Hi all,

I just noticed some interesting zooming behaviours between the AF500FTZ and the AF360FGZ flashes when used on the *ist-D.

The 500FTZ zooms to the nearest focal length AFTER the ~1.6 magnification. Meaning, with a 50mm lense, the 500 flash would zoom to 70mm; with a 28mm lense it settles to 48mm and so on and so forth. I would conclude that the 500FTZ has the ability to interpret the 'magnified' focal length of a lense on the *ist-D, and I think this is a neat logic!

On the other hand, the AF360FGZ does not behave in this manner. It auto zooms the same way it would on a 35mm film slr camera. That is, its settles on the next wider step closest to the lense' ACTUAL focal length. For instance, with the 50mm lense attached, it would zoom to 48mm.

That said, I am now confused as to how the lens focal length information is retrieved by both flashes. I would think the 500FTZ auto-zoom setting is more logical. After all, why would you need a 48mm flash coverage when your 50mm lense actually sees only around ~70mm on the *ist-D.

Maybe I haven't set it correctly or what? This issue doesn't hurt at all, I just find it interesting.

Hiya all...

Wishing you and your family a very merry, healthy Christmas and a blessed, happy and prosperous New Year!!

This forum has been warm and helpful.

Next year will be a very exciting year for digital photography. Pentax is rumored to release a budget DSLR, some new lenses, possibly image stabilization, and another pro DLSR, and a medium format digital slr.

Cheers to all!!

Wow!!! That's quite a fast and timely response Matt. Thanks again!!

Btw, with the AF360FGZ, gone are the days when I need to manually compensate when doing bounce flash with my 500FTZ. Only thing with the 360 is I cannot swivel it during a bounced, vertical shot, but I'm a happier man now

Hi,

I finally got the AF360FGZ Flash as a Christmas present (yahoooo!) but haven't had enough time to play around with it yet... just a few snaps and tests last night.... so far the pics look fantastic with the *ist-D

Regarding the topic, I would want to know if anyone has tried Contrast Control using the 500 as controller in conjuction with the 360 as wireless off-camera and as main flash. I lost my AF500FTZ manual after all these years, and I can't figure out the proper settings.

Thanks in advance.


SHotgun

Thanks a lot Matt. I'll go read the reviews when I can.

Shotgun.

That's a lot of info Matt. Thanks.

One more thing... (I still cannot satisfy my curiousity...)

In terms of sharpness (for example, those individual hair strands on backlit portraits, or the eyebrows, eyelashes on a close-up shots)... how do they compare against the regular desktop photo inkjet and a Lab photo? Sorry for being so fuzzy on these If the image quality really impresses me, I may consider getting one.

Right now, I am using an EPSON Stylus Photo 830, a replacement of my ageing EPSON Stylus PHOTO 750. While I'm quite satisfied with it's image quality output, I still prefer sending my photos to a Pro Lab for more 'serious' prints in sizes larger than 6R, as I still don't trust the longevity of the desktop inks. And you're right - printing on these desktop printers is costly!!! - not to mention they consume ink as fast as teenagers drink soda!!!

Cheers!

Hi Matt,

Congratulations on your purchase!!

Just curious, how much are you paying for the printer? Also, how does the images compare to inkjets like, say.. the EPSON Stylus Photo 830 (or higher) ? Will the ink last as long as those printed at the Photo Lab? I know inkjet-printed images will not last very long (the color shifts faster with time), although the output is already very satisfactory at 300dpi.

A few years back, I was considering of getting a Dye-Sub printer over inkjets, but due to their higher prices, I took a plunge into EPSON desktop line.

Regards.

Hi Ava,

First of all, you have a camera that is highly capable of producing high-quality digital images! Don't get beasten if you are lost on the controls Just study the manual well, and you will soon realize how friendly this camera is!

Now on to your issues...

