OK I have a feeling I am getting this all wrong, it is not so important to physically get close to the object [example a spider]as to be able to get a full frame of it or as close as possible, so does that mean I need to get close physically by using a specific lens and reversing ring or tube or should I be looking at a 100mm lens with a macro filter, or extension tube or whatever to be able to get further away? Is a 28mm wide angle lens reversed not better than a 50mm reversed if I need t get physically close to achieve this?
perhaps I should start a new thread, this is now going off the original question somewhat?
Alistair

I bought cheaply a nice Pentax 35-70 k/a "micro" lens which while producing nice crisp images is of course not a true 1:1 macro lens.
I have bought a reversing ring and by removing the lenses from a damaged teleconverter made an extension tube. Now both work well for macro/ micro
with the reverse ring and tube but my question is would a prime 50 mm either 1.7 or 2.8 which seem to be plenty full and cheap using the above kit be any better than holding the 30-70 at 50mm?
Alistair

ok thanks everyone I can see the pre flash now I look for it and I understand what is going wrong with the Xtraflash use.I have some older non auto focus lenses that allow manual exposure settings , so all I have to remember now is how to set them up, to take flash,I have use auto flash TTL for so long I have forgotten how to work out aperture and speed according to distance.
Alistair

ok thanks, I will try with a manually set aperture as per previous post. I am to understand that the pre flash then flash are so close together you don't see them?
Alistair

Hi bought one of these Xtraflash units that Ephotozine was offering on sale and it functions correctly ok,
the problem is all I get is black photos.
using pentax k 10 set to f5.6 100 iso, flash on, take photo all is ok.
as a above and as per Xtra flash instructions place xtra flash at 2 meter from the subject , take picture camera flash and xtra flash both go off and the result is a nearly black image.
I am obviously missing the point somewhere can some explain what I am doing wrong?
I have tried setting the speed to 1/125 but get the same result.
tried x [=1/180] flash setting same result
why does the image look as if it is vastly underexposed? I thought to much light will look washed out / horribly overexposed is that not correct?
I am not using red eye reduction which would cause early slave flash or in place so dark the pre-flash goes off to set auto focus. I have tried on manual focus as well, but unless the slave is a long way away , further than the supplied chart suggests then I get these very underexposed image.
Alistair

Yves, thanks, I have come to realise that, never mind, in the course of the research into this I have found other uses for the ME feature that are not mentioned in the Pentax hand book or I gather some of the other books on the K10
Alistair

Don, thanks for the almost instant reply, I hardly had time to make a cup of coffee before my pc "pinged" to tell me a email had arrived.
So if I take the first shot with for example me ij it then the subsequent ones with out me it will not ghost? is that correct?
but then how do I get the "twin" effect that i have seen? in one image there was a boy who moved several times running which froze him in differnt position on the image but he was fully exposed and the back ground was also as well,?
Alistair
Never Play Leapfrog with a Unicorn.

I am sure this is me being dense, but why when using the multi exposure mode do people who move appear ghost like? how do you take a photo of a scene then again with a person in it and get them to come out as clearly as the background?
I have read articles re water effects that I understand and using the feature to take several short exposures rather than one long one and the benefits of doing this but how to get a pair of me in a photo that is not ghostly eludes me.
Alistair
K10d and K-m and way to many lenses and gadgets.

I know this is all wrong but if I shoot raw sharpened or standard in my computer screen no mater waht magnification i see no difference using a k100d and pentax 18-55 lens
similarly I see little or realy no difference in the quality of a zoomed image or at 100% between unsharpened raw and jpeg images of any size or compression, am i blind or just missing something?
I can post images if any wants to suggest a couple of settings to use to set up some comparisons? can we post raw files?
Alistair