Flash overexposure with new K5

dh87 · 08-02-2011, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Ash

By consistent I mean that if I set FEC to -2.0 I can go ahead and shoot P-TTL under different lighting conditions and get well exposed flash shots most of the time.

Are you setting the FEC in the camera or on the flash? Are you using a Pentax lens? Pentax suggested that my Sigma lens is to blame. To test this, I ordered a Pentax lens for comparison, probably wasting time and money.

**Ash** · 08-02-2011, 01:59 PM

I set it on the camera - that way it's fixed and I don't need to think about it or adjust it every time I switch on the camera.
I use both an AF540 (Pentax) and a Sigma EF500 Super.
Sigma lenses have been troublesome, but mainly for AF issues.
I suggest you try the FEC adjustment and see how your flashed exposures turn out in different settings - you may be pleasantly surprised, and can use both your Sigma and Pentax lenses without any trouble.

dh87 · 08-02-2011, 02:54 PM

I'm not going to keep both the Sigma 17-50 2.8 and the Pentax 16-50 2.8. I will be testing briefly and sending the loser back. It's an expensive and inconvenient way to troubleshoot. I had decided originally on the Sigma lens because its optics were highly reviewed and the Pentax optics are not supposed to be so great. We'll see. I'll post again with the results of the flash comparison. I forecast no difference, but then I'm not sure what that says about the camera.

**Ash** · 08-02-2011, 03:01 PM

You have the DA* 16-50, which to me is the best wide-normal zoom for the Pentax system. It main issue is the risk of SDM failure, of which can be covered with extended warranty. Otherwise, I personally recommend it. It's a bright and sharp lens:

dh87 · 08-02-2011, 03:12 PM

Those are really nice. I won't have time for serious testing. I almost bought the Pentax to begin with. Maybe I'll decide to keep it instead of the Sigma, although the Sigma test pictures I took look sharp to me (based on 3 days of digital experience).

**Ash** · 08-02-2011, 07:10 PM

If the Sigma's sharp, and it's all you need, then there is no real need to have the DA*.
Again, that's up to you.

dh87 · 08-02-2011, 09:38 PM

Ash, did you ever call Pentax to ask them about the flash exposure problems? When I called, they blamed the Sigma lens, but that couldn't be their answer to you.

twitch · 08-02-2011, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by Ash

You have the DA* 16-50, which to me is the best wide-normal zoom for the Pentax system. It main issue is the risk of SDM failure, of which can be covered with extended warranty. Otherwise, I personally recommend it. It's a bright and sharp lens:

Ash, very nice photos! Was it my imagination though or did you sell your copy? I remember being surprised when I read it but dont recall the reason for the sale...

Class A · 08-02-2011, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by Ash

Sigma lenses have been troublesome, but mainly for AF issues.

Just like lenses from any other manufacturer.

Sigma lenses have not more AF issues than others. Pentax lenses, in particular the 16-50, have their own issues.

Anyhow, the flash overexposure problem is squarely located with the K-5. No third party lens problem. No third party flash problem. Just a K-5 problem. Could probably be fixed with a new firmware from Pentax. I wouldn't hold my breath though, waiting for such an update. It might get fixed in the next model only.

dh87 · 08-02-2011, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by Class A

Anyhow, the flash overexposure problem is squarely located with the K-5. No third party lens problem. No third party flash problem. Just a K-5 problem. Could probably be fixed with a new firmware from Pentax. I wouldn't hold my breath though, waiting for such an update. It might get fixed in the next model only.

This is a very bad thing, if true. I spent months reading reviews of DSLRs before buying the K5, but either I did not see or did not properly appreciate this problem beforehand. If it is a systemic problem, it's hard to understand why Pentax would not be interested in fixing it.

**Ash** · 08-02-2011, 10:50 PM

dh87 I did contact Pentax but they were 'unaware of any overexposure problems' and suggested I send in my camera to have it looked at (no thanks since it works OK at FEC -2.0).

twitch, I did give it away here but it was some time mid last year and it was a trade for an FA 43.

philbaum · 08-03-2011, 01:38 AM

Originally posted by dh87

This is a very bad thing, if true. I spent months reading reviews of DSLRs before buying the K5, but either I did not see or did not properly appreciate this problem beforehand. If it is a systemic problem, it's hard to understand why Pentax would not be interested in fixing it.

How are you metering for your camera's exposure? If you are using spot metering, might try the other 2 to see which mode delivers something you are happier with.

