[novsky]

again, it's a small thing, but a few small things add up to a big difference...., it's these little things like the slow X speed that limit market share for Pentax especially where it counts, in the Pro arena, camera market share is a top down thing, and it's a shame, I'll still buy one though.

Sooooo true Chris
And HSS ability (maybe a bit up to the thirdparty brands but....)

[jatrax]

When taking pictures with flash you (usually) have two light sources so your taking two exposures simultaneously, the exposure for the ambient component and the exposure for the flash component. How you blend the two is the Art of flash. photography.

Sure, I understand that, I use 1/8 sec exposure and studio strobes all the time. The strobes expose the subject and the slow speed allows me to control the ambient background. And I have no problem doing that in the studio, but I don't do it outside so I've no experience there. I just wondered if the difference between 1/180 or 1/250 is a real handicap or just a "the other guys have it" thing. I am sure that there are situations where it makes a difference, I just don't buy that there are many of those situations.

Sometimes we get hung up on tiny specifications that differentiate one camera or brand from another, but are those specs of any use in the real world? K-3 does 8.3fps, in the real world is that really any significant difference over the 6fps of the Nikon 7100, or the 7fps of the Canon 70D? For most users, I suggest not. For some, maybe if you are into that type of shooting but if you really need high speed bursts then you spend the money and get what you need to do the job.

Amateurs want the camera the Pro's use in the mistaken belief that they will be able to take Pro images, wrong we know, but that's how it is, that's why a Pro level camera is necessary in the Pentax line up, the K3, great as it, innovative as it is, is not it, it's these little things like the slow X speed that limit market share for Pentax especially where it counts, in the Pro arena, camera market share is a top down thing, and it's a shame, I'll still buy one though.

A good point, but I don't think the k-3 is the Pentax 'pro' camera any more than the D7100 is Nikon's 'pro' camera. Your point that people want to buy into a line the pros use is valid, even if they never buy the high end camera they want the opportunity to buy up to it, someday. It's a 'dream' thing.

I do think Ricoh is rebuilding a camera company from the bottom up. Which means the 'pro' line (if they even decide to play in that market) is still coming. That might be a FF DSLR, a mirrorless 645D or something else entirely. So while people might buy 'top down' I think building a brand has to be 'bottom up'. Most folks want the dream but buy reality, so I think it's a good thing to have a good solid 'reality' for them to buy before we show them the dream. Or maybe I'm dreaming............

[ChrisJ]

number of errors here
iso80 is the lowest noise setting on the k5 its the point you reach that elusive 14.1 bit DR it the highest Signal to Noise ratio.
Secondly no pro is going to be using a single pocket flashgun , the whole idea is preposterous to my mind.

Have you actually tried it? The lowest ISO is not necessarily the lowest noise.

But even the keen outdoor flash shooter would have it covered considerably better than relying on a 1/3 of a stop

3 x fgz360z will deliver more power @1/1000 in HSS than a single one @1/180

I Metz45Digital will deliver a lot more power in HSS mode than that 1/3rd of a stop in mechanical shutter would gain you Vs fgz540.

I take my flash shooting moderately seriously I can bring a lot of hss flashes into play if I need or indeed want that 'automated' flash approach.!

I'd suggest you have a look at Strobist: Lighting 101 As I think that will go a long way to fixing you 1/250 woes.

Because of the fast flash duration, shutter speed has absolutely no effect on the flash component of the exposure only the ambient. That's how manual flash works, you can independently control the ambient and flash components in an exposure. It's another reason why a fast X speed is handy.

When taking any picture with flash your taking two exposures simultaneously, the flash component and the ambient component. Manual flash gives you total control, it works like this;-

Aperture and shutter speed effect both the ambient and the flash components of the exposure equally.

Flash power and flash to subject distance effects only the flash component of the exposure.

Shutter speed effects only the ambient component of the exposure due to the very fast flash duration of flashguns (speedflashes US), flash duration is typically around 1/1000th of a second when the flash is on full power, much faster when on low power (1/50,000th of a second when on very low power) much faster than the shutter speed available when a flash is connected to your camera. The X speed is the fastest shutter speed you can set and have all the image exposed to the flash component, the faster it is the more control you have over the ambient, 2/3rds of a stop can matter.

TTL is fine for automatically producing fill in flash, but for total control of lighting manual flash and manual mode on your camera goes much further.

May I humbly suggest you re-read Lighting 101.

Chris

[jatrax]

Have you actually tried it? The lowest ISO is not necessarily the lowest noise.

I do use ISO 80 often, and though I would be hard put to say it has less noise than ISO 100, I don't think it has more. I really really hate noise, and rarely go over ISO 200 on the k-5 because I can see it but I think ISO 80 is very clean and is my preference if I have the light.

[ChrisJ]

Sure, I understand that, I use 1/8 sec exposure and studio strobes all the time. The strobes expose the subject and the slow speed allows me to control the ambient background. And I have no problem doing that in the studio, but I don't do it outside so I've no experience there. I just wondered if the difference between 1/180 or 1/250 is a real handicap or just a "the other guys have it" thing. I am sure that there are situations where it makes a difference, I just don't buy that there are many of those situations.

Sometimes we get hung up on tiny specifications that differentiate one camera or brand from another, but are those specs of any use in the real world? K-3 does 8.3fps, in the real world is that really any significant difference over the 6fps of the Nikon 7100, or the 7fps of the Canon 70D? For most users, I suggest not. For some, maybe if you are into that type of shooting but if you really need high speed bursts then you spend the money and get what you need to do the job.


