[stevebrot]

Can you upload via 'manage attachments' rather than flickr please ?

Or if you use Flickr, link to the original upload. That way the exif will be intact.


Steve

---------- Post added 09-27-14 at 10:42 PM ----------

it sounds like something is interfering with P-TTL operation with this particular flash unit

...and with manual flash operation as well. (See my comment above.) According to the OP, he had terrible over exposure even with the flash set to minimum (guide number 4) at 55cm. I think there is good reason to believe that his flash always fires at full power.


Steve

[Digitalis]

I think there is good reason to believe that his flash always fires at full power.

The closest thing I have to the A 200mm f/2.8 is the A*200mm f/4 ED Macro* - I have the FA version right here with me, and I haven't had any issues at all with using that with the Pentax ringflash even with manual aperture. So there is clearly something going horribly wrong.

*I never liked 200mm lenses on DX or FX format, too long for portraiture, too short for wildlife. But for macro...they are excellent.

[manntax]

..and with manual flash operation as well. (See my comment above.) According to the OP, he had terrible over exposure even with the flash set to minimum (guide number 4) at 55cm. I think there is good reason to believe that his flash always fires at full power. Steve

I think he had exactly the same issue as I experience. Flash in P-TTL mode is simple blowing it all in macro distances. As in his case - I am also able to use the flash with good results on my K-01 at not-macro distances ( above 1m I think ) - which is quite ridiculous considering the fact that this is a dedicated macro flash. What is interesting, I saw this review on Amazon.com :

Verified Purchase This ring flash works fine except when you try to take photos up close. There is way too much light and the subject is washed out. It just does not have the synchronization down the way it needs to. Everything else works fine.

His problem with taking the shots 'up close' - is clearly the same as mine - with total overexposure. So there IS something HORRIBLY wrong with this flash on newer bodies. Perhaps older, made in Japan units are fine. I am still waiting for aoeu to kindly upload a photo of something very small , at 1:1 or 1:2 magnification, with flash on AUTO , and with exif intact. That would help determine whether his China made unit is showing the same communication problems with K5 as OP and myself are experiencing.

[stevebrot]

I think he had exactly the same issue as I experience.

Did you read my comment? The OP also had problems using the flash in manual mode. He sets the flash at 1/16 (minimum intensity). This is manual, not P-TTL auto, mode (user manual page 25). With his stated setup he should have been able to use f/8 at the lens' minimum focus distance. Instead he had to use f/25 which would be consistent with a full intensity flash. From his description, neither he nor his K-5/K-3 are able to control the flash.

This does not reduce the validity of your complaint with the K-01. You have done a very good job of documenting your issue. It may be helpful to find somebody else with "exactly" the same problem, but the OP is not that person.


Steve

[manntax]

Did you read my comment? The OP also had problems using the flash in manual mode. He sets the flash at 1/16 (minimum intensity). This is manual, not P-TTL auto, mode. With his stated setup he should have been able to use f/8 at the lens' minimum focus distance. Instead he had to use f/25 which would be consistent with a full intensity flash. From his description, neither he nor his K-5/K-3 are able to control the flash. This does not reduce the validity of your complaint with the K-01. You have done a very good job of documenting your issue. It may be helpful to find somebody else with "exactly" the same problem, but the OP is not that person.

All other sympthomps are exactly the same - I am not sure if he had done all exactly right when he tested the manual function of the flash - perhaps not, since we have never seen any exif nor image. Therefore I stick to those points that were easy to validate and straightforward to spot ( overexposure in AUTO mode is hard to miss - since all should simple *work* ). Other than that - I can see from other sources at least 4 different cases of complaints about this flash and various cameras ( the OP, myself, xGene' from Pentax AF160FC Auto Macro Ring Flash
and a certain Bob Burr from Amazon.com review ) - the common factor is : TOTAL OVEREXPOSURE in AUTO mode in distances close to the subject - with either K-01, K5 or K3 .

[stevebrot]

All other sympthomps are exactly the same

Except that that a failure to shoot in other than full intensity trumps all. If the OP shared your problem, he would be unable to demonstrate it since there is no evidence that his flash was able to regulate at all.

As for other users with exactly the same problems, xGene may as might inferno10 (comment immediately above xGene's). Am I safe to assume that "exactly" in this context means overexposure at close distance with any camera (except the K10D) using the AF-160FC in P-TTL mode?

