K-1 wireless flash

Andrea K · 08-05-2016, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by clackers

There will always be some contribution, Andrea, because the flash does not switch off immediately after firing, it decays like a light bulb is switched off.

Why not leave the controller head at 90 degrees to the ceiling, and flag it with black cardboard and elastic band? The bounce should trigger the other two flashes anyway.

Hi.

Have you tried? I'm not speaking about some contribution, I'm speaking about a burned picture, I think because some part of the system knows that it is in controller mode (exposure) and some other no (shutter). I tried also with my k-r and this problem isn't present and it's limited at "some contribution".
Check this 2 FGZ 540 set, one in camera and one on the left, in portraiture is even worse but I don't have here any person to shot some sample pictures:

Cheers

**clackers** · 08-05-2016, 02:30 AM

Originally posted by Andrea K

Hi.

Have you tried? I'm not speaking about some contribution, I'm speaking about a burned picture, I think because some part of the system knows that it is in controller mode (exposure) and some other no (shutter). I tried also with my k-r and this problem isn't present and it's limited at "some contribution".
Check this 2 FGZ 540 set, one in camera and one on the left, in portraiture is even worse but I don't have here any person to shot some sample pictures:

Cheers

That's a *very* big difference, Andrea. I shoot using radio triggers, but I do have two 540s like you and might try it some time - no promises though! 😀

**clackers** · 08-05-2016, 03:54 AM

To be honest, Andrea, just some carelessly done snapshots showed a big contribution from the control flash on both my K-S2 (top) and K-1 (bottom). Hope somebody chimes in with something more authoritative or controlled than me!

beholder3 · 08-05-2016, 06:23 AM

Originally posted by Andrea K

Have you tried? I'm not speaking about some contribution, I'm speaking about a burned picture, I think because some part of the system knows that it is in controller mode (exposure) and some other no (shutter). I tried also with my k-r and this problem isn't present and it's limited at "some contribution".

User error #1: the 540FGZ has a rather high minimum output, which is fully predictable. It shows on the display. Even with ISO 100 you usually have to stay at least 2 meters away from the subject, which in your images seems not the case. If that is misinterpreted, then refer to User error #2 of not publishing metadata.
User error #3: Using a shiny, reflective white surface as proof for correct metering. Use a matte colored subject.
I can even assume User error #4 which would be pointing the camera at the small bright shiny white thing using matrix metering.

Re-do completely without those user errors and with images with full (not adobe stripped) metadata.
Shoot a non-white/reflective subject at a 4 m distance. If the controller is "bruning out things" it will do at any distance and any subject.

Class A · 08-05-2016, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by beholder3

User error #1 ... User error #2 ... User error #3 ... User error #4

You gotta love technology that makes it all the user's fault.

Andrea K · 08-11-2016, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by beholder3

User error #1: the 540FGZ has a rather high minimum output, which is fully predictable. It shows on the display. Even with ISO 100 you usually have to stay at least 2 meters away from the subject, which in your images seems not the case. If that is misinterpreted, then refer to User error #2 of not publishing metadata.
User error #3: Using a shiny, reflective white surface as proof for correct metering. Use a matte colored subject.
I can even assume User error #4 which would be pointing the camera at the small bright shiny white thing using matrix metering.

Re-do completely without those user errors and with images with full (not adobe stripped) metadata.
Shoot a non-white/reflective subject at a 4 m distance. If the controller is "bruning out things" it will do at any distance and any subject.

The upload service stripped the metadata..... first time I noticed this..... however metadata are the same between the 2 pictures. This denies all others errors. Also I tested in a range of 1,5 to 3 meters and results are the same.

I think that you don't get the point, the controller should not contribute to the exposure, near, far, white surface, gray surface, colors surface, real picture.... etc... never.

Other tests here:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/190-pentax-k-1/319873-post-k-1-bugs-issue...ml#post3669025

beholder3 · 08-12-2016, 03:00 AM

Originally posted by Andrea K

The upload service stripped the metadata..... first time I noticed this..... however metadata are the same between the 2 pictures. This denies all others errors. Also I tested in a range of 1,5 to 3 meters and results are the same.