A good point, but I don't think the k-3 is the Pentax 'pro' camera any more than the D7100 is Nikon's 'pro' camera. Your point that people want to buy into a line the pros use is valid, even if they never buy the high end camera they want the opportunity to buy up to it, someday. It's a 'dream' thing.

I do think Ricoh is rebuilding a camera company from the bottom up. Which means the 'pro' line (if they even decide to play in that market) is still coming. That might be a FF DSLR, a mirrorless 645D or something else entirely. So while people might buy 'top down' I think building a brand has to be 'bottom up'. Most folks want the dream but buy reality, so I think it's a good thing to have a good solid 'reality' for them to buy before we show them the dream. Or maybe I'm dreaming............

I totally agree jatrax, FF cameras account for only 2% or 3% of Canikons output, it would be a huge outlay for Pentax to produce one in R&D and tooling, the return comes from sales of entry level and mid level DSLR cameras, the FF cameras increase the perceived worth of their lesser models.

The K3 is the flagship of Pentax currently, which gives the perception of not being from a Pro stable. The facts that even entry level Pentax cameras will outperform, are better built, have all the functions, better image quality etc. etc. than any of the Canikon cameras at the same pricing point (and beyond) is missed on the 'Pro wannabees' that buy them, they see their D3100 as a 'Pro' camera, even though we know it ain't.

Chris

[normhead]

SO I guess the answer to the question, "Do you have any example images to demonstrate your point?" is no? Really, talking about what Pro's think reminds me of Dr. Zeus, "I am the Lorax, I speak for the trees." "My name is __________ (fill in the blank) I speak for the Pros." One of the Pros I know is still using an original 5D. Oh, ya, you speak for the Pros, just not that pro, so exatly which Pro's are you speaking for again? Really, there are no end of sponsored pros making no end of statements about all kinds of things, that doesn't make them true.

Forgive us if we are sceptcal, but, the fact that you are convinced what you are saying is true, doesn't make it true. You're just another guy making statements with nothing we can see to back them up. The people who sell cameras are Andre Agassi and Maria Sharapova, hardly Pro photographers. Let's not start mixing people's perception into the mix, and how it plays out in the market. That's a whole different issue. I've seen images that show me the difference between ISO 800 and 1600 in a given setting, I've never seen one showing me the difference between /180 and 1/250 flash sync speeds. At these mythical fashion shows, no one with a flash sync of 1/180 has ever taken a picture beside someone shooting a flash sync of 1/250 ?How do I know this isn't a placebo?

This turning into one of those "trust me" arguments. Or one of those, let's see how many people I can convince without providing a shred of real evidence. I honestly don't know if you're right or wrong. You're arguing that faster is better, and it's certainly faster, but better, we haven't established that. I can only decide how credible you are. That's all you're offering, so I retain a healthy skepticism.

[ChrisJ]

I do use ISO 80 often, and though I would be hard put to say it has less noise than ISO 100, I don't think it has more. I really really hate noise, and rarely go over ISO 200 on the k-5 because I can see it but I think ISO 80 is very clean and is my preference if I have the light.

We're at risk of usurping this topic here, but chancing my arm even further, take a look at this K5 image taken at 3200 ISO

[
]

Now compare with this shot taken at 400 ISO, same camera, same lens, different day

[
]

Noise is complicated, ISO is only one factor. The shot above was taken on a very bright sunny day and it's the dynamic range of the contrast that created the noise (I think - comments welcome).

Chris

[jatrax]

Noise is complicated, ISO is only one factor.

Agree, proper exposure is also very important and sometimes the DR is too great to get everything 'proper'. I also seem to see a difference on which lens I use, though I honestly have no idea why that would be. But I have a couple of lenses that just seem to be noise magnets. I need to spend some time researching that to see what is going on. Lovely Pigeon by the way!! What lens?

But regarding the flash sync speed, maybe this is something Ricoh is holding back for the 'pro' camera? They do seem to add in features that others reserve for higher end bodies, so maybe 1/250 is a differentiating factor for their high end camera? Or maybe they just were not confident that the results would be good enough. Just because we think they should be able to do something does not mean they can.

[normhead]

We're at risk of usurping this topic here, but chancing my arm even further, take a look at this K5 image taken at 3200 ISO

[
]

Now compare with this shot taken at 400 ISO, same camera, same lens, different day

[
]

Noise is complicated, ISO is only one factor. The shot above was taken on a very bright sunny day and it's the dynamic range of the contrast that created the noise (I think - comments welcome).

Chris

You're bang on there Chris... the dynamic range (colour space) of your print or monitor is static, much less than looking at your scene out doors. So on a low contrast day you may have to stretch the dynamic range of the photo to fill the colour space. And since noise is a variation of the response of pixels differently using the same input, when you stretch the dynamic range, you also stretch the differences between those pixels that for whatever reason didn't get it quite right. I've often noticed the amount of contrast in the frame when the picture was taken affects noise, sometimes more than ISO.

[Alizarine]

Thanks for all the explanations I'm seeing in this thread specially from awaldram, ChrisJ and jaad75. Will look at those values and figure out how to work 'em with my existing flashes.

[ChrisJ]

Agree, proper exposure is also very important and sometimes the DR is too great to get everything 'proper'. I also seem to see a difference on which lens I use, though I honestly have no idea why that would be. But I have a couple of lenses that just seem to be noise magnets. I need to spend some time researching that to see what is going on. Lovely Pigeon by the way!! What lens?

Don't laugh, it's an older non APO Sigma 70 - 300mm f3.5-f5.6, bought off eBay for £36.00 a few years ago. Wide open it's not good, but stopped down to f9, which is why I had to raise the ISO to 3200, it is.

Chris