A Gripe

[robar]

if the cam does not have TTL flash the the off camera TTL flashes will not work in auto with lenses precedeing the A lenses. even if you are using a P-TTL flash. so for auto EX you'l get no auto flash if you use M42, K, or M lenses.
please!! someone tell me i'm wrong!! yes i know you can use auto thyrister flashes.

roy

[interested_observer]

Roy - Sorry!!!!!!! I took TTL for something other than a flash interface. I did a quick search and there were references to TTL as something associated in determining the orientation of an image, that Canon uses that is connected in some way with their exposure control. I then sort of took it that you really did not want Pentax to use some sort of implementation that Canon has for some time. I really did not intendend to snub you in any way!!!!

Just call me stupid.....

I had checked the manual (have a softcopy to do searches), and there is nothing I can find for the K100D that enables anything associated with image orientation. Its a nice thing to have and glad the K10D has it.

Again - I appologize!!!!!!!!!!

[robar]

interested_observer wrote:

Again - I appologize!!!!!!!!!!

no problem and no need. nothing but crossed wires. he!! , i do it with myself..
no TTL has got to be #1 peeve with me about pentax dropping it after the ist series.

roy

[robar]

bilybianca wrote:

Discontinuing outstanding lenses and not replacing them with something even better.

A* and FA*200 mm Macro, A* and FA* tele lenses, 28 mm Shift lens... and more.

Kjell

yeah, that too

roy

[Corpsy]

The camera not determining image orientation is a bit of a nuisance, particularly when sorting large quantities of RAW images of mixed orientation, but since it doesn't really affect my photography it's pretty low on my list of complaints.

For me the most important weakness of the camera is it's small buffer. Since I mostly shoot RAW, and also like to shoot wildlife, having to wait for the camera to catch up after I snap 4 shots can be frustrating and costs me shooting opportunities.

Secondly I don't find the shake reduction terribly impressive. If I'm shooting at 200mm, 1/100 is still pushing it and I'm a pretty stable shooter. With my Panasonic FZ30 I'd have no reservations about shooting 1/30 at 430mm equivalent.

One thing that isn't really a complaint but that I really wish for would be the ability to use K-mount lenses as if they were screw mount lenses, in that you could use aperture priority and let the camera automatically determine exposure. All that would be needed is the ability to leave DOF preview on.

Some kind of noise reduction for JPGs would be nice (seriously, if you think the camera does any noise reduction, take a shot in normal light at ISO 1600 with and without noise reduction and see if you can tell the difference).

Anyway, when I picked out the camera I was well aware of (most of) it's strengths and weaknesses. Wanting a camera that was affordable, handled well, took high quality RAW photos and performed well in less than ideal conditions, I have no regrets.

[interested_observer]

Corpsy, - I agree with the buffer size. I thought that it would be fine, however with using high quality 133x SD cards, I still need to wait a good 15 seconds for the camera to finish writing to memory. I like to do landscapes with bracketing for HDR shots, and then stitch them together, so if I am going to do say a 3 panel image, I need 3 sets of 3 shots, with a wait in-between each panel. If I am handholding, then its pretty difficult to maintain a level horizon and adjust for overlap. - I know, a tripod is the answer, but I hate hauling it around.

I knew about this, I just did not realize how irrating it would be.

[VTphotog]

interested_observer wrote:

I like to do landscapes with bracketing for HDR shots, and then stitch them together, so if I am going to do say a 3 panel image, I need 3 sets of 3 shots, with a wait in-between each panel.

I have done a few of these, and fonud that with my software, I can profile my camera for HDR, then use the profile on a single exposure to get the same tonal range. There is not enough shadow noise to be a problem, and it simplifies things tremendously. I used 5 exposures, at one full stop intervals to create the profile. With my older digicam, I always had to take the three shots, due to the noise level.

brian

[snostorm]

baltochef920 wrote:

robar wrote:

I see the lament of Pentax & other digital cameras not having TTL flash capability on this & other forums..


As far as TTL flash for Pentax digital cameras is concerned, is there a reason that it is not on the K100D??..K110D??..K10D??..

I know that most (all??) of the *st-series cameras had this feature..

Does Pentax offer a reason why it was dropped on subsequent cameras??

What exactly are the pros & cons of TTL flash vs. P-TTL flash??..Real world usage vs. specs??..

Please correct me if I am wrong, but before the advent of TTL flash in film SLR cameras one had to use a light meter to estimate the amount of flash required to illuminate the subject??..

Then the flash was set according to the distance that the light had to travel, the focal length of the lens, the aperture setting of the lens, the shutter speed setting of the camera, & the speed of the film being used??..

Hi Bruce,

I'll agree with Roy about the lack of TTL support after the D, DS, and DS2. This is, IMO a significant departure from the backward compatibility philosophy.

The way I see it, the reason it was dropped were probably cost (there has to be a separate dedicated sensor inside the lightbox aimed at the sensor whose only function is to meter for flash), and the desire to sell new P-TTL flash units -- let's gang up on the marketing guys . . .

