[Photomy]

Does using bounce flash on a ceiling confuse or make it difficult for a P-TTL flash to give good, consistent results?

[roscot]

I always either bounce, or use a Softbox, or both with my Sigma EF500 DG Super and K10D. I get very good and consistent results.

[RiceHigh]

Does using bounce flash on a ceiling confuse or make it difficult for a P-TTL flash to give good, consistent results?

Theoretically, if bounce flash is used, object distance cannot be used for calculating the flash exposure but only the amount of flash light reflected back from the pre-flash can be used for the estimation.

Just in case if the Pentax body cannot know the flash head has been bounced and continue to use the distance info, then wrong exposure would result.

For details on how P-TTL flash works, you can see my this article:-

P-TTL Vs TTL

[Photomy]

Theoretically, if bounce flash is used, object distance cannot be used for calculating the flash exposure but only the amount of flash light reflected back from the pre-flash can be used for the estimation.

Just in case if the Pentax body cannot know the flash head has been bounced and continue to use the distance info, then wrong exposure would result.

For details on how P-TTL flash works, you can see my this article:-

P-TTL Vs TTL

Since I am an active bouncer, would you recommend traditional auto-flash instead to increase chance of consistent results? Still no guarantee of course - but at least I know how the auto-flash will work and when to watch out.

Thanks, RH

- Tomy

[Photomy]

What film scanner to you use? Just curious, because most folks claim that the better DSLRS now provide better image quality than 35mm film.

From your article

"A short remark and final words: There is still a long road to run!
The best digital image quality I can obtain now is still those scanned slide, say, just with the economical Fuji Sensia II - it is obvious much better in colours and greys *and* also for the DR (Dynamic Range). Some fine grains can be seen but they still look good to me, unlike those digital colour noises! The slide images contain also more texture information than any of the current DSLRs I have ever used, amongst brand C, N and P. I think there is still a very long road to run for the DSLR development, despite people now that still be driven by the megapixel race (even it has been slowed down in recent two years) plus any other marketing hype like Full Frame DSLR (as long as the key aspects about image quality are good, I can't see any big difference between 1.5X and 1X FF). The worst thing is I have tried the FF brand C 5D is that I found that the images had rather significant corner blur plus obvious vignetting when compared with film SLRs, especially for wider angle lenses are used, including primes, and/or at wider opened."

[trog100]

useing direct flash will produce more consistant but inferior results..

u trade one off against the other.. only u can work out which trade off suits u best and when..

trog

[Paul_C]

P-TTL works fine when bouncing.

[MikeH]

Pentax recommends P-TTL for bounce flash because it will increase the flash output accordingly. A or M mode will not adjust it, and you will need to do some testing to get the right output.

Mike

[RiceHigh]

Since I am an active bouncer, would you recommend traditional auto-flash instead to increase chance of consistent results? Still no guarantee of course - but at least I know how the auto-flash will work and when to watch out.

Thanks, RH

- Tomy

That actually quite depends on the shooting situation and whether you use bounced flash or not.

Just say with direct flash and a very dark and/or far away background with a brighter object, P-TTL is quite accurate sometimes as it is not fooled by the scene and it uses mainly the object distance to calculate the flash output.

However, traditional TTL flash sensing method, which neither the K10D nor the K100D supports, do have the advantage to give consistent results with objects fill up the scene evenly and with an overall average reflectance close to the mid-tone.

External Auto Mode is also reliable but it may not be as ideal as TTL owing to the different coverage between the sensor and the actual framing. However, since the reflectance of CCD is not consistent with different incident angle plus the AA filter is quite reflective (unlike film surface), it would actually be a good idea to avoid the TTL method. My experience is that the *ist D is more accurate Pentax DSLR for TTL auto flash whereas the DS tends to overexpose.

You can actually use external auto flash with the 360/540 flash, provided that you switch to M mode for the camera, then you can experience with the result.

If you use 3rd party auto flash units, which cannot tell the camera for the aperture chosen, you will have the handy freedom to make flash compensation just by stop-down or open-up the aperture while the setting at the flash gun remains unchanged. But do note you loose the freedom to chose any aperture anyway.

Do get a quality external flash. The Vivitar flash unit I use (not mine, but my friends often borrowed it to me when I needed it) is of poor quality and reliable. Actually it is not quite accurate, when I use the f/4 auto at ISO 200 (the red setting), it overexposes, so I simply select f/5.6 at my K100D. Similarly but on the other hand, when I use f/8 auto at ISO 200 (the blue setting), it underexposes, so I simply select f/5.6 to compensate. So, the funny thing is that I can only use f/5.6 with this auto flash now! Funny! Anyway, the results are acceptabe in accuracy and consistency.

