K-3 delay when using the flash

Ayoh · 05-22-2014, 10:07 PM

Are you positive it is that short and not the typical 1/3 sec? If so then than would suggest the delay might be due to a hardware issue which has been addressed in newer camera batches. This opens up many annoying repair and exchange possibilities which I would like to avoid as my k3 has the delay.

Originally posted by stevebrot

For what its worth, my K-3 (purchased less than a month ago, firmware v1.03) has a slight hesitation (a few milliseconds at most) relative to non-flash exposures. This is the case for both the on-board flash and my Sigma EF 610 DG Super. While I don't have another recent body to test against, the lag is much less than my K10D with the same flash.

Steve

OregonJim · 05-23-2014, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

For what its worth, my K-3 (purchased less than a month ago, firmware v1.03) has a slight hesitation (a few milliseconds at most) relative to non-flash exposures. This is the case for both the on-board flash and my Sigma EF 610 DG Super. While I don't have another recent body to test against, the lag is much less than my K10D with the same flash.

Steve

I can confirm this. My K-3 (mfg. mid December 2013) has only a barely perceptible lag of approx. 10 - 20 mS in p-ttl vs. manual, with both the internal flash and my AF 540FGZ. Not even close to what was demonstrated in the posted videos.

Firmware is 1.03. The camera came from the factory with 1.00, but I did not see this thread before upgrading, so I can't say if firmware version makes a difference.

**RGlasel** · 05-23-2014, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by OregonJim

My K-3 (mfg. mid December 2013)

The K-3 was announced in October 2013, that is too short period of time for Ricoh to make manufacturing changes to "correct" this problem, the only logical explanation is that the laggers have different camera settings than those without delay problems. Like Sherlock Holmes said,
“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

Which won't be much consolation to those who have been stamping their feet demanding that Ricoh fix this obvious defect.

OregonJim · 05-24-2014, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by RGlasel

The K-3 was announced in October 2013, that is too short period of time for Ricoh to make manufacturing changes to "correct" this problem, the only logical explanation is that the laggers have different camera settings than those without delay problems. Like Sherlock Holmes said,
“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

Which won't be much consolation to those who have been stamping their feet demanding that Ricoh fix this obvious defect.

From exiftool:

Manufacture Date : 2013:12:11
Production Code : 2.1

I wonder what the "production code" means? Could it be the second major rev of the board?
Also curious is that I purchased this less than a month ago from B&H, a full 5 months after the alleged "manufacture date"...

**RGlasel** · 05-24-2014, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by OregonJim

curious is that I purchased this less than a month ago from B&H, a full 5 months after the alleged "manufacture date"...

It appears that photography retailers don't turn over their inventory very fast. Then there is the supply pipeline from manufacturer to distributor and then to retailer. My local retailer has a few bodies and lens celebrating birthdays.

Originally posted by OregonJim

Could it be the second major rev of the board?

Maybe, maybe not. My K-30 was manufactured 6/17/2012 right about when it was announced, and it has 2.2 for a production code. The timeline from when a new component is released for production to bad experiences with it in the field from end users, to getting engineering to re-design the component and release the revision to manufacturing will require several months, if not years. Now if the plant discovers a problem with the design, which will only be related to glitches in the manufacturing process or a series of catastrophic failures at the final QA stage, then engineering will have to redesign the problem component ASAP or else costs will mushroom. There is no way a subtle problem like this will be caught by manufacturing, so even if your K-3 has updated components in it, those changes didn't "fix" the shutter delay for your camera.

**lm4187** · 07-11-2014, 06:07 AM

Has the new 1.10 firmware for the K-3 improved the lag time? It seems to be much improved in my hands, but I don't use a flash enough to be fully sensitive to variations in flash performance.

Cheers,
Lou

Paul the Sunman · 07-11-2014, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by lm4187

Has the new 1.10 firmware for the K-3 improved the lag time? It seems to be much improved in my hands, but I don't use a flash enough to be fully sensitive to variations in flash performance.

