[nosnoop]

HSS degrades flash output power by more than half and they consume much battery energy!

So? I would think most people would not worry about their flash battery consumption that much due to a few shots of HSS. We always have spares, don't we?

With my 540, I rarely found that it did not have enough juice/power for the HSS even with the expected reduction in flash output.

[import silvia]

you need fast x sync more outdoors than indoors, indoors the ambient is controllable unless its coming in through the windows (in which case you can close the curtains) but outdoors you cannot control the ambient directly, but you can control it with the shutter speed which only affects the ambient and not the flash exposure, this is a very powerfull situation where you control 2 exposures in 1 image and and choose to, say, if you are taking a picture of someone, to let the background be 1 stop darker than the person, or 3 stops if you so choose, brighter if you want high key.

once you are at your highest x sync then your only option is to do a power battle with the sun by reducing iso and increasing aperture and flash output power, often if you are using a hotshoe flash then you will be loosing this battle.

the people who say flash ruins a photograph, I have been there too, but the truth is if it does then you are not using it correctly. homework for you guys is to read strobist

A good set of ND filters is your friend here.

[and]

A good set of ND filters is your friend here.

please explain how an ND filter will help you if your cameras sync speed is lower than you need? thanks

[Ratmagiclady]

It's ridiculous to say 1/180 vs 1/200 of a second is any kind of real-world deal-breaking difference. Frankly, I'd run film at 160 at weddings, and even if I was comparing to running an FE2 for more active stuff, (Used a 6x7 for primary: hopefully I could get the leaf shutter if there was a lot outdoors...) being able to dial down to 100 would make up the difference.

1/250th would be nice, just for being a full stop, but hey. That half-a stop won't kill anything, either. People really exaggerate how much you really need the leaf-shutter-like higher speed synch. I used to run 160 ASA film at weddings, and I could pull perfectly-nice outdoor fill off at 1/60 or 1/90 sec. Balance. Your. Light. Output.

1/180 is about where diminishing returns start setting in under real-world conditions, in my book, anyway: I haven't tried the high-speed synch on my K20d, . But I'd go ahead and use the juice for high-speed synch if I wanted to stand my subjects in blinding sun and throw a lot of heat at em. What's average, these days, not counting things like the 'digital shutter' on the old d40?

A nice high flash synch speed is of course, a nice thing to have, but anyone who says 'can't' about it probably is a tad bit *spoiled* by all this computerey stuff.

[twinda1]

... I am trying to avoid flash use at all costs as it degrades photography ...

That's because you don't know how to use a flash.

The 1/180th x-sync is quite peculiar in an otherwise stellar spec list.

[Ratmagiclady]

please explain how an ND filter will help you if your cameras sync speed is lower than you need? thanks

If you want to balance fill-flash output with bright sun and keep your aperture wide, you need to take some ambient light away. High synch speed allows this balance, as does an ND filter, or reducing ISO. Frankly, a half-stop doesn't make a huge whole lot of difference in this regard, and if you want your aperture *really* wide, you're needing more than an extra stop of synch speed most of the time.

(Use the 'Sunny 16 rule' and think it through. What are you actually wanting to shoot at, especially if you're not trying to *overwhelm* the natural light, which just isn't my philosophy on strobe anyway. (Thus I've never even needed to use an ND.) Yes, if you use an ND, you'll also want to turn your flash output up to compensate for the ND, but this you can control. Generally if you want a wide aperture, your range to subject is fine for this. )

Further addition: Now, this isn't to say that there aren't a few *tricks* you can do and occasional conveniences if you have a LS or a high synch speed, but if someone says, "You 'can't do outdoor weddings with 'only' 1/180," I call BS.

Actually, I tend to think reliance on such high speed synchs for weddings is kind of a brute-force solution that really makes things look artificial. Could be that's why there's such a big market for big plastic diffuser domes and the like. Also something which sucks flash power and increases duration.

[cousinsane]

Here we go again, a thread hi-jacked by people whining about a half stop difference.

[and]

If you want to balance fill-flash output with bright sun and keep your aperture wide, ....

except i never said that, I was talking about the problems of overpowering the sun with a low power hot shoe flash, dropping iso, increasing aperture, putting on nd filter, all affect both flash and ambient and as such only leave the option of increasing the flash output to surpass the ambient. incidentally, increasing the power of a hot shoe flash normally increases the flash duration which affects the motion stopping ability.

[Ratmagiclady]

except i never said that, I was talking about the problems of overpowering the sun with a low power hot shoe flash, dropping iso, increasing aperture, putting on nd filter, all affect both flash and ambient and as such only leave the option of increasing the flash output to surpass the ambient. incidentally, increasing the power of a hot shoe flash normally increases the flash duration which affects the motion stopping ability.

Typically, 1/1000 is the maximum duration of a flash. I've seen some wedding parties move pretty fast... But not that fast.

But, yes, as much as I normally prefer a small unit, you shouldn't be trying to overwhelm the Sun with an underpowered flash, anyway.