I will step out on a limb here and attempt to summarize this thread:

• The OP had an overexposure issue with both the K-5 and K-3 that may or may not have been related to P-TTL problems (unable to demonstrate normal operation under any conditions in either P-TTL or manual modes)
• manntax has a well-documented issue of overexposure in the macro range on the K-01, but no exposure problems on the K10D
• There has been at least one other reported P-TTL overexposure issue with the AF-160FC with the K-5 and one other with unknown camera on this site. There is also a review on Amazon for an unknown camera
• There are three well-documented examples of correct exposure with the AF-160FC on three cameras (K10D, K-5 and K-5 IIs) on this thread

It would be good to note that there is some "noise in the channel" as well. There was a well-documented and persistent problem with P-TTL on the K-5. To the best of my memory, I don't remember any other reports of P-TTL issues with the K-3 with any flash. This thread was the first and is the reason why I participated. There is one report with the K-01 on DPReview, but I do not believe it is pertinent here.


Steve

[manntax]

I will step out on a limb here and attempt to summarize this thread: The OP had an overexposure issue with both the K-5 and K-3 that may or may not have been related to P-TTL problems (unable to demonstrate normal operation under any conditions in either P-TTL or manual modes) manntax has a well-documented issue of overexposure in the macro range on the K-01, but no exposure problems on the K10D There has been at least one other reported P-TTL overexposure issue with the AF-160FC with the K-5 and one other with unknown camera on this site. There is also a review on Amazon for an unknown camera There are three well-documented examples of correct exposure with the AF-160FC on three cameras (K10D, K-5 and K-5 IIs) on this thread It would be good to note that there is some "noise in the channel" as well. There was a well-documented and persistent problem with P-TTL on the K-5. To the best of my memory, I don't remember any other reports of P-TTL issues with the K-3 with any flash. This thread was the first and is the reason why I participated. There is one report with the K-01 on DPReview, but I do not believe it is pertinent here.

I think your post summarizes it all well - with the reservation about the 'three well-documented' examples of correct exposure. We already know that Digitalis has unit made in Japan, so that is at leas one new variable in this equation. Another 'documented' example hasn't been actually documented at all - still waiting for some exif data to support that sample shots from aoeu. And lastly you have to take in consideration the fact that this flash looks to be very unpopular among members - we have just few reviews here, and barely any on-line. So issues like this, with flash so specialized (and expensive !) can go on for years unnoticed. Think about the scenario :

1) Initially flash was made in Japan, quality control was good, flash was manufactured precisely to the specification - works well on all cameras.

2) then Hoya outsources production to China (under supervision ) but let's assume they haven't been so precise and so flash is not communicating well ( or in a standard way ) with newer cameras ( let's say for a moment: after K10D).

3) Pentax found the problem and quietly fixed the issue - and so our friend aoeu has perfectly functioning copy made in China but this time manufactured to the spec.

4) Pentax / Ricoh is not worried about those few tens or hundreds of flashes sold in the meantime because majority of them are lying unused somewhere, or people use them with their older cameras and are happy ( as I was until K-01 ) - and those few that have experienced the problem are simply not enough to make any impact, OR accepting the fate ( as in case of xGene or
Bob Burr from Amazon.com , or even MYSELF - having been quiet about this issue for the past year of owning both flash and K-01).

This is all hypothetically speaking, and I do hoper that Ricoh will answer my query soon and I will update this thread saying, that they are aware of the issue and working on a firmware update for the cameras affected. For me, that would be a happy ending of this whole story

[stevebrot]

with the reservation about the 'three well-documented' examples of correct exposure

Well, at least I thought they were well-documented. Low standards I guess...

[manntax]

Well, at least I thought they were well-documented. Low standards I guess...

No need to mock .. there are only 2 documented cases ( one unit made in Japan, one of unknown origin) and one statement with no data to support. All those are spread all over the place with PLACE and DATE of manufacturing and hardly prove anything... than your initial thought , quoted below :

It occurred to me yesterday and just now when reading this comment that there might be more than one production variant of the AF-160FC in the mix. The flash has been in production for a few years now and may well have gone through a few changes.

[aoeu]

[WPRESTO]

M participation as OP seems to be missed, so I'm about to unpack my AF160FC for another series of tests.
FYI: 1) My unit is "made in China" according to the packaging. 2) The K3 instruction manual, page 84, explicitly indicates the the AF160FC will (or should) operate in PTTL mode with an "A" series lens. 3) My K3 body has the current firmware (V 1.03).
Because I obtained identical results with K5 and K3 bodies, I will test only with the K3 body, although I may run one or two tests with my old K20D. Will try to post results/images by the end of today.

