gone. Nikon F, F2 and F3 - synch speed 1/60; Canon F1 - synch speed 1/60; Pentax LX - synch speed somewhere between 1/60 and 1/125. However did people manage to make great photographs with such poor cameras? Now we have cameras that photographers even 20 years ago could never have dreamed at. And still people moan. When I have a Pentax K-5 in my hands, the only inadequate tool is me. I'm all for progress, but I will never complain about what a camera doesn't have. Of course I would like a camera that would instantly lock focus on a peregrine falcon in full stoop, and capture it with perfect exposure. But that's more to do with my lack of skill than the camera's lack of ability. I guess I'm moaning about moaners. I'll stop now.

10-09-2013, 02:13 AM	#32
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by Cynog Ap Brychan I've just looked at some of my old film cameras, used by professionals in days gone. Nikon F, F2 and F3 - synch speed 1/60; Canon F1 - synch speed 1/60 The Leica M7 ( introduced 2002) had a top sync speed of 1/50th.

10-09-2013, 02:47 AM	#33
Alizarine Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Manila Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,185	Options, yes, like everything else in the machine, such as MP count (for majority of DSLR users whose final output is Facebook, what use is anything beyond 6mp?), very high fps, some may say video, etc. Like Thom says.. "everything scales". The K-3 is a high-end enthusiast DSLR. Some say, even "pro" level. Therefore, much is expected from it, in every aspect, by many types of users. Nothing's perfect but for its class, the K-3 is close. I think even Pentax engineers are going to have a hard time besting their own beast in the next two years. I doubt I'll ever find everyday use for 1/500s flash sync, but having the option in a camera I'll be using all the time would be great

10-09-2013, 02:56 AM	#34
MPrince Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: WV Posts: 1,495	Originally posted by Cynog Ap Brychan Not being a professional, nor someone who uses flash often, I am at a loss to understand why the 1/180 sec flash sync speed is such a big deal. The Nikon D600 only has 1/200, and even 1/250 is only half a stop or so. I know there is a need sometimes to match the flash with ambient lighting when using fill-in, etc, but is half a stop really that important? Can't one just stick an ND filter on the lens, or something (OK, there might be a small hit in IQ)? Would someone please explain, so that if someone with a Canikon ever sneers at me, I'd at least know where they're coming from? Yes, you can use an ND filter to make up the 1/2 stop disadvantage of Pentax's substandard sync speed, but since the ND filter affects both ambient and flash, your flash needs to be powerful enough, which definitely rules out onboard flash and can rule out a single hot shoe flash, requiring the use of multiple hot shoe flashes or a studio strobe. Having said that, it is possible to turn day into night using a single speedlight and an ND filter. This shot was taken on a bright sunny afternoon: Of course, it helps that the subject was small. Does Pentax's 1/2 stop disadvantage in sync speed make any practical difference in the real world? Probably not that much, but everyone else can make an APS-C camera with 1/250 sync speed. Why can't Pentax?

10-09-2013, 03:17 AM	#35
RobA_Oz Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Tasmania, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,191	Originally posted by MPrince Does Pentax's 1/2 stop disadvantage in sync speed make any practical difference in the real world? Probably not that much, but everyone else can make an APS-C camera with 1/250 sync speed. Why can't Pentax? The answer probably lies in the price point that was set for the K-3. If it is the case that the higher sync speed would require a redesigned shutter, we'd likely have been paying more for the new camera. Of course, some of us are old enough to remember coping with the 1/60 of the horizontal FP shutters. The present 1/180 sync speed is a whole 1.5 stops faster than that, but we were dealing with ISO 25 film back then. Maybe another way of dealing with it is to introduce a range of leaf shutter lenses.

10-09-2013, 03:34 AM	#36
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	It is just 1/2 stop with regard to flash sync speed. I understand that every little bit makes a difference, but the issue I always hear is shooting flash in bright sun and I just don't buy the idea that are a bunch of situations where you will be over exposed at 1/180 second and perfectly exposed at 1/250 second. Could it happen? Sure, but people who use flash a lot have ND filters for a reason...

10-09-2013, 03:43 AM	#37
MPrince Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: WV Posts: 1,495	Originally posted by RobA_Oz The answer probably lies in the price point that was set for the K-3. If it is the case that the higher sync speed would require a redesigned shutter, we'd likely have been paying more for the new camera. I kind of doubt that the answer is price point. The Nikon D7100 and Canon 70D are both available for about $1,200US and have 1/250 sync speed. Even the Canon T3i at $500 has a slightly faster sync speed at 1/200.

10-09-2013, 04:12 AM	#39
RobA_Oz Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Tasmania, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,191	Originally posted by MPrince I kind of doubt that the answer is price point. The Nikon D7100 and Canon 70D are both available for about $1,200US and have 1/250 sync speed. Even the Canon T3i at $500 has a slightly faster sync speed at 1/200. Being a smaller manufacturer than Nikon or Canon, Pentax has to spread development costs over a lesser number of sales. The greater the number of bodies you can put a new feature into (and thereby, sales) the less impact development costs have on price. The K-3 already has quite a substantial number of new developments in it, and I would think the managers would have drawn a line on the list of revised features. From what I gather, the greatest issue for the K-3 was never flash synchronisation speed: it was always the AF system, which the K-3 seems to be addressing in a substantial manner. You'll probably have to wait for the next development to address this one.