Also, are you meeting the minimum distances from the flash to assure that the PTTL can reduce the flash power effectively, i believe the manual addresses that?

Also, did you know that the flash exposure corrections on the flash and the camera are additive, so you have more adjustment than you might expect. I have like 3ev adjustment on my Metz 48 and -2 on the camera. I assume that your Pentax flash has at least the +-3 ev of my Metz, true or not? Putting a -1ev into your flash's adjustment doesn't seem too difficult for me. I do remember several being happy with the Auto feature of the Pentax, something my Metz does not have.

I wouldn't worry too much that its a systemic problem, i'm seeing reports that the problem has gone away for several, although there are still a few reporting it.

adr1an · 08-03-2011, 01:51 AM

/me is thankful he took the time to at least try and learn manual flash... means *TTL is of little concern and I can still convince the missus a K-5 is worth it

(Irrelevant Verbalized Thought: I dont know why... but TTL is the one 'technology' that I just dont see being better than 'the old way'.. the old way only over exposes if you do, only under exposes if you do - and the old way also guarantees the same results shutter after shutter after shutter.... TTL is kind of like P-mode - handy, but not the mode I'd live in... Oh and you can also then buy brand new $60 flashes that have silly high GN numbers

)

dh87 · 08-03-2011, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by philbaum

How are you metering for your camera's exposure? If you are using spot metering, might try the other 2 to see which mode delivers something you are happier with.

Also, are you meeting the minimum distances from the flash to assure that the PTTL can reduce the flash power effectively, i believe the manual addresses that?

Also, did you know that the flash exposure corrections on the flash and the camera are additive, so you have more adjustment than you might expect. I have like 3ev adjustment on my Metz 48 and -2 on the camera. I assume that your Pentax flash has at least the +-3 ev of my Metz, true or not? Putting a -1ev into your flash's adjustment doesn't seem too difficult for me. I do remember several being happy with the Auto feature of the Pentax, something my Metz does not have.

I wouldn't worry too much that its a systemic problem, i'm seeing reports that the problem has gone away for several, although there are still a few reporting it.

Metering = matrix (default)

Minimum distance = 0.7 for built-in, and I'm taking test pictures between 1 and 4m

I think that the FEC is additive, although I didn't test it carefully, and there is a -3 adjustment on the 540. Auto works pretty well for the 540, but there is no auto on the built-in. Isn't there auto on the Metz 58? Also, Metz remembers previous settings when you turn it off; Pentax forgets (according to the reviews). So, every time I start up the flash I can set it to FEC -2. That's not ideal.

On my Pentax ME Super, Auto for the Sunpak flash also worked very well. The ME Super cost about $200 new (with a 50 f1.8 lens), and the Sunpak flash was $60 in 1981. For $2400 (camera + zoom + flash) and 30 years of technological advancement, this should work better.

philbaum · 08-03-2011, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by dh87

Metering = matrix (default)

Minimum distance = 0.7 for built-in, and I'm taking test pictures between 1 and 4m

I think that the FEC is additive, although I didn't test it carefully, and there is a -3 adjustment on the 540. Auto works pretty well for the 540, but there is no auto on the built-in. Isn't there auto on the Metz 58? Also, Metz remembers previous settings when you turn it off; Pentax forgets (according to the reviews). So, every time I start up the flash I can set it to FEC -2. That's not ideal.

On my Pentax ME Super, Auto for the Sunpak flash also worked very well. The ME Super cost about $200 new (with a 50 f1.8 lens), and the Sunpak flash was $60 in 1981. For $2400 (camera + zoom + flash) and 30 years of technological advancement, this should work better.

Thanks, i see where you are coming from. I thought in your first thread, you said it was only -1ev, so is it different between the external flash and the onboard?

I don't know what else to say but send it in for repairs - perhaps the flash and cam together with a letter going over what you told us here. PITA for sure.

