Class A

Class A

Lives in New Zealand (Aotearoa) Wellywood, New Zealand (Aotearoa)
Joined on Jun 4, 2009

Comments

Total: 36, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

BarnabyJones: Despite what the official website states, TTL passthrough does not work with Olympus. Tested on the E-m1 with both the FL-600r & Metz 58 AF-2. Additionally, flash profiling is quite limited so unless you're with Nikon or Canon odds are your flashes won't be compatible.

@BarnabyJones:

BTW, you had hot-shoe connectivity issues a while ago (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3573353#forum-post-52497662). How do you know that although the replacement flash works that there isn't a residual issue with the camera hot-shoe?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2014 at 16:00 UTC
In reply to:

Chris43: Why don't they support Sony flashes in the same way as the other makes?
I've got a RX10 and a HVLF-58AM, which work well together with the required adaptor, but there is no easy or flexible Sony wireless solution to be able to use the flash off camera.

@ Maxfield_photo: The V6 has a multi-brand hot-shoe that works for many more systems than Canon, Nikon, and Pentax.

That's how it can support TTL pass-through for Panasonic, Olympus, and Fuji as well.

Sony is a funny one because even though they went back to an ISO hot-shoe, they have a) a completely different system for extra contacts, and b) I believe their centre triggering contact is a bit off-centre so it does not work with generic gear. I'm not 100% sure about the latter fact, but while the V6 should work on a Sony in principle, I personally wouldn't promise it unless an ISO adapter is used.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2014 at 15:45 UTC
In reply to:

BarnabyJones: Despite what the official website states, TTL passthrough does not work with Olympus. Tested on the E-m1 with both the FL-600r & Metz 58 AF-2. Additionally, flash profiling is quite limited so unless you're with Nikon or Canon odds are your flashes won't be compatible.

What did they reply?

I have my set and it works perfectly (with Pentax).

If they advertise TTL pass-through for the Olympus system then they have tested it. Perhaps a bug has been introduced while fixing another? I encourage you to keep communicating with them until your issue is resolved.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2014 at 15:38 UTC
In reply to:

BarnabyJones: Despite what the official website states, TTL passthrough does not work with Olympus. Tested on the E-m1 with both the FL-600r & Metz 58 AF-2. Additionally, flash profiling is quite limited so unless you're with Nikon or Canon odds are your flashes won't be compatible.

I only have only Pentax dedicated equipment so I can't comment on your problem, but I'm sure if you contact Cactus, e.g., through their community forum, they will either help you out with a tip or look into removing a firmware bug.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2014 at 12:14 UTC
In reply to:

armandino: it is unclear to me if high speed sink is supported

The V6 does not support P-TTL HSS directly, but if you connect an HSS-capable flash to your 645D then you can use its main flash or pre-flash as an optical trigger signal for the V6.

I described the details in this section about HSS: http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/cactus-rf60-review/special-features.html#hss

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2014 at 12:10 UTC

$59.95 from Adorama (free shipping). That's for US folk only, though.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2014 at 12:05 UTC as 7th comment
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1304 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: Offering a D800E next to a D800 is fine.

The attempt to restrict photographers to buying an incomplete camera -- lacking a necessary part; the Bayer AA filter -- should be commented on more markedly.

I'm happy for those who are unable to create shots that are sharp at the pixel level -- they won't miss a thing -- but there should be an option for those that are capable of creating the right conditions for really sharp shots.

If Nikon cannot provide the best of both worlds in one camera (like the Pentax K-3 with its optional AA-function), AFAIC, they need to give users the choice to opt for a complete camera with a different model. Make it more expensive if you must.

@Scottelly: If you blur the image after it has been recorded then you are capturing moiré and get blurred moiré in the final result.

In order to avoid moiré, it is necessary to prevent a 100% sharp capture. You can achieve that with standard (but non-optional) birefringent crystal layers (AA filters) or by (optionally) slightly vibrating the sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2014 at 01:38 UTC
In reply to:

David Rossberg: Cactus... ouch! Those old memories still sting.

/DR

The Canon 550EX is supported in that you can create a flash profile for it yourself.

Someone reported that he was able to profile his Canon 550EX. Follow the link for the 550 EX here:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/125-flashes-lighting-studio/261793-cactus-v6-flash-compatibility-profiling-successes-failures.html

After you have profiled one 550 EX, you can control the power levels of all of them remotely.

P.S.: There are many V6 reviews published already. Mine is here: www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/cactus-v6-review/

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2014 at 01:28 UTC
In reply to:

BarnabyJones: Despite what the official website states, TTL passthrough does not work with Olympus. Tested on the E-m1 with both the FL-600r & Metz 58 AF-2. Additionally, flash profiling is quite limited so unless you're with Nikon or Canon odds are your flashes won't be compatible.

How did you test TTL pass-through? It is only supposed to work for one flash sitting on top of a V6 that is mounted to the camera.