10-09-2013, 04:15 AM - 2 Likes	#40
konraDarnok Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Photos: Albums Posts: 969	Originally posted by Andi Lo Why do people complain about K-3 not having ISO 80, and DA 35 not opening to f 2 like it should be based on the original design? Those are just half stops as well. Would those not matter in practice as well? honestly, no. Cameras and lenses are so ridiculously affordable and capable these days people invent trivial things to complain about. It's human nature I suppose, but it's also easier than making artful images (not that I claim to make them) it's just easier to master technicalities than pinning down the ineffable ability to create striking and alluring art.

10-09-2013, 05:38 AM	#41
BrianR Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,332	Originally posted by Rondec It is just 1/2 stop with regard to flash sync speed. I understand that every little bit makes a difference, but the issue I always hear is shooting flash in bright sun and I just don't buy the idea that are a bunch of situations where you will be over exposed at 1/180 second and perfectly exposed at 1/250 second. Could it happen? Sure, but people who use flash a lot have ND filters for a reason... It's already been mentioned in this thread, but an ND filter does not do the same thing as a higher sync speed. Higher sync lets you lower the ambient light without affecting the flash exposure, an ND filter hits them both and only helps you adjust the flash/ambient ratio if your flash had more power available to it (or you can re-position it, or add more flashes, etc.). Having the option of a higher sync available is always better for flash users. It's not an addition that would hurt those who don't use flash (aside from an undetermined $$ hit that no one can accurately predict) and it's something other manufacturers are able to do. Higher sync also not something that in my opinion makes or breaks the camera, but that's no reason people can't hope for and desire an improvement. And for an earlier poster, if someone sneers at your camera because it only has 1/180th sync, this is someone who's clearly not worth the time to be around.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-09-2013, 06:15 AM - 2 Likes	#42
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354	He pretty much said that this is the camera Nikon should've made, how great it is for APS-C pros, and all you guys can focus on is the two negatives he mentioned. It just smacks of inferiority complex. He is doing what he should do, it helps no one if everything is positive and rosey. No camera is perfect, it is up to the reviewrs to point out both the positives and negatives, and it is up to the consumers to weigh the positives against the negatives and see if it is worth the cost to them.

10-09-2013, 06:19 AM	#43
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	Originally posted by BrianR It's already been mentioned in this thread, but an ND filter does not do the same thing as a higher sync speed. Higher sync lets you lower the ambient light without affecting the flash exposure, an ND filter hits them both and only helps you adjust the flash/ambient ratio if your flash had more power available to it (or you can re-position it, or add more flashes, etc.). Having the option of a higher sync available is always better for flash users. It's not an addition that would hurt those who don't use flash (aside from an undetermined $$ hit that no one can accurately predict) and it's something other manufacturers are able to do. Higher sync also not something that in my opinion makes or breaks the camera, but that's no reason people can't hope for and desire an improvement. And for an earlier poster, if someone sneers at your camera because it only has 1/180th sync, this is someone who's clearly not worth the time to be around. I understand what you are saying. I just don't know how much of a difference you really get in real life situations between a sync speed of 1/180 second and 1/250 second. I would love to see these sorts of situations demonstrated, because to me it is a relatively small difference. It reminds of me of the way Pentax users (me included) gloat over the fact that the sensor in the K5 got two points on the sensor score at DXO mark over the sensor in the D7000, when I am sure you can't really tell the difference in real life shooting.

10-09-2013, 06:32 AM	#44
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	Originally posted by Andi Lo It's about choices when it's needed. Why do people complain about K-3 not having ISO 80, and DA 35 not opening to f 2 like it should be based on the original design? Those are just half stops as well. Would those not matter in practice as well? In practice if you dont use strobes with people very much, it really doesnt matter, but if you do that alot, it does. If someone at Canonikon sneers at you, sneer back at them because they have nothing like the DA and (arguably) FA lims Thom complaining about the sync speed is just being sour grapes imo. I respect him as well but he likes his Nikons so he has his bias. Nikon has no "perfect camera" either. I dont see a problem of running two systems to get the best of each worlds. I wonder why Thom can't just do the same. Well, I have complained about the K3 not having ISO 80. But I did feel like having iso 80 on the K5 was one answer to the faster sync speed on Nikon/Canon cameras. But I don't use flash that much, so I should probably weigh out of this discussion.

10-09-2013, 10:34 AM	#45
jake14mw Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Connecticut, USA Posts: 977	Originally posted by Cynog Ap Brychan Not being a professional, nor someone who uses flash often, I am at a loss to understand why the 1/180 sec flash sync speed is such a big deal. The Nikon D600 only has 1/200, and even 1/250 is only half a stop or so. I know there is a need sometimes to match the flash with ambient lighting when using fill-in, etc, but is half a stop really that important? Can't one just stick an ND filter on the lens, or something (OK, there might be a small hit in IQ)? Would someone please explain, so that if someone with a Canikon ever sneers at me, I'd at least know where they're coming from? I thought there was a good debate about it here - https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/198977-why-higher-...ss-pentax.html So, there is a half stop difference between 1/180 and 1/250, and we also just lost a fifth? of a stop by no longer having ISO 80, I'm bad at math, what does that add up to?