Best wishes,

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-5 Bounce Flash Overexposure FIX	efkelly	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	11	03-30-2011 02:21 PM
K-5 Overexposure with Bounce Flash	efkelly	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	9	03-29-2011 04:29 AM
Flash overexposure problem experiment... I've been getting good results	Eric Seavey	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	5	11-29-2010 08:09 AM
P-TTL overexposure, no more negative flash compensation	Eruditass	Flashes, Lighting, and Studio	11	10-09-2010 05:35 PM
overexposure with Metz flash, K20D, and 50mm 1.4 Super Tak	lisa.ireland	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	11-08-2009 12:50 PM

08-02-2011, 12:49 PM	#16
dh87 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Maryland Posts: 25 Original Poster	Originally posted by Ash By consistent I mean that if I set FEC to -2.0 I can go ahead and shoot P-TTL under different lighting conditions and get well exposed flash shots most of the time. Are you setting the FEC in the camera or on the flash? Are you using a Pentax lens? Pentax suggested that my Sigma lens is to blame. To test this, I ordered a Pentax lens for comparison, probably wasting time and money.

08-02-2011, 01:59 PM	#17
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	I set it on the camera - that way it's fixed and I don't need to think about it or adjust it every time I switch on the camera. I use both an AF540 (Pentax) and a Sigma EF500 Super. Sigma lenses have been troublesome, but mainly for AF issues. I suggest you try the FEC adjustment and see how your flashed exposures turn out in different settings - you may be pleasantly surprised, and can use both your Sigma and Pentax lenses without any trouble.

08-02-2011, 02:54 PM	#18
dh87 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Maryland Posts: 25 Original Poster	I'm not going to keep both the Sigma 17-50 2.8 and the Pentax 16-50 2.8. I will be testing briefly and sending the loser back. It's an expensive and inconvenient way to troubleshoot. I had decided originally on the Sigma lens because its optics were highly reviewed and the Pentax optics are not supposed to be so great. We'll see. I'll post again with the results of the flash comparison. I forecast no difference, but then I'm not sure what that says about the camera.

08-02-2011, 03:01 PM	#19
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	You have the DA* 16-50, which to me is the best wide-normal zoom for the Pentax system. It main issue is the risk of SDM failure, of which can be covered with extended warranty. Otherwise, I personally recommend it. It's a bright and sharp lens:

08-02-2011, 03:12 PM	#20
dh87 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Maryland Posts: 25 Original Poster	Those are really nice. I won't have time for serious testing. I almost bought the Pentax to begin with. Maybe I'll decide to keep it instead of the Sigma, although the Sigma test pictures I took look sharp to me (based on 3 days of digital experience).

08-02-2011, 07:10 PM	#21
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	If the Sigma's sharp, and it's all you need, then there is no real need to have the DA*. Again, that's up to you.

08-02-2011, 09:38 PM	#22
dh87 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Maryland Posts: 25 Original Poster	Ash, did you ever call Pentax to ask them about the flash exposure problems? When I called, they blamed the Sigma lens, but that couldn't be their answer to you.

08-02-2011, 09:42 PM	#23
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	Originally posted by Ash You have the DA* 16-50, which to me is the best wide-normal zoom for the Pentax system. It main issue is the risk of SDM failure, of which can be covered with extended warranty. Otherwise, I personally recommend it. It's a bright and sharp lens: Ash, very nice photos! Was it my imagination though or did you sell your copy? I remember being surprised when I read it but dont recall the reason for the sale...

08-02-2011, 10:14 PM	#24
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by Ash Sigma lenses have been troublesome, but mainly for AF issues. Just like lenses from any other manufacturer. Sigma lenses have not more AF issues than others. Pentax lenses, in particular the 16-50, have their own issues. Anyhow, the flash overexposure problem is squarely located with the K-5. No third party lens problem. No third party flash problem. Just a K-5 problem. Could probably be fixed with a new firmware from Pentax. I wouldn't hold my breath though, waiting for such an update. It might get fixed in the next model only.

08-02-2011, 10:37 PM	#25
dh87 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Maryland Posts: 25 Original Poster	Originally posted by Class A Anyhow, the flash overexposure problem is squarely located with the K-5. No third party lens problem. No third party flash problem. Just a K-5 problem. Could probably be fixed with a new firmware from Pentax. I wouldn't hold my breath though, waiting for such an update. It might get fixed in the next model only. This is a very bad thing, if true. I spent months reading reviews of DSLRs before buying the K5, but either I did not see or did not properly appreciate this problem beforehand. If it is a systemic problem, it's hard to understand why Pentax would not be interested in fixing it.

08-02-2011, 10:50 PM	#26
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	dh87 I did contact Pentax but they were 'unaware of any overexposure problems' and suggested I send in my camera to have it looked at (no thanks since it works OK at FEC -2.0). twitch, I did give it away here but it was some time mid last year and it was a trade for an FA 43.