(addition And, as I alluded to, you shouldn't really be trying to overwhelm the Sun at *all.* In my own wedding approach I was pretty heavily influenced at a young age by an old dude I was assisting who handed me like an RB67 on a Stroboframe (That was big&heavy on me. ) and told me how to go about it all to match his look.

I'm actually a really big fan of *slow* synch: (Slow, fast, the same. Why are these different 'modes,' anyway? Let me pick my shutter sped. ) I generally like to take the natural light and just kiss em with enough to chase back the shadows, maybe put an edge on it if it's dim. Sometimes even direct flash is good for this. (I do that a lot when I'm just carrying a little unit.

Anyway, for me, it's how I think, I like to *use* the natural light and just augment it as necessary: ideally, no one'll know the flash was even there. This definitely means I'm not actually reliant in any way on really-high-performance shutters, (1/180th is actually pretty luxurious for me, considering. Faster would be of most use if I'm trying to balance under-a-tree-or-something shots with a background landscape: or get the color balance together with what's behind: for this you usually don't need terribly-wide apertures to begin with, never mind 'action-stopping,' )

Not saying it's not of use, potentially, but 'can't do weddings' is really just out of left field. Does call for a powerful strobe, though, if you want to do stuff like you're talking, though.

[ricardobeat]

HSS degrades flash output power by more than half and they consume much battery energy!

Half = 1 stop. It's not that much.

[carlb]

I had hoped to read peoples' impressions of things like build quality, features, and how that all compares to the legendary status of the LX etc rather than end up with an in-depth whingeing session about the merits or otherwise of Pentax flash.

It would be nice if this thread could end up back on topic

[Elton]

you ignored my ideas on purpose .... this is not wedding camera, get a d700 for professional weddings ...

Sorry but that was a stupid post. What if one doesn't want a D700? What if one wants a Pentax?

[Ratmagiclady]

They made it out of metal? That's very LX-like.

Looks like Pentax could certainly say 'LX-inspired' with a straight face, anyway, but I don't think the sorta-legendary status of that camera really came out of nowhere: I don't believe the LX out-specced the competition on any particular count at all: it's simply way up top of the list as one of the best-put-together cameras ever *made,* and they did it a bit smaller. (the K-7 is *much* smaller, of course. )

I think it'd be hard to *say* 'It's the next LX' at this juncture, CarlB, but I think they definitely listened to Pentax people saying that's what they wanted.

[monochrome]

I had hoped to read peoples' impressions of things like build quality, features, and how that all compares to the legendary status of the LX etc rather than end up with an in-depth whingeing session about the merits or otherwise of Pentax flash.

It would be nice if this thread could end up back on topic

Here's a link to the Mir.com site on the Pentax LX. I wouldn't say YET that the K-7 is as ground-breaking as the LX was, but the potential to build out the concept/connection is all there. If you haven't read the LX history, put aside an hour and read the entire 252 entries.

Here are some commonalities - add the ones I missed:

1. Dust/weather sealed
2. Surprisingly small
3. Breakthrough Viewfinder (maybe not quite on K-7)
4. Major exposure improvement (not the LX, though)
5. Legitimate competitor to many "pro" bodies (but not all)
6. Metal body
7. Backward compatibility with previous system accessories
8. Rugged, dependable camera body

Rather, might we say this emulates the MX (the first small pro-ish body Pentax introduced), which served as the launchpad for the LX? That being the case, might we hope Pentax has a true competitor for the pro bodies in development?

If so, one hopes Pentax can develop all the pro support functions maintained by Canon and Nikon - if not, naysayers will just find the lack as reasons to deny Pentax - as these few on this thread have identified the x-sync as a reason to deny all the bold improvements on the K-7.

I really am tiring of posters identifying the ONE THING they wanted that isn't there and making a Federal Case out of it.

[geauxpez]

Here's a link to the Mir.com site on the Pentax LX. I wouldn't say YET that the K-7 is as ground-breaking as the LX was, but the potential to build out the concept/connection is all there. If you haven't read the LX history, put aside an hour and read the entire 252 entries.

Here are some commonalities - add the ones I missed:

1. Dust/weather sealed
2. Surprisingly small
3. Breakthrough Viewfinder (maybe not quite on K-7)
4. Major exposure improvement (not the LX, though)
5. Legitimate competitor to many "pro" bodies (but not all)
6. Metal body
7. Backward compatibility with previous system accessories
8. Rugged, dependable camera body

Rather, might we say this emulates the MX (the first small pro-ish body Pentax introduced), which served as the launchpad for the LX? That being the case, might we hope Pentax has a true competitor for the pro bodies in development?

If so, one hopes Pentax can develop all the pro support functions maintained by Canon and Nikon - if not, naysayers will just find the lack as reasons to deny Pentax - as these few on this thread have identified the x-sync as a reason to deny all the bold improvements on the K-7.

I really am tiring of posters identifying the ONE THING they wanted that isn't there and making a Federal Case out of it.

You make excellent points. Some people must think it's worthy -- there are suddenly a few K20d's in the marketplace.