Cheers,
Lou

Hmm, I'm not sure. The delay does seem somewhat reduced, though I can still take a flash picture of myself in a mirror and move my finger well off the shutter button by the time of exposure.

klakier · 07-11-2014, 09:30 AM

No difference for me, the lag is still the same with 1.10 FW.

Ayoh · 07-14-2014, 03:47 AM

No difference for me either. This looks like a hardware issue affecting only certain units

GeneV · 07-14-2014, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

For what its worth, my K-3 (purchased less than a month ago, firmware v1.03) has a slight hesitation (a few milliseconds at most) relative to non-flash exposures. This is the case for both the on-board flash and my Sigma EF 610 DG Super. While I don't have another recent body to test against, the lag is much less than my K10D with the same flash.

Steve

FWIW, I had the same delay with my K-5II and that particular Sigma flash. Sometimes it would miss the sync entirely. have not tested the K3 yet.

GeneV · 07-14-2014, 05:55 PM

Here is a postscript: The Sigma flash, which was erratic on my K5II, works reliably on my K3, but with the delay everyone has mentioned. The Pentax 540FGZ has no delay on the K5II but the same delay on the K3 as the Sigma. Curious.

I take a lot of photos of dancers in motion. The K3 would not be my choice for P-TTL flash photos of dancers.

derekkite · 07-14-2014, 08:44 PM

I don't have any Pentax flashes, but the Sigma ring flash has a very long delay, the Metz 50 AF1 has very little. I use it with a beamer and long lens, and the delay is negligible. The Sigma ring flash delay is long enough to miss shots.

AdrianM · 07-15-2014, 02:58 AM

I have just updated to FW 1.10, and I think there has a been a noticeable improvement using both inbuilt flash and Metz 58AF-2. Previously, I could sense the lag, but now I don't even notice it. Unfortunatety, I don't think I can revert back to 1.03 to cross check. It would be wonderful to know if this is just perceptions or that Pentax really did change something. Nonetheless, I'm happy now.

Ayoh · 07-15-2014, 05:01 AM

I notice no difference with the new firmware, still the same ~250ms lag is present.

Originally posted by AdrianM

I have just updated to FW 1.10, and I think there has a been a noticeable improvement using both inbuilt flash and Metz 58AF-2. Previously, I could sense the lag, but now I don't even notice it. Unfortunatety, I don't think I can revert back to 1.03 to cross check. It would be wonderful to know if this is just perceptions or that Pentax really did change something. Nonetheless, I'm happy now.

GeneV · 07-15-2014, 06:48 AM

Originally posted by derekkite

I don't have any Pentax flashes, but the Sigma ring flash has a very long delay, the Metz 50 AF1 has very little. I use it with a beamer and long lens, and the delay is negligible. The Sigma ring flash delay is long enough to miss shots.

My Sigma 610 DG Super is an odd duck. I originally bought it as an inexpensive way to allow my K01 to trigger wireless P-TTL flash. If there was a delay mounted on the K01, then compared to the delay of CD focus, it was not noticeable. However, when I used it with the K5II on-camera, the delay in "TTL" mode was quite noticeable and sometimes unpredictable. Either I had a delay and proper exposure or no delay and bad results. Oddly, when used as a wireless P-TTL slave, it works instantaneously and reliably with the K5II.

I tested last night, and with the K3, the Sigma functions exactly as the AF540 FGZ--with the same lag discussed here both on and off-camera.