08-03-2011, 01:38 AM	#27
philbaum Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA Posts: 3,659	Originally posted by dh87 This is a very bad thing, if true. I spent months reading reviews of DSLRs before buying the K5, but either I did not see or did not properly appreciate this problem beforehand. If it is a systemic problem, it's hard to understand why Pentax would not be interested in fixing it. How are you metering for your camera's exposure? If you are using spot metering, might try the other 2 to see which mode delivers something you are happier with. Also, are you meeting the minimum distances from the flash to assure that the PTTL can reduce the flash power effectively, i believe the manual addresses that? Also, did you know that the flash exposure corrections on the flash and the camera are additive, so you have more adjustment than you might expect. I have like 3ev adjustment on my Metz 48 and -2 on the camera. I assume that your Pentax flash has at least the +-3 ev of my Metz, true or not? Putting a -1ev into your flash's adjustment doesn't seem too difficult for me. I do remember several being happy with the Auto feature of the Pentax, something my Metz does not have. I wouldn't worry too much that its a systemic problem, i'm seeing reports that the problem has gone away for several, although there are still a few reporting it.

08-03-2011, 01:51 AM	#28
adr1an Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Canberra Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 739	/me is thankful he took the time to at least try and learn manual flash... means *TTL is of little concern and I can still convince the missus a K-5 is worth it (Irrelevant Verbalized Thought: I dont know why... but TTL is the one 'technology' that I just dont see being better than 'the old way'.. the old way only over exposes if you do, only under exposes if you do - and the old way also guarantees the same results shutter after shutter after shutter.... TTL is kind of like P-mode - handy, but not the mode I'd live in... Oh and you can also then buy brand new $60 flashes that have silly high GN numbers )

08-03-2011, 10:46 AM	#29
dh87 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Maryland Posts: 25 Original Poster	Originally posted by philbaum How are you metering for your camera's exposure? If you are using spot metering, might try the other 2 to see which mode delivers something you are happier with. Also, are you meeting the minimum distances from the flash to assure that the PTTL can reduce the flash power effectively, i believe the manual addresses that? Also, did you know that the flash exposure corrections on the flash and the camera are additive, so you have more adjustment than you might expect. I have like 3ev adjustment on my Metz 48 and -2 on the camera. I assume that your Pentax flash has at least the +-3 ev of my Metz, true or not? Putting a -1ev into your flash's adjustment doesn't seem too difficult for me. I do remember several being happy with the Auto feature of the Pentax, something my Metz does not have. I wouldn't worry too much that its a systemic problem, i'm seeing reports that the problem has gone away for several, although there are still a few reporting it. Metering = matrix (default) Minimum distance = 0.7 for built-in, and I'm taking test pictures between 1 and 4m I think that the FEC is additive, although I didn't test it carefully, and there is a -3 adjustment on the 540. Auto works pretty well for the 540, but there is no auto on the built-in. Isn't there auto on the Metz 58? Also, Metz remembers previous settings when you turn it off; Pentax forgets (according to the reviews). So, every time I start up the flash I can set it to FEC -2. That's not ideal. On my Pentax ME Super, Auto for the Sunpak flash also worked very well. The ME Super cost about $200 new (with a 50 f1.8 lens), and the Sunpak flash was $60 in 1981. For $2400 (camera + zoom + flash) and 30 years of technological advancement, this should work better.

08-03-2011, 11:04 AM	#30
philbaum Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA Posts: 3,659	Originally posted by dh87 Metering = matrix (default) Minimum distance = 0.7 for built-in, and I'm taking test pictures between 1 and 4m I think that the FEC is additive, although I didn't test it carefully, and there is a -3 adjustment on the 540. Auto works pretty well for the 540, but there is no auto on the built-in. Isn't there auto on the Metz 58? Also, Metz remembers previous settings when you turn it off; Pentax forgets (according to the reviews). So, every time I start up the flash I can set it to FEC -2. That's not ideal. On my Pentax ME Super, Auto for the Sunpak flash also worked very well. The ME Super cost about $200 new (with a 50 f1.8 lens), and the Sunpak flash was $60 in 1981. For $2400 (camera + zoom + flash) and 30 years of technological advancement, this should work better. Thanks, i see where you are coming from. I thought in your first thread, you said it was only -1ev, so is it different between the external flash and the onboard? I don't know what else to say but send it in for repairs - perhaps the flash and cam together with a letter going over what you told us here. PITA for sure. Best wishes,