I don't like the Vivitar flash anyway as the lighting is not even plus the color tones/temp are rather odd. Pentax's flash units are undoubtedly better in terms of image quality..

Hope this helps.

[trog100]

i use an olympus T-32 when i want to override the pttl auto stuff.. it works very well wtih manual lenses and such.. it looks nice sat on the camera also..

trog

[RiceHigh]

What film scanner to you use? Just curious, because most folks claim that the better DSLRS now provide better image quality than 35mm film.

From your article

"A short remark and final words: There is still a long road to run!
The best digital image quality I can obtain now is still those scanned slide, say, just with the economical Fuji Sensia II - it is obvious much better in colours and greys *and* also for the DR (Dynamic Range). Some fine grains can be seen but they still look good to me, unlike those digital colour noises! The slide images contain also more texture information than any of the current DSLRs I have ever used, amongst brand C, N and P. I think there is still a very long road to run for the DSLR development, despite people now that still be driven by the megapixel race (even it has been slowed down in recent two years) plus any other marketing hype like Full Frame DSLR (as long as the key aspects about image quality are good, I can't see any big difference between 1.5X and 1X FF). The worst thing is I have tried the FF brand C 5D is that I found that the images had rather significant corner blur plus obvious vignetting when compared with film SLRs, especially for wider angle lenses are used, including primes, and/or at wider opened."

That depends on how people look at the images when we are talking about "image quality".

Yes, digital are cleaner and much much cleaner. But it loses the textures and details and other good feels which a film image can give. Beside film image gives more texture and details (which are clearly existent under the grains), the tonal transition of a film image is obviously smoother and there are more grey steps which are distinguishable.

And yes, film images have more grains but I don't find these film grains to be annoying, unlike those digital color noises, especially at the shadow areas. The grain level and visibility is acceptable actually with good fine slide films (not negative).

Moreover, 135 full frame really has a better 3d feel and can offer even shadower DoF (so you can have more control) but I find that the Canon 5D has rather poor image corner performance even with primes and just for moderate larger apertures. I am sure that with film for the same lenses, the problem will not be so dominant. I use my MZ-S with FA 85/1.4 and shoot at f/1.4 to f/2.8 and no such 5D problem have ever seen (when compared against a EF 50/1.4 used on it). Yes, there is some vignetting but it's not as obvious for the 5D case and also the corner blur is not quite obvious (unlike those Canon 5D terrible corner blur).

My film scanner used is the entry level Minolta Scan Dual III (just bought before Minolta became KM) and I use 8-bit multi-pass scan mode with built-in "pixel polish" adjustment (which is actually a pre-processing by hardware at low level during the scanning stage) of "slight color cast" and I'm quite satisfied with the 8-bit jpegs I obtained.

All the images obtained by my above hybrid workflow (slide to film scan) feel differently with any of DSLR images I have ever obtained with numerous different models of different brands but I can say it's superior and look very good (whereas people who don't know how to appreciate will say that they are "noisy" - but actually they are just a bit "grainy").

A few day ago, I have just used a D50 kit at work and I must say it is the most terrible DSLR in terms of image quality which produces flat, flat an flat and oversharpened images which look very odd to me. But if you put the D50 under "lab" tests like those designed by Phil Askey, it will win hands down for my MZ-S slide scanned images. So, my this last example will say it all.

[Photomy]

Thanks for the good info. and insite as to your opinion on film vs. todays digital. I have a good scanner but have found myself tiring of the time and effort to scan. I am not taking enough shots so I plan on selling all film gear and getting a K10D I found on sale. For the occasional hi rez shots I plan on trying the 3 shot stitch process. I am putting some trust (with some risk I suppose) that Pentax continues on with their lens plan and does not end up like Bronica or Contax.

[RiceHigh]

Thanks for the good info. and insite as to your opinion on film vs. todays digital. I have a good scanner but have found myself tiring of the time and effort to scan. I am not taking enough shots so I plan on selling all film gear and getting a K10D I found on sale. For the occasional hi rez shots I plan on trying the 3 shot stitch process. I am putting some trust (with some risk I suppose) that Pentax continues on with their lens plan and does not end up like Bronica or Contax.

Yes, the main problem with film scan is exactly it involves too much time to do the job and that storage of film is troublesome, too.

Actually, I shoot with my K100D and just for some serious works, I shoot both or slide alone, with my MZ-S.

Regarding Pentax's current and new lenses, actually I have never seen a digital lens from Pentax which has the good unique optical characters which the true traditional Pentax glass would have. IMHO, the old film lenses mounted on any Pentax DSLRs do produce superior results. So, even Pentax contines to march in their new lens roadmap, I do still miss something of the original *Pentax*. Actually, I have not much interest on acquiring any more new DA or DFA lenses including the pancake ones.