07-11-2014, 06:07 AM	#156
lm4187 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Germantown MD Posts: 90	Improvement w/ K-3 firmware 1.10? Has the new 1.10 firmware for the K-3 improved the lag time? It seems to be much improved in my hands, but I don't use a flash enough to be fully sensitive to variations in flash performance. Cheers, Lou

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Need to disable in-built flash when using off camera flash	Molly	Flashes, Lighting, and Studio	18	03-27-2013 04:12 AM
Adobe or Embedded when using the k5 in Lightroom 3.6 ?	London Rob	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	2	11-21-2012 12:58 PM
How does the camera meter when using an external flash?	jpeldrid	Flashes, Lighting, and Studio	7	12-04-2011 09:27 AM
k-7 + 3 sec delay = no flash slave. Anyone know why?	Nass	Pentax DSLR Discussion	5	03-16-2010 09:57 AM
Closed eyes when using the flash	xfraser	Flashes, Lighting, and Studio	5	01-31-2007 12:52 PM

05-22-2014, 10:07 PM	#151
Ayoh Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Melbourne Posts: 341	Are you positive it is that short and not the typical 1/3 sec? If so then than would suggest the delay might be due to a hardware issue which has been addressed in newer camera batches. This opens up many annoying repair and exchange possibilities which I would like to avoid as my k3 has the delay. Originally posted by stevebrot For what its worth, my K-3 (purchased less than a month ago, firmware v1.03) has a slight hesitation (a few milliseconds at most) relative to non-flash exposures. This is the case for both the on-board flash and my Sigma EF 610 DG Super. While I don't have another recent body to test against, the lag is much less than my K10D with the same flash. Steve

05-23-2014, 11:15 PM	#152
OregonJim Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon Posts: 1,327	Originally posted by stevebrot For what its worth, my K-3 (purchased less than a month ago, firmware v1.03) has a slight hesitation (a few milliseconds at most) relative to non-flash exposures. This is the case for both the on-board flash and my Sigma EF 610 DG Super. While I don't have another recent body to test against, the lag is much less than my K10D with the same flash. Steve I can confirm this. My K-3 (mfg. mid December 2013) has only a barely perceptible lag of approx. 10 - 20 mS in p-ttl vs. manual, with both the internal flash and my AF 540FGZ. Not even close to what was demonstrated in the posted videos. Firmware is 1.03. The camera came from the factory with 1.00, but I did not see this thread before upgrading, so I can't say if firmware version makes a difference.

05-23-2014, 11:53 PM	#153
RGlasel Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Saskatoon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,229	Originally posted by OregonJim My K-3 (mfg. mid December 2013) The K-3 was announced in October 2013, that is too short period of time for Ricoh to make manufacturing changes to "correct" this problem, the only logical explanation is that the laggers have different camera settings than those without delay problems. Like Sherlock Holmes said, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Which won't be much consolation to those who have been stamping their feet demanding that Ricoh fix this obvious defect.

05-24-2014, 12:10 AM	#154
OregonJim Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon Posts: 1,327	Originally posted by RGlasel The K-3 was announced in October 2013, that is too short period of time for Ricoh to make manufacturing changes to "correct" this problem, the only logical explanation is that the laggers have different camera settings than those without delay problems. Like Sherlock Holmes said, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Which won't be much consolation to those who have been stamping their feet demanding that Ricoh fix this obvious defect. From exiftool: Manufacture Date : 2013:12:11 Production Code : 2.1 I wonder what the "production code" means? Could it be the second major rev of the board? Also curious is that I purchased this less than a month ago from B&H, a full 5 months after the alleged "manufacture date"...

05-24-2014, 06:56 PM	#155
RGlasel Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Saskatoon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,229	Originally posted by OregonJim curious is that I purchased this less than a month ago from B&H, a full 5 months after the alleged "manufacture date"... It appears that photography retailers don't turn over their inventory very fast. Then there is the supply pipeline from manufacturer to distributor and then to retailer. My local retailer has a few bodies and lens celebrating birthdays. Originally posted by OregonJim Could it be the second major rev of the board? Maybe, maybe not. My K-30 was manufactured 6/17/2012 right about when it was announced, and it has 2.2 for a production code. The timeline from when a new component is released for production to bad experiences with it in the field from end users, to getting engineering to re-design the component and release the revision to manufacturing will require several months, if not years. Now if the plant discovers a problem with the design, which will only be related to glitches in the manufacturing process or a series of catastrophic failures at the final QA stage, then engineering will have to redesign the problem component ASAP or else costs will mushroom. There is no way a subtle problem like this will be caught by manufacturing, so even if your K-3 has updated components in it, those changes didn't "fix" the shutter delay for your camera.

