matthew miller

Michael Elenko — sorry, I meant specifically if the secondary forward reflector on the 58 AF-1 works in P-TTL mode. I know it does in general. Thanks.

 

I also use USER mode for flash settings, by the way. I wish there were about three more different USER modes, though, it's so useful.

Thanks everyone. I expanded the bit on secondary reflectors to clarify that there is actually a separate bulb. Can you folks with the Metz 58 AF-1 confirm that it works in P-TTL mode? (The manual for the 54 MZ-4i says it can't on that flash, but the 58 AF-1 manual only mentions that it won't work in stroboscopic or modeling-light modes.)

 

I intend to expand the article a little further to include features like the extended zoom, contrast-control flash, modeling light, and so on.

 

I'll also add a section on accessories, both included and optional. The higher end Metz flashes and the Pentax AF540FGZ and the Sigma Super variant all include a plastic foot for using the flash off-camera on a table. The AF360FGZ and Metz 48 AF-1 don't, though, and to my surprise and annoyance this turns out to be a high-priced piece of plastic (you'll be hard-pressed to spend less than $15 including shipping). And the Metz 48 AF-1 doesn't even include a cloth case (the 58 AF-1 does, though).

<p>I'm writing a Google Knol on <a

href="http://knol.google.com/k/matthew-miller/pentax-p-ttl-hotshoe-flash-options/3jwk7bitq8i8/1#view">Pentax

P-TTL hotshoe flash options</a>. The idea is to be a survey of available P-TTL flashes and comparison of their

features. (And specifically avoiding discussion of P-TTL techniques or debate of P-TTL vs. other modes.)</p>

<p>Could those of you with some expertise in this area give the article a quick review? I don't actually own all

of these flashes, so I'd particularly appreciate feedback from people who do. And of course I'd appreciate

correction of any errors.</p>

<p><a

href="http://knol.google.com/k/matthew-miller/pentax-p-ttl-hotshoe-flash-options/3jwk7bitq8i8/1#view">http://knol.google.com/k/matthew-miller/pentax-p-ttl-hotshoe-flash-options/3jwk7bitq8i8/1</a></p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

Geoff: their review scale is slanted towards the high side (with "Above Average" being a very big condemnation), but it's not true at all that most cameras get the top ranking. Here's the last 10 reviews and their results;

 

K20D: Highly recommended

Olympus E-420: Highly Recommended (just)

Sony A350: Recommended

Canon 450D: Highly Recommended

Sigma DP-1: Above Average

FujiFilm S100FS: Recommended

Panasonic DMC-TZ5: Highly Recommended (just)

Nikon D3: Highly Recommended

Sony DSC-H10: Recommended (just)

Sony T300: Above Average

 

That's only three "highly recommendeds" and if you don't think the Nikon D3 and Canon XSI deserve it you're living in an alternate universe.

I'm in. I have a K1000D and a really soft and low-contrast 50mm f/2 and a 135mm f/2.5 which I could put in the pool. But I'd mostly like to be on the receiving end. :)

<P>I have the DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited, and second that suggestion -- it's a great lens and makes a nice compact combo on the K100D.</P>

 

<P>That said, if you have a little more to spend and the super-compact size isn't a big deal to you, check on the new 35mm Macro Limited. There's some interesting and very positive articles about it on <a href=http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/>The Online Photographer</a> blog, and those guys really know lenses (from the point of view of actual photographers, not just bench tests).</P>

I have experience with the K10D and the 40D, but I'll comment anyway because the K20D is the same but with many improvements.

 

The 40D is a great camera and I think you'd be perfectly happy with it, but given what you've said I don't see any reason to switch systems, especially with your investment in lenses.

 

The focusing system in the K20D isn't necessarily as speedy as Canon's, but by all accounts it's as accurate as any autofocus system gets. You'll see some complaints about it, but you'll also see them for Canon and Nikon. And the K20D has a high-end feature where you can tweak focus on a per-lens basis. So I'd remove that from your list of concerns.

 

Second, the color saturation and tone curves are all adjustable in camera -- more so than with your K100D. (Particularly, there's new curves designed specifically for landscapes and for portraits.) And if you really want absolute control, there's always RAW.

