Thanks for that thought steretje . I haven't yet bought the new flashgun. I've got to consider all the different uses also - I do have a new DA 18-55 wr zoom, which would offer full P-TTL. You're right, to work fully the camera would have to receive the focal length data and aperture setting from the lens, and it measures the pre-flash 'through the lens' also.

The older AF280T I've got has a light detector at the front (a small hole with a green ring around it) which measures the reflected flash output, and it offers a confirmation light on the back if all is well.

I guess the Metz wouldn't have this, as it works 'throught' the lens. The question is, with the old lenses would you get any automatic flash functioning at all?

I wonder if anyone else could comment, even if they own a modern Pentax flash - how do you control the flash output when using old lenses. One of mine is a 'A' series prime, with an 'a' setting on the aperture ring, and the other is a 'K' (super Takumar type) with no 'a setting'. Would this make any difference to any of the possible flash functioning I wonder??

I have the K7, but I think the principles apply here also - its true that in Av with flash (even with 'slow sync' active) the camera still makes some 'intelligent' choices when setting shutter speed. This is related to controlling camera shake, so this will be factored in as well as the lighting levels.

This works automatically for DA lenses. Bear in mind also that in most flash situations the shutter speed will not affect the flash exposure; this is controlled by aperture and/or iso settings. So in fact, if you're looking to get firm control over the balance between a flash lit subject and the ambiant lighing of the background, then really 'M' mode is the best choice.

In full manual you take control of the ambiant lighting precisely - you will see an ev scale of plus & minus stops displayed (how many stops depends on the camera), and a pointer indicating the set ev level. So you could use Av quickly to take a meter reading and get you ballpark starting settings, then switch to manual. You could then (for example) set a shorter shutter speed (by a stop or 2) to lower the background a bit thereby allowing your flash-lit subject to stand out. And you can control the flash level from the flash settings page by turning the rear dial to set (eg) -o.5 or -1.0 flash exposure.

And finally... when using manual as I have described, you don't have to bother setting the flash mode to slow sync - so that cuts down on that step!

OK - I'll try the lcd test process from the link, thanks doug8.

So, I guess that if the monitor brightness is too high (like from the factory) then we see our images as bright, so in our editing we lower the brightness naturally, meaning they risk being printed too dark. Is that what we need to avoid?

OK thanks. I admit I have not dabbled in proper monitor calibration. Although I have seen that Windows 7 is suppossed to provide a much more reliable set-up by default. I have had no problems with print colours matching my screen colours generally, and in fact my most recent prints have come out looking exactly the right tone and brightness, luckily maybe!
I keep the colourspace to AdobeRGB whenever it's an option.

But if this 100-120cd/m2 is about monitor brightness, how does this relate to the printed output (which was what I thought Arto was talking about). Does he just mean that at this brightness level you'll be able to see the photo properly to make accurate edits?

Arto wrote : 'If in doubt, talk to your printer (assuming there is a human there) and yes, as mentioned earlier, do make sure your monitor is calibrated, and, importantly, that the brightness is set to around 100-120cd/m2, otherwise you will get dark prints.'

I have had trouble with prints coming out darker than I wanted, and I have not heard of the cd/m2 measure before. What is this, and how do we check it on a photo? I'd love to know, as I guess if its too low we could crank up the brightness before uploading.

I'd better keep my desires strictly to image enhancing gadgetry then.

Wouldn't that be amazing! But from what I've been saying (and you too Smeggy) there would be no point in trying to achieve this kind of extreme DR from a single shot, even if you pushed it in multiple copies beyond the ends of the histogram and carried out HDR work on these multiple copies.

Thanks for the dB explanation - very interesting indeed.
Do people then generally think that there is any point to single image HDR when the underexposed and overexposed copies of the original are off the histogram scale (after what has been said above by myself and others ??

Oh it's Google is it? Aren't they clever - I've been seeing ads for the ExpoDisc ever since asking about it here a while ago, but of course I had also been looking at the ExpoDic prices on Amazon and Fotosense etc.

So do Google just pick up on our shopping browsing, or is it actually items we refer to on the forum (I put a link to the ExpoDisc site for other members info).?

I think these 'bits' and EV matters are important when shopping for a new camera, but what counts in deciding what approach is realistic in HDR processing, then the key indicator is the histogram - for the original shot this will tell you if the camera has 'got it in one', and if not then you could start spot metering around to check the extent of the range of tones present.

The camera's EV range won't come in to it here - just need to know how many stops each way it takes to get nice highlight and shadow detail at each extreme.

By the way, Smeggy, what is the dB unit - sounds like decibel? Haven't hear of it in photography before.