On CF card:
---------------
Like what John said, high-quality images are bigger files, thus require bigger spaces. I think that the 117 capacity 'reading' of your 512Mb CF suggests that your camera is most likely set to Highest-Quality JPEG (indicated as '***L' on the LCD Top Panel) , as my 256Mb reads 57 (or 58?) when empty at the same setting. Note that this setting allows you to capture 3008x2008 pixel images - more than enough to provide you even 16x20" prints at 150DPI or 15x12" at 300dpi. If you think you wont be printing the images at these sizes and be happy with just 4R, 5R or 6R prints, or you just want web/screen output, you can set the JPEG SIZE (not QUALITY) to Medium or Small, such that your panel reads *** M for Medium or *** S for Small. (The '***' denotes Highest-Quality JPEG.) This will significantly allow you to store more images on the CF card, but it DOES NOT sacrifice image quality. This is what I do for birthdays and ordinary occasions/parties/gatherings where I don't intend to print the images bigger than 6R.

If you want the best quality and largest image, you may set the Image format to RAW or TIFF. Both RAW and TIFF formats are "loss-less" formats, meaning they store the most information, as opposed to JPEG where the image undergoes "compression", lossing some details in favour of smaller file sizes. But do take note that TIFF & RAW files are huge. The diff between RAW and TIFF is that RAW is an "untouched
" version of the image - it's what the lense sees, without any in-camera software enhancements made. But one thing dissappointing about the Pentax RAW is that the utility software that comes with it is very simplified - lesser control... in fact you can't even resize the image on screen. Furthermore, the very powerful, sophisticated RAW utility built into Photoshop CS does not recognize Pentax RAW - at least at this moment. I hope a software plug-in will come in soon.


On Storage:
---------------
If you travel a lot, you need a portable storage where you can transfer your images from the CF card. CF cards are not meant to be long-term storage devices. As a typical example, here where I live (Singapore) there are third-party portable storage devices with a generic name "Image Tank", with names like X-Drive, TerraMate, NixView...etc. - all of which uses small harddisks (those used on Laptops) of varying capacities. They allow several known medias as input - some of them even have LCDs where you can browse the images!!! These units can be bought with or without harddisk. Buying the unit without hardisk is prefered if you choose to buy your harddisk separately. It sells for about SG$160 without the harddisk here, and is considered to be the most practical portable storage to use, unless you carry a portable laptop computer with you, in which case you may need to have a card reader.


Lense:
--------
I think John gave his comments on this. If you have A lenses, you can still utilize the full potential of the camera. If you own M or K mount lenses, your functions may be limited.

If you can afford to get a SMC 50mm f1.7 I highly recommend this lens. It is cheap, yet it offers superb image quality, not to mention the ability to shoot with available light indoors!! For portraits, I almost always use it now. It is very sharp, contrasty and provides naturally accurate colors. Only prob is it behaves like a 80mm on the *ist-D, not good for confined spaces.

I think the lense that comes with the camera, the FAJ 18-35mm is good enough for most situations. An ultra-wide lense is important if you shoot wide angles. Due to the 1.6x magnification factor, for example, the 24mm effect on 35mm film requires you to have 15mm lense for this camera!


Hope that helps

Hi fbphx,

It seems that you are having the same problem I have with my 500FTZ when used with the *ist-D, and it is consistent. I posted this problem here in a separate thread, and in other forums as well, but so far there isn't any solid solution.

I also have tried bringing back my camera and 500FTZ flash back to the shop, tried many other units (both 500 flash and *ist-D), and the problem still exists. I conclude this is a consistent problem with bounce flash on the 500FTZ.

The only workaround I could do is to compensate my shots from +1EV to +2.5EV depending on the subject distance, ceiling height..... more like a guessing game

I don't have this problem with the 360FGZ on normal conditions, but do remember that in any bounce flash phorography, there IS still a potential of getting underexposed shots.

Hi all,

Despite all the reports about *ist-D underexposed with flash, I haven't really encountered such problems with direct flash with both 500FTZ and 360FGZ. On a very few occasions, I do get underexposure but on closer look at the images, the causes are easily identifiable, like something highly reflective fooling the metering.

The only exception is when I used the 500FTZ in bounce. The firmware upgrade doesn;t seem to solve this problem too.