07-11-2014, 06:24 AM	#157
Paul the Sunman Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,846	Originally posted by lm4187 Has the new 1.10 firmware for the K-3 improved the lag time? It seems to be much improved in my hands, but I don't use a flash enough to be fully sensitive to variations in flash performance. Cheers, Lou Hmm, I'm not sure. The delay does seem somewhat reduced, though I can still take a flash picture of myself in a mirror and move my finger well off the shutter button by the time of exposure.

07-11-2014, 09:30 AM	#158
klakier New Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Gdańsk Posts: 5	No difference for me, the lag is still the same with 1.10 FW.

07-14-2014, 03:47 AM	#159
Ayoh Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Melbourne Posts: 341	No difference for me either. This looks like a hardware issue affecting only certain units

07-14-2014, 12:16 PM	#160
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by stevebrot For what its worth, my K-3 (purchased less than a month ago, firmware v1.03) has a slight hesitation (a few milliseconds at most) relative to non-flash exposures. This is the case for both the on-board flash and my Sigma EF 610 DG Super. While I don't have another recent body to test against, the lag is much less than my K10D with the same flash. Steve FWIW, I had the same delay with my K-5II and that particular Sigma flash. Sometimes it would miss the sync entirely. have not tested the K3 yet.

07-14-2014, 05:55 PM	#161
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Here is a postscript: The Sigma flash, which was erratic on my K5II, works reliably on my K3, but with the delay everyone has mentioned. The Pentax 540FGZ has no delay on the K5II but the same delay on the K3 as the Sigma. Curious. I take a lot of photos of dancers in motion. The K3 would not be my choice for P-TTL flash photos of dancers.

07-14-2014, 08:44 PM	#162
derekkite Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Nelson B.C. Posts: 3,782	I don't have any Pentax flashes, but the Sigma ring flash has a very long delay, the Metz 50 AF1 has very little. I use it with a beamer and long lens, and the delay is negligible. The Sigma ring flash delay is long enough to miss shots.

07-15-2014, 02:58 AM	#163
AdrianM Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Ipswich, Queensland, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 589	I have just updated to FW 1.10, and I think there has a been a noticeable improvement using both inbuilt flash and Metz 58AF-2. Previously, I could sense the lag, but now I don't even notice it. Unfortunatety, I don't think I can revert back to 1.03 to cross check. It would be wonderful to know if this is just perceptions or that Pentax really did change something. Nonetheless, I'm happy now.

07-15-2014, 05:01 AM	#164
Ayoh Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Melbourne Posts: 341	I notice no difference with the new firmware, still the same ~250ms lag is present. Originally posted by AdrianM I have just updated to FW 1.10, and I think there has a been a noticeable improvement using both inbuilt flash and Metz 58AF-2. Previously, I could sense the lag, but now I don't even notice it. Unfortunatety, I don't think I can revert back to 1.03 to cross check. It would be wonderful to know if this is just perceptions or that Pentax really did change something. Nonetheless, I'm happy now.

07-15-2014, 06:48 AM	#165
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by derekkite I don't have any Pentax flashes, but the Sigma ring flash has a very long delay, the Metz 50 AF1 has very little. I use it with a beamer and long lens, and the delay is negligible. The Sigma ring flash delay is long enough to miss shots. My Sigma 610 DG Super is an odd duck. I originally bought it as an inexpensive way to allow my K01 to trigger wireless P-TTL flash. If there was a delay mounted on the K01, then compared to the delay of CD focus, it was not noticeable. However, when I used it with the K5II on-camera, the delay in "TTL" mode was quite noticeable and sometimes unpredictable. Either I had a delay and proper exposure or no delay and bad results. Oddly, when used as a wireless P-TTL slave, it works instantaneously and reliably with the K5II. I tested last night, and with the K3, the Sigma functions exactly as the AF540 FGZ--with the same lag discussed here both on and off-camera.