[manntax]

M participation as OP seems to be missed, so I'm about to unpack my AF160FC for another series of tests. FYI: 1) My unit is "made in China" according to the packaging. 2) The K3 instruction manual, page 84, explicitly indicates the the AF160FC will (or should) operate in PTTL mode with an "A" series lens. 3) My K3 body has the current firmware (V 1.03). Because I obtained identical results with K5 and K3 bodies, I will test only with the K3 body, although I may run one or two tests with my old K20D. Will try to post results/images by the end of today.

Great ! Thank you for taking up this - I know how frustrating it must be for you to unpack this flash now. I would really appreciate if you could run a test like I did and then upload via 'Manage attachments' your jpgs from camera. ( I set them usually for lower MP in camera to save on upload time ). Also you could try and replicate this problem with flash set to 1/16 of power - very qurious how that would turn. Try for all tests keep around 4-5 inches distance form flash to your subject - this is what I did.

[WPRESTO]

PRELIMINARY DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS

TEST CONDITIONS:
1) small cloth figurine set on Kodak neutral gray cards (one below, one behind, figurine leaning on latter)
2) distance camera-to-subject about 24 inches (slightly more for the 200mm macro because the tripod mount of the lens was used rather than the camera body)
3) lenses: 200mm SMCA ED macro; 50mm SMCA macro; 70mm DA f2.4, with a +1 close up lens because the lens will not focus @ 24 inches.
4) camera mode set at "X" and ISO 100
5) aperture rings of manual lenses set at "A"
6) for each lens the aperture was changed via the camera body for f4; f8, f16, and only for the 200mm macro f32

RESULTS:
1) with 70mm DA, f4 was slightly overexposed; f8 and f16 were about correct;
2) with both the 50mm and 200mm macros, f4 and f8 were grossly overexposed; f16 was somewhat overexposed; and with the 200mm macro, f32 was somewhat underexposed

I also tried a few quick tests with the K20D body and the 50mm SMCA macro. IT GAVE APPROXIMATELY CORRECT EXPOSURE AT MULTIPLE F-STOPS AT MULTIPLE DISTANCES.!!!!!

After getting these result, I put the 50mm SMCA onto the K3 and tested with a Pentax 360 flash and a Metz 44. THE CAMERA GROSSLY OVEREXPOSED IMAGES AT MODERATE DISTANCES AND F-STOPS (about 6~8 feet and f8 or f11). I switched to the 35mm f2.8 DA and got correct exposures at the same distances and f-stops.

CONCLUSION: THE "UPDATED" FIRMWARE IN BOTH CAMERAS IS AT FAULT. IT DOES NOT ALLOW CORRECT PTTL WITH AN "A" SERIES LENS.

[manntax]

PRELIMINARY DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS TEST CONDITIONS: 1) small cloth figurine set on Kodak neutral gray cards (one below, one behind, figurine leaning on latter) 2) distance camera-to-subject about 24 inches (slightly more for the 200mm macro because the tripod mount of the lens was used rather than the camera body) 3) lenses: 200mm SMCA ED macro; 50mm SMCA macro; 70mm DA f2.4, with a +1 close up lens because the lens will not focus @ 24 inches. 4) camera mode set at "X" and ISO 100 5) aperture rings of manual lenses set at "A" 6) for each lens the aperture was changed via the camera body for f4; f8, f16, and only for the 200mm macro f32

Thanks for taking the time to do these tests !
Especially K20D result shows that I am right assuming that newer cameras are having something wrong with them in a way they communicate with some of those flashes. My K10D works seamlessly with my flash as well.

distance camera-to-subject about 24 inches (slightly more for the 200mm macro because the tripod mount of the lens was used rather than the camera body)

My results at this distance are totally different than at say.. 6 inches. Is there any chance you could go with DA lens down to few inches ? even if it 's not focusing down to that - it should still expose correctly. Just a quick snap please

[WPRESTO]

My results at this distance are totally different than at say.. 6 inches. Is there any chance you could go with DA lens down to few inches ? even if it 's not focusing down to that - it should still expose correctly. Just a quick snap please

As for more testing, sorry, but for the last time I've packed away the AF160 for return, and also requested the RMS from B&H. However, I took several quick shots with the DA 35 macro on the K20 and got approximately correct exposures down to about 8 inches, provided the f-stop was small enough. According to the 160 manual, it should give correct exposures at ISO 100 down to approximately 4 inches (0.1 meter) if the f-stop is not too wide. I forget what it needs to be, but I think it was f5.6 or smaller.