I think that you don't get the point, the controller should not contribute to the exposure, near, far, white surface, gray surface, colors surface, real picture.... etc... never.

Still not a single image with full metadata proving any issues other than beginner user errors.

Andrea K · 08-12-2016, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by beholder3

Still not a single image with full metadata proving any issues other than beginner user errors.

Yep, you're right! I'm a pentaxforums beginner and I understand with difficulty the fixations of beginner photographers (I also can give hasty judgments, right?), mostly if they speak about digital new age theories.

To send pictures to Pentax I have made a set with a 360 as controller and two 540 at subject sides:
Here some of the pics, FULL OF METADATA, that I sent to Pentax Italy: test_flash_wireless.zip - Google Drive
Here some pics, WITHOUT METADATA, of the k-1 vs k-r comparison (in k-r there is the small contribution already written):
k1 wireless controller autozoom 85mm head 0°:

kr wireless controller autozoom 58mm head 0°:

k1 wireless controller manual zoom 24 head 90°:

kr wireless controller manual zoom 16 head 90°:

I obtain great results also with film era gears... in many formats.

Andrea K · 12-08-2016, 12:03 PM

Sadly I don't have good news. Italian distributor asked info to Pentax Europe but with no effect, they answered that there are differences between cameras but no idea about different behavior between flash head 0° and 90°. I'm really not happy with wireless flash...

Class A · 12-08-2016, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by Andrea K

I'm really not happy with wireless flash...

Why don't you try a radio trigger solution?

If you -- for inexplicable reasons

-- want to use P-TTL, there is an Acon trigger. If you want to manually control multiple flashes from the camera position, there are solutions from Cactus (supports HSS) + Godox, Yongnuo, etc.

**clackers** · 12-08-2016, 04:54 PM

+1 to Class A's suggestions, but the easiest way is to rotate the flash head away from the subject - flag it off if you want to be sure, with anything attached to the head.

You are indoors, so the second flash will still get the pre-flash by bounce.

Andrea K · 12-09-2016, 12:14 AM

Triggers have an extra big cost...

Now I'm trying to bounce the flash head but the result isn't already predictable, this mean that the Pentax wireless flash system is almost as garbage.

**clackers** · 12-09-2016, 03:08 AM

Originally posted by Andrea K

Triggers have an extra big cost...

Now I'm trying to bounce the flash head but the result isn't already predictable, this mean that the Pentax wireless flash system is almost as garbage.

Well, triggers are not an extra big cost, and bouncing works well, I have to disagree with you on both points, Andrea.

Andrea K · 12-09-2016, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by clackers

Well, triggers are not an extra big cost, and bouncing works well, I have to disagree with you on both points, Andrea.

How you can affirm this when light reflections are unpredicable, above all in interiors? If pentax wireless flash "reads" the P-TTL, the head bouncing doesn't solve but moves the problem.

**clackers** · 12-09-2016, 01:38 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Andrea K

How you can affirm this when light reflections are unpredicable, above all in interiors? If pentax wireless flash "reads" the P-TTL, the head bouncing doesn't solve but moves the problem.

?

The metering doesn't occur when the pre-flash goes off, it's when the second flash discharges for the first time.

Look, I never had a problem with it, but if there's something weird about your environment that's not in ours (lots of glass or whatever), the remedy is easy.

You have a very expensive camera, and two very expensive flashes, one of which is currently being doomed to act as a simple controller!

If you buy cheap triggers, you suddenly free your flash up, so now you can have a keylight plus a fill or rim flash, and you will be able to get extremely accurate and repeatable control on your individual flash outputs, from 1/1 to 1/128.

It's what professionals do.

