Timing and flash power seem to have a lot to do with it. Sometimes pure luck and slight change of position will change something to allow the flash to work.

You might try putting the 360/540 into slave mode 2.
Rather than using wireless, it turns into a dumb sync flash. (no wireless PTTL communication.)
Just use your normal camera flash in noon-wireless mode.

Two issues;
1) your pop-up flash will contribute to the photo. but you can redirect with your hand or cardboard, etc...
2) The pop-up flash still ALWAYS does some pre-flash for metering. There is no setting combination that will turn that off. So your strobes will still synch off the initial pre-flashes.
But, some people have decent luck with that. I personally got less than 25% success.

As Matt suggests, either get a dedicated remote trigger/receiver, or get a dumb (non-PTTL) flash on the hot shoe to act as a trigger.
This was my solution for years.

Of course, if you have a PC cable and any necessary connectors for your camera and flash, this will work as well. (There is no PTTL through the PC cable -- not the same thing as the Pentax 5pin cable).

I finally got the ebay radio triggers (Cactus 2). They are cheap. They work for some, did not work so well for me. (only 1/3 expected range and could not keep up much over 1/100s sync speed) The extended antenna hack did nothing.

I just picked up the Elinchrom Skyport radio triggers.
Unfortunately the DLites have bad capacitors and they died the day I got the new triggers. Didn't even get to try them out. So back to the 360/540 flashes.

FYI, In my hurry with trying to type while at work , I forgot to mention that if you do want info on how DOF differs, there are of course some nice converters and software available on the web. e.g.: http://www.dofmaster.com

The Pentax DSLR has a magnification ration of about 1.5, so a 90mm would get about the same field of view as a 135mm on a non-DSLR full frame camera.

If field of view is all you're concerned about, that should do it, but there are of course other factors, dictated by physics, that go into defining the characteristics of a lens. Some of which are likely not so easy to state an "equivalency" for.

e.g. DOF for example does not change, but visually through a DSLR you magnify the image such that it appears as though you have more area in focus.
I haven't a clue how to go about conversions for that, if there even are any.

he, he, looked at some older photos, I had revision "1.1?" manufactured back in 2006.

Had to have a major repair done over Christmas where they replaced the motherboard, etc... I now have revision 8.1 with manufacture date 2007-12-11. Although now the Pentax Model is not set. Odd.

PhotoME looks like a nice piece of software. I wish more software would pick up the lens info. Until now, I actually thought Pentax wasn't storing that.

Actually the first is one of the the toes on her paw. They didn't appear that rough, guess Ill have to break out the hand cream.


I haven't looked at the lower range macros. I really like the 1:1 size and really shallow DOF, so I've only looked at the 100mm range. I had mainly investigated the Pentax macro lens before going out to buy one.

I did try the Pentax 100mm but didn't see that much difference. I suppose if I had them to study side by side, I'd find something.
From what I read and have seen in a few tests hots, the Tamron has a peak quality at or below f8. I see noticeable falloff of sharpness at f11 compared to f8. Normally for macro, as I understand it, some are looking at using smaller apertures (f16-f32?), and some negative comments were with respect to where the peak image quality was found.


Anyway, for my personal uses, I just love the wafer thin DOF. And for more than $200 difference, I am quite happy with the lens.

Just picked up my first macro lens this weekend. Although I hadn't seen much point with having something like the 28-300 or 18-200 with "macro" ability. But been rather disappointed in bokeh of closeups with those lenses so I thought I'd try one out... ended up buying it.

Wow! Now I see what real macro is about. The images are so sharp, and you can get so close that the object is truly magnified with some really super fall-off of the DOF! Things you simply cannot possibly do with the all-in-one "macro"-capable lenses.

Even for portrait, the subject are crisp and clear. Maybe not good for all portrait, but with animals you want that sharpness. I may have to figure out how to make that work, but with 100mm it is a bit long.

I picked up the Tamron SP F Di 90mm 1:2.8 Macro this weekend.
Not sure how it compares with the Pentax 100, but for $200 less it seems to produce some really nice images.
There is some CA when open wide, but for the most part I can live with what I've seen.

Had to share some photos. See if you can figure out what they are
Its raining pretty fiercely, so my outdoor tests will have to wait.

Anyway, the images posted are not 100% crops, but they are 1:1 macros.

ISO 100, F/4, 1/125s, (w/ flash)


Hint: related to the second image.

ISO 100, F4, 1/125s, (w/ flash)





ISO 100, F2/8, 1s (no flash)


OK, this one is easy. But I love the paper thin DOF and the complete smearing of the object as it goes out of focus.




Image1: Close up of one of my rottweiler's toes and nearby fur.
Image2: A couple of her whiskers.
Image3: Is of course a house-key.

Landscape... just to be different.

Sorry, portrait is definitely the better choice. Lot less distraction as well.

Well, start making a list... what features does th K10D have that the DL2 does not? Do you "need" them?

Mainly,
- Higher Pixel count? eh, maybe enough to make a difference. But possibly not.

- Water/dust resistant? Very nice, if you are in situations where it matters. (although the anti-dust coating on the sensor is better than prior models. Very nice regardless of water resistance...)

- Faster capture and preview speeds and longer continuous shooting? Not a big seller for me. I'm holding out on further upgrades until actual frame rate is better (for full sized images).

- wireless flash control with pop-up flash? I use it a lot, anyone else?? Maybe not.

etc...

I'd say if they are high-want items but not on the need list, you may want to hold out for the next version. But price will of course be a factor...

Good luck on your decision.

JPEG in camera - processed by a relatively low power processor doing minimal work to get your pictures to look acceptable. And it actually does a pretty good job.

But often, you can do better by making your own decisions with more powerful software on your computer.

JPEG is 8 bit color.
RAW contains 12 or more bits of color information.
With that you can do more adjustments using 12 bits of data with less noticeable degradation. Then when you finally convert to 8 bit JPEG, you have a nicer image.
12 bits of data also holds more information about the image especially noticeable in the brighter and darker areas. Thus when an image appears blown out in JPEG, you cannot do anything about it. If you had the RAW file, you can make adjustments that might bring those blown out areas back into a viewable range - within limits of those 12 bits. It isn't magic.

Adjustments done within RAW software can be modified an unlimited number of times. The RAW file itself is not modified. Instead a second file containing your requested modifications is created. These mods are then applied to the RAW image data as it is developed (or displayed internally), thus never actually touching the RAW file itself.
Go wild with RAW software and dont worry about degradation.

As you probably already know, opening and saving a jpeg repeatedly causes loss of data each time it is opened, re-saved, closed and repeated. Eventually resulting in total garbage.

Taken this past summer in Arlington VA at the Marine Corps Iwo Jima memorial, with the sun behind. Image is as-shot from the camera.
Not a sunset/sunrise, but hopefully silhouettes are not discounted.
Anyway, it is one of my favorites...