I think that Pentax would say that it's because TTL is not potentially as accurate or versatile as P-TTL because the image sensor has different reflective qualities than film and the TTL sensor can't be as finely calibrated as the main exposure sensor (but it works pretty well within its limitations).

The pros and cons --

TTL --
pros

Single flash per exposure -- less chance of blinkies or lazy eye.
Tons of used Pentax dedicated TTL guns out there (from all mfgs) for pennies on the dollar -- another backward-compatibility thing. Maybe not as good as P-TTL, but better than Auto Thyristor or manual.
Less prone to metering problems with hot spots in the frame.
More power available for long distance shots (preflash uses up some of the charge).

cons

Extra cost of TTL sensor and its associated circuitry.
Because it was film technology, it only works reliably with ISO speeds up to 400 (not that much ISO 800-3200 film used).
The sensor reflects light differently than the film surface.
The TTL sensor is not as sophisticated as your exposure sensor, and can't distinguish zones (like center weighted and spot) putting it at a significant disadvantage for more critical metering -- this is probably more theoretical than reality based at this point, and Pentax is probably working on tweaking P-TTL to make it better (as illustrated with the K10's incompatiblilty with the then existing Sigma and Promaster flashes until the mfgs updated their P-TTL protocols (firmware)).
TTL metered wireless remote is not possible within reason. It uses a series of preflashes to communicate exposure info which can't be done practically with TTL's real-time metering of a single flash.

P-TTL
pros

Utilizes the existing exposure meter with the potential for more sophisticated metering, using any mode -- matrix, center-weighted, spot.
Potentially can work with any aperture, shutter speed, ISO combination (including High Speed Synch).
Ability to use preflashes to communicate exposure info for metered wireless remote exposure control.
P-TTL has the potential to be the most flexible and versatile flash metering system -- with all the sophistication of the normal exposure metering system, but it's not perfected yet. I really hope that Pentax can make some progress here without having to change the present guns.

cons

Pretty expensive flashes, very few to choose from.
Still maturing technology (it's good, but they haven't got it really right yet).
Preflash bleeds power from the flash for exposure (lowers effective GN).
Preflash causes blinkies or lazy eye in a minority of the population.
Seems to be pretty easily fooled by bright reflections or lights in the frame.
Changing protocols (to make it better) messes up 3rd party support, making it inconvenient at best for other mfgs to make guns for Pentax shooters.

Before TTL, there was Auto Thyristor automation, which still exists in both dedicated and non-dedicated flashes, and it's pretty good in the better systems. The flash unit has a sensor and the camera settings (aperture and ISO, shutter at any synched speed) have to be made to match the flash's settings. Once that is done, the flash meters the exposure and is effective within a certain distance range -- no meter needed. Also the Guide Numbers can be used with distance from the subject to calculate flash exposure without a meter (never really learned the drill, but I know it's possible)

I'm not the most sophisticated flash user -- still got a lot to learn -- so don't consider this the definitive answer to your ??s, but I think it's pretty accurate. . .

Scott

[snostorm]

Corpsy wrote:

Some kind of noise reduction for JPGs would be nice (seriously, if you think the camera does any noise reduction, take a shot in normal light at ISO 1600 with and without noise reduction and see if you can tell the difference).

Hi Corpsy,

Its pretty well known that the "noise reduction" in the menu is only for long exposures where the camera takes another equal exposure with the shutter closed, then subtracts the sensor sites that freak out because they've been turned on too long (black frame reduction). It's not noise reduction in the sense of Noise Ninja any other noise reduction program where the goal is to smooth out the variations in luminance or color caused by insufficient light to allow the sensor sites to fire normally and the amplification needed to achieve high ISO.

Noise reduction in this sense is carried on by the processing engine, and many seem to agree that this is done better in post processing where your computer has the power to do the job in reasonable time, and the photogapher has the ability to control the process. Note many reviewers' mentioning "heavy-handed noise reduction" as a negative because it obliterates detail in a number of cameras. It's a lot like RAW vs Jpg, sharpen in camera vs sharpen in PP, vivid vs neutral colors, etc, etc, etc discussions.

If you want NN quality noise reduction in-camera with the current CCD sensor technology, then it'll be at the expense of writing times as the little onboard computer struggles to process the image -- This will change when we get a pretty sophisticated CMOS sensor where some of the processing is done on the sensor chip itself (which I assume is coming) -- Canon had a significant head start here as they have been developing CMOS sensors for their copier division for many years -- everyone else has to play catch up, and it's not really a matter of "noise reduction" in these sensors, it's more about consistent output from the individual sensor sites, so it's not about reducing noise, it's about not creating it in the first place.

I usually don't like noise, but have found that it's effect in prints isn't nearly as bad as it looks on the computer's screen, so I'm on the side of not letting the camera make the decisions in this case. Of course, YMMV.

Scott

[Gumnut]

definately i want to be able to use apperturte priority with my old manual lenses

i want to see in the viewfinder if i am under or over exposing like i can with my older screwmounts

oh and something in the viewfinder that say the card is full
so i dont keep pressing the shutter button and wondering why i cant take a photo :?
unless its already there and i havent noticed it :-)