08-11-2016, 07:08 AM	#36
Andrea K Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Rome, Italy Posts: 822	Originally posted by beholder3 User error #1: the 540FGZ has a rather high minimum output, which is fully predictable. It shows on the display. Even with ISO 100 you usually have to stay at least 2 meters away from the subject, which in your images seems not the case. If that is misinterpreted, then refer to User error #2 of not publishing metadata. User error #3: Using a shiny, reflective white surface as proof for correct metering. Use a matte colored subject. I can even assume User error #4 which would be pointing the camera at the small bright shiny white thing using matrix metering. Re-do completely without those user errors and with images with full (not adobe stripped) metadata. Shoot a non-white/reflective subject at a 4 m distance. If the controller is "bruning out things" it will do at any distance and any subject. The upload service stripped the metadata..... first time I noticed this..... however metadata are the same between the 2 pictures. This denies all others errors. Also I tested in a range of 1,5 to 3 meters and results are the same. I think that you don't get the point, the controller should not contribute to the exposure, near, far, white surface, gray surface, colors surface, real picture.... etc... never. Other tests here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/190-pentax-k-1/319873-post-k-1-bugs-issue...ml#post3669025 Last edited by Andrea K; 08-11-2016 at 07:24 AM.

08-12-2016, 07:48 AM	#38
Andrea K Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Rome, Italy Posts: 822	Originally posted by beholder3 Still not a single image with full metadata proving any issues other than beginner user errors. Yep, you're right! I'm a pentaxforums beginner and I understand with difficulty the fixations of beginner photographers (I also can give hasty judgments, right?), mostly if they speak about digital new age theories. To send pictures to Pentax I have made a set with a 360 as controller and two 540 at subject sides: Here some of the pics, FULL OF METADATA, that I sent to Pentax Italy: test_flash_wireless.zip - Google Drive Here some pics, WITHOUT METADATA, of the k-1 vs k-r comparison (in k-r there is the small contribution already written): k1 wireless controller autozoom 85mm head 0°: kr wireless controller autozoom 58mm head 0°: k1 wireless controller manual zoom 24 head 90°: kr wireless controller manual zoom 16 head 90°: I obtain great results also with film era gears... in many formats. Last edited by Andrea K; 12-08-2016 at 12:14 PM.

12-08-2016, 12:03 PM	#39
Andrea K Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Rome, Italy Posts: 822	Sadly I don't have good news. Italian distributor asked info to Pentax Europe but with no effect, they answered that there are differences between cameras but no idea about different behavior between flash head 0° and 90°. I'm really not happy with wireless flash... Last edited by Andrea K; 12-08-2016 at 12:11 PM.

12-09-2016, 06:47 AM	#44
Andrea K Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Rome, Italy Posts: 822	Originally posted by clackers Well, triggers are not an extra big cost, and bouncing works well, I have to disagree with you on both points, Andrea. How you can affirm this when light reflections are unpredicable, above all in interiors? If pentax wireless flash "reads" the P-TTL, the head bouncing doesn't solve but moves the problem. Last edited by Andrea K; 12-09-2016 at 06:55 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-S2 wireless flash mode	n-light	Pentax DSLR Discussion	48	06-15-2018 07:49 PM
K1 & wireless flash	kngraphic	Pentax K-1 & K-1 II	11	04-29-2016 11:43 PM
Cactus RF60 Wireless Flash With Wireless Flash Transceiver V6 question	Spodeworld	Flashes, Lighting, and Studio	21	04-04-2016 09:49 PM
wireless flash with k-x	Cesar Ruiz	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	5	10-19-2014 04:48 PM
Wireless flash on K-50	Matz Chase	Pentax K-30 & K-50	8	09-04-2014 11:04 AM

08-05-2016, 12:28 AM	#31
Andrea K Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Rome, Italy Posts: 822	Originally posted by clackers There will always be some contribution, Andrea, because the flash does not switch off immediately after firing, it decays like a light bulb is switched off. Why not leave the controller head at 90 degrees to the ceiling, and flag it with black cardboard and elastic band? The bounce should trigger the other two flashes anyway. Hi. Have you tried? I'm not speaking about some contribution, I'm speaking about a burned picture, I think because some part of the system knows that it is in controller mode (exposure) and some other no (shutter). I tried also with my k-r and this problem isn't present and it's limited at "some contribution". Check this 2 FGZ 540 set, one in camera and one on the left, in portraiture is even worse but I don't have here any person to shot some sample pictures: Cheers

08-05-2016, 02:30 AM	#32
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by Andrea K Hi. Have you tried? I'm not speaking about some contribution, I'm speaking about a burned picture, I think because some part of the system knows that it is in controller mode (exposure) and some other no (shutter). I tried also with my k-r and this problem isn't present and it's limited at "some contribution". Check this 2 FGZ 540 set, one in camera and one on the left, in portraiture is even worse but I don't have here any person to shot some sample pictures: Cheers That's a very big difference, Andrea. I shoot using radio triggers, but I do have two 540s like you and might try it some time - no promises though! 😀

08-05-2016, 03:54 AM	#33
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	To be honest, Andrea, just some carelessly done snapshots showed a big contribution from the control flash on both my K-S2 (top) and K-1 (bottom). Hope somebody chimes in with something more authoritative or controlled than me!