 

Again having used both the K10D and the 40D, the image quality from the two is both excellent to the point of being interchangeable. The skill of the photographer is a much, much larger factor. Plus, you have all of those lenses and would have to start over with Canon. (Is that really the 50 f/1.2, or just the f/2, by the way?)

Sounds like this is just last year's rumors circulating around and regurgitated by someone who wasn't really paying attention.

 

As for the Q4 profits: fourth quarter 2006, the K10D was launched. Fourth quarter 2007: no new launch but rumors of *two* exciting new cameras right around the corner (save your money!), coupled with completely running out of existing stock. So it's not like the numbers are a surprise to anyone.

There's also a "secret" fourth metering mode on the K10D/K20D -- if you select the custom option to link AF and AE points, the matrix metering dial position is replaced with a spot meter which is automatically linked to whichever focus point you've selected.

 

I think it's a little unfortunate that this doesn't replace the spot metering dial position (because you can use it with the center focus point to get traditional center spot metering), and I e-mailed Pentax about it, and got the reply that yep, that would have made more sense. So hopefully on the K30D. :)

The K100D defaults to Bright mode, and the K10D defaults to Natural. So to get results more like what you were used to, change to that.

 

Personally, I find the Bright mode to more match my visual impression of most scenes, although it tends to be oversaturated, so I match it with -1 to saturation. I often also bump up contrast, but that's a definite tradeoff in shadow detail ? I almost wish I could put that on one of the control dials.

Renato -- it certainly was a typical <i>actual</i> screen resolution for a long time, regardless of Microsoft's unfortunate tendency to treat this as an arbitrary number. Think of a 17" monitor running at 1024x768. These days, yeah, closer to 100 is normal. My laptop's screen is 180dpi.

Because, yeah.

Hmmm. From the text, Nikon+Canon accounted for 82.7% of dSLR sales in 2007, up from 79.7% the year before. And 2007 has got to have been a great year for Pentax sales. Of course, the dSLR market as a whole is up 41%, but still, looks like a (slightly) disproportionate amount of that new market is going to the big two rather than the underdogs.

And there's Samsung at #4. I had no idea they were doing that well. (But I too would like to see P&S and dSLR separated.)

"4D" is unlikely because many asian cultures have a superstition about the number 4 similar to the one we have about "13" ? buildings skip the 4th floor, and product lines go from 3 to 5.

More megapixels will probably help, but of course you'll get the same thing at the pixel-level view. What size is your final intended output? Or were you hoping to crop a huge amount? Maybe a more powerful telephoto lens?

Marketing reality means there's no way they can do without an LCD, or a JPEG processor. And there's no sensible reason to cut out essentially software features, because that doesn't save significant costs -- even if it would be more like a 1970s camera.

 

So, one thing they could cut is the internal focus drive motor. This'd cause some howling as with the D40, but it'd still work with all those old manual lenses just fine, and also with new SDM lenses (make the upcomiing 30mm the kit lens?).

I think it's actually good news. Ditching support for the camera's screw drive allows them to keep the costs down, and use the same basic design for all mounts. And perhaps more importantly, there's no indication that it's even possible to use this superior ring-type ultrasonic motor and still have the coupling for bod-driven focus.

Plus, there's a DA* 30mm lens on the roadmap. No idea what the aperture will be, but hopefully fast. And it will be SDM and, presumably weather sealed. Not gonna happen before next summer at the soonest, though.

Ow! That's not really easier to read -- it's actually much harder, since the fonts have less room for accurate scaling and kerning. What's wanted is <i>high</i> resolution with large fonts. The blame here can partially rest with Microsoft for making this non-obvious and hard to do right, but with any modern OS (including those from Microsoft) it should be easy to do right. Fix your aunt's system, man. :)

The 40mm's screw-on lens cap <i>is</i> ridiculous. Luckily it's easily replaced with a $0.50 snap-on generic plastic cap instead.

The 40mm is also considerably faster at autofocusing in low light. They're both beautiful lenses.

The only reason this camera takes both is that Fuji is having a hard time letting go -- xD is a dead format, but they still are holding out hope.

 

There's no advantage in it unless you also have a camera which only takes xD.

That said, it's pretty trivial to merge two pictures in any photo editing program.

Michael, am I missing something in what you're saying? I get that it makes sense for aperture to decrease as you increase ISO, but the interesting thing to me is the jump at ISO 400 -- it's like the program suddenly shifts priority.