All Forum Comments
Comment by niblue posted on AF400FTZ or AF-360FGZ TTL with Pentax 645? at 11/01/2008 - 10:47
I did one shot using TTL flash with the AF360FGZ on my first roll through the 645 and the combination worked well.
Comment by niblue posted on AF400FTZ or AF-360FGZ TTL with Pentax 645? at 10/01/2008 - 21:12
Quote:
To add to this... the AF360FGZ worked perfectly in TTL mode on the Z1 I had (my AF360 was one of the very early ones).
It works fine on my Z1p as well - with the flash mounted as switched it moved from P-TTL to TTL as soon as the shutter release button on the Z1p was pressed halfway.To add to this... the AF360FGZ worked perfectly in TTL mode on the Z1 I had (my AF360 was one of the very early ones).
The AF360FGZ is very good from a compatability point of view as it has TTL, P-TTL plus an auto mode - very useful e.g. when a K-mount lens is mounted on a K10D. The AF400FTZ on the other hand has only manual and TTL modes which limites its usefulness with the latest bodies. I thought it would make a good partner with the 645 though so I'll clean up the contacts and try it again.
Comment by niblue posted on AF400FTZ or AF-360FGZ TTL with Pentax 645? at 04/01/2008 - 10:00
The 360FGZ seems to work fine in TTL with the 645 (I found an online manual that also states it should be compatible). I'll know for sure in a few days when I get the test film developed.
My 400FTZ doesn't seem to want to talk to the 645 though - that might be dirty contacts though.
My 400FTZ doesn't seem to want to talk to the 645 though - that might be dirty contacts though.
Comment by niblue posted on AF400FTZ or AF-360FGZ TTL with Pentax 645? at 03/01/2008 - 23:01
Quote:
But I am not sure when the 645 came out, and it might be that they are all 5p compatible.
I should have the camera soon so I'll find out then. I'm not too concerned about using the flash off-camera as I have studio lights anyway.niblue wrote:
I do have my eye on a few 645 lenses from KEH though!
You know, this is perhaps a bit more complicated. Recent 645 cameras can definitely use guns like the 400, but I am a bit worried that your 645 might be from the 4p era, not the 5p, in which case you could have a problem with cables if you want to mount the flash off the body.Quote:
The AF500FTZ would also be a good choice for the 645, take a peek at KEH, I just imported 2x for £150 including fast delivery, vat etc (only vat, no import duty applied by IR)
Thanks for the info, and from George. The reason I asked is that I already have both an AF400FTZ and an AF360FGZ so hoped I could use those.George Lazarette wrote:
The 400 is. The 360 (doesn't have TTL, only P-TTL) isn't.
G
You must have had to much of gods water George, the 360 does indeed have TTL on a TTL body The 400 is. The 360 (doesn't have TTL, only P-TTL) isn't.
G
The AF500FTZ would also be a good choice for the 645, take a peek at KEH, I just imported 2x for £150 including fast delivery, vat etc (only vat, no import duty applied by IR)
I do have my eye on a few 645 lenses from KEH though!
But I am not sure when the 645 came out, and it might be that they are all 5p compatible.
Comment by niblue posted on AF400FTZ or AF-360FGZ TTL with Pentax 645? at 27/12/2007 - 18:20
Quote:
The AF500FTZ would also be a good choice for the 645, take a peek at KEH, I just imported 2x for £150 including fast delivery, vat etc (only vat, no import duty applied by IR)
Thanks for the info, and from George. The reason I asked is that I already have both an AF400FTZ and an AF360FGZ so hoped I could use those.George Lazarette wrote:
The 400 is. The 360 (doesn't have TTL, only P-TTL) isn't.
G
You must have had to much of gods water George, the 360 does indeed have TTL on a TTL body The 400 is. The 360 (doesn't have TTL, only P-TTL) isn't.
G
The AF500FTZ would also be a good choice for the 645, take a peek at KEH, I just imported 2x for £150 including fast delivery, vat etc (only vat, no import duty applied by IR)
I do have my eye on a few 645 lenses from KEH though!
Comment by niblue posted on AF400FTZ or AF-360FGZ TTL with Pentax 645? at 27/12/2007 - 17:11
Anyone know if either the AF400FTZ or AF-360FGZ are compatible with TTL flash on the Pentax 645 (the original manual focus one)?
Comment by niblue posted on AF400FTZ or AF-360FGZ TTL with Pentax 645? at 26/12/2007 - 22:31
I've never seen or used one however I recall seeing some comments stating that's it's absolutely rubbish.
Comment by niblue posted on Opteka zoom lens at 30/12/2007 - 21:47
Quote:
Do any rectilinear wide angle lenses at all come for that sort of price?
The major downside of APS-C is that wide angles are expensive. Probably the most cost effective option for wider than 16mm is the Sigma 10-20, although there is a Zenitar fisheye that's not too expensive - it requires post-processing to get rectilinear results though.Do any rectilinear wide angle lenses at all come for that sort of price?
Quote:
Is there any other mega-useful bit of kit I've forgotten, for instance? I'm getting a Manfrotto Modo 785B tripod I think, and I have a Vivitar 285 flash already...
It might be worth considering a cheap manual focus prime or two to extend your focal length range upwards. There are plenty of cheap but good 135mm F2.8 lenses in K or M42 fit and the same is true for 200mm F4.Is there any other mega-useful bit of kit I've forgotten, for instance? I'm getting a Manfrotto Modo 785B tripod I think, and I have a Vivitar 285 flash already...
Comment by niblue posted on The old chestnut: 16-45? 18-50? or even 15-30 with 28-70 at 23/12/2007 - 14:45
Quote:
So, I suppose, I'm asking if 16-18mm makes a difference in the life of a student on a budget,
So, I suppose, I'm asking if 16-18mm makes a difference in the life of a student on a budget,
16mm (equivalent to 24mm on film) v 18mm (equivalent to about 27-28mm) is very significant in my opinion. On a film camera I found 24mm one of the most useful focal lengths where 28mm was usually not really wide enough.
Quote:
if f/2.8 makes a difference over f/4,
if f/2.8 makes a difference over f/4,
It does, but personally I'd rather have 16mm & F4 than 18mm and F2.8.
Quote:
and whether I need my head examined for wanting to replace the kit lens anyway?
No, because the 18-55 is quite limited in performance and the 16-45 is massively better as well as being a far more useful focal length range.and whether I need my head examined for wanting to replace the kit lens anyway?
Having said all that if, unlike me, you've been satisfied with the 18-55 then there might be something to be said for going for a "new" focal length range instead i.e. either the Sigma 10-20 (which might take a bit more saving) or the Sigma 70-300 APO - both combining very good performance with excellent value.
Comment by niblue posted on The old chestnut: 16-45? 18-50? or even 15-30 with 28-70 at 23/12/2007 - 14:39
The manual foucus 645 is most definitely 4p, the recommended flash guns are the AF200Sa, AF200T, AF280T, AF080C and AF400T. It never occurred to me to try my AF400FTZ on it so I have just now.
The flash doesn't automatically change the shutter speed to 1/60th, there is no ready light in viewfinder or external display and no flash confirmation. Whether or not TTL works I cant say without running a roll of film through it but I suspect they just cant talk to one another.
The 'digital contact' (top right looking down on the hot shoe) is the one that communicates between later flashes and bodies transmitting information via a digital protocol. This of course is absent on the original 645.
I suppose it's fair enough given there is nothing in either the 400FTZ or 645 manuals to say they should work, however it does make it a little surprising that the later AF360FGZ works fine.