08-05-2016, 06:23 AM	#34
beholder3 Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 3,112	Originally posted by Andrea K Have you tried? I'm not speaking about some contribution, I'm speaking about a burned picture, I think because some part of the system knows that it is in controller mode (exposure) and some other no (shutter). I tried also with my k-r and this problem isn't present and it's limited at "some contribution". User error #1: the 540FGZ has a rather high minimum output, which is fully predictable. It shows on the display. Even with ISO 100 you usually have to stay at least 2 meters away from the subject, which in your images seems not the case. If that is misinterpreted, then refer to User error #2 of not publishing metadata. User error #3: Using a shiny, reflective white surface as proof for correct metering. Use a matte colored subject. I can even assume User error #4 which would be pointing the camera at the small bright shiny white thing using matrix metering. Re-do completely without those user errors and with images with full (not adobe stripped) metadata. Shoot a non-white/reflective subject at a 4 m distance. If the controller is "bruning out things" it will do at any distance and any subject.

08-05-2016, 08:49 AM	#35
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by beholder3 User error #1 ... User error #2 ... User error #3 ... User error #4 You gotta love technology that makes it all the user's fault.

08-12-2016, 03:00 AM	#37
beholder3 Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 3,112	Originally posted by Andrea K The upload service stripped the metadata..... first time I noticed this..... however metadata are the same between the 2 pictures. This denies all others errors. Also I tested in a range of 1,5 to 3 meters and results are the same. I think that you don't get the point, the controller should not contribute to the exposure, near, far, white surface, gray surface, colors surface, real picture.... etc... never. Still not a single image with full metadata proving any issues other than beginner user errors.

12-08-2016, 03:31 PM	#40
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by Andrea K I'm really not happy with wireless flash... Why don't you try a radio trigger solution? If you -- for inexplicable reasons -- want to use P-TTL, there is an Acon trigger. If you want to manually control multiple flashes from the camera position, there are solutions from Cactus (supports HSS) + Godox, Yongnuo, etc.

12-08-2016, 04:54 PM	#41
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	+1 to Class A's suggestions, but the easiest way is to rotate the flash head away from the subject - flag it off if you want to be sure, with anything attached to the head. You are indoors, so the second flash will still get the pre-flash by bounce.

12-09-2016, 12:14 AM	#42
Andrea K Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Rome, Italy Posts: 822	Triggers have an extra big cost... Now I'm trying to bounce the flash head but the result isn't already predictable, this mean that the Pentax wireless flash system is almost as garbage.

12-09-2016, 03:08 AM	#43
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by Andrea K Triggers have an extra big cost... Now I'm trying to bounce the flash head but the result isn't already predictable, this mean that the Pentax wireless flash system is almost as garbage. Well, triggers are not an extra big cost, and bouncing works well, I have to disagree with you on both points, Andrea.

12-09-2016, 01:38 PM - 1 Like	#45
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by Andrea K How you can affirm this when light reflections are unpredicable, above all in interiors? If pentax wireless flash "reads" the P-TTL, the head bouncing doesn't solve but moves the problem. ? The metering doesn't occur when the pre-flash goes off, it's when the second flash discharges for the first time. Look, I never had a problem with it, but if there's something weird about your environment that's not in ours (lots of glass or whatever), the remedy is easy. You have a very expensive camera, and two very expensive flashes, one of which is currently being doomed to act as a simple controller! If you buy cheap triggers, you suddenly free your flash up, so now you can have a keylight plus a fill or rim flash, and you will be able to get extremely accurate and repeatable control on your individual flash outputs, from 1/1 to 1/128. It's what professionals do.