Flash profiling works for all flashes made for Canon, Nikon, and Pentax analogue TTL systems. Hence it works for a lot of third-party flashes made for these systems as well.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2014 at 01:24 UTC
In reply to:

David Rossberg: Cactus... ouch! Those old memories still sting.

/DR

The V6 will fire the YN560-III (with one receiver per flash) but not remote control their power levels. The Cactus and Yongnuo radio modules do not talk to each other.

You'd have to use the YN560-TX for gaining remote power control over the YN560-III.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2014 at 12:39 UTC
In reply to:

kff: Have You everyone tried it in P-TTL (HSS) on the Pentax K-3 with a few Metz flashes (48 AF-1, 50 AF-1 or 58 AF-1) ?

An incomplete list of compatible flash models is here: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/125-flashes-lighting-studio/261793-cactus-v6-flash-compatibility-profiling-successes-failures.html

Metz 48 AF-1 and 58 AF-1 have been reported to work with the V6. The Metz 50 AF-1 is supported out of the box.

The V6 on its own will not enable HSS shooting with a K-3; you'll have to use one HSS-capable flash connected to the K-3. Canon and Nikon shooters have more options.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2014 at 12:34 UTC
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1304 comments in total)

Offering a D800E next to a D800 is fine.

The attempt to restrict photographers to buying an incomplete camera -- lacking a necessary part; the Bayer AA filter -- should be commented on more markedly.

I'm happy for those who are unable to create shots that are sharp at the pixel level -- they won't miss a thing -- but there should be an option for those that are capable of creating the right conditions for really sharp shots.

If Nikon cannot provide the best of both worlds in one camera (like the Pentax K-3 with its optional AA-function), AFAIC, they need to give users the choice to opt for a complete camera with a different model. Make it more expensive if you must.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 28, 2014 at 12:59 UTC as 158th comment | 11 replies
On Fujifilm X-T1 Review preview (564 comments in total)

The X-T1 is said to have better performance than the Pentax K-3 (can easily be seen when turning on the "Compare" mode for the subscores).

Yet, the K-3 manages 720 shots per charge vs the 350 of the Fuji X-T1.

The K-3 also has a higher frame rate (8.9 vs 8.2) and a deeper JPG buffer (68 vs 40).

So the X-T1's AF must be sensational to compensate the above performance disadvantages. Unfortunately, the X-T1 has not been subjected to the AF-C test the K-3 went through. Why not?

Finally, how can you claim that the X-T1's focus accuracy (& metering) is better than that of the Pentax K-3, if you haven't looked at the AF accuracy of the K-3 in a systematic manner at all (this was one of the aspects you dropped)?

BTW, the X-T1's electronic viewfinder may be very good compared to other EVFs, but to rate it better as the optical pentaprism of the K-3??? For sure, in terms of "performance" again, the K-3 will do much better in a pan when burst shooting.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 17, 2014 at 00:24 UTC as 40th comment | 7 replies
On Pentax K-3 Review preview (483 comments in total)

The f/2.8 AF sensor in the centre with improved accuracy and the general ability to focus at -3 EV should have been mentioned (and listed as "Pros").

If you had tested for it, you would have also found that the AF works accurately under Tungsten as well as daylight. Its level of colour temperature independence may not be met by every camera on the market.

The K-3's AF-C is not on par with Canon/Nikon yet, but to only focus on this part of the AF system seems unwarranted.

BTW, if you want to make such tests meaningful, you should actually measure the speed of the subject and not "estimate" it.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 11, 2014 at 04:21 UTC as 82nd comment
On Pentax K-3 Review preview (483 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: Why is "Built-in sensor-shift shake reduction effectively stabilizes all mountable lenses" not a "Pros" point for the K-3?

It is for the K-5 II.

The following "Pros" points for the Nikon D7100 apply to the K-3 as well:

* 3.5mm Stereo mic and headphone inputs
* In-camera raw processing
* 100% viewfinder coverage

Why are they not mentioned as "Pros" for the K-3?

@Richard Butler:
Apologies for mentioning "In-camera raw processing" as a not-listed "Pros" point.

You do have it listed with different wording.

I hope you'll consider adding the other points.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 11, 2014 at 03:19 UTC
On Pentax K-3 Review preview (483 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: Why is "Built-in sensor-shift shake reduction effectively stabilizes all mountable lenses" not a "Pros" point for the K-3?

It is for the K-5 II.

The following "Pros" points for the Nikon D7100 apply to the K-3 as well:

* 3.5mm Stereo mic and headphone inputs
* In-camera raw processing
* 100% viewfinder coverage

Why are they not mentioned as "Pros" for the K-3?

@Midwest:
Metering and AF sensors work very well, without being stabilised.

Note that metering and AF sensors are not stabilised on a Canon/Nikon camera either, unless you use a stabilised lens.

However, some lenses (wide-angle, small primes, affordable but great manual focus glass, etc) are not available as stabilised versions.

The in-body stabilisation system clearly has its advantages -- such as when it gets improved, all your lenses benefit and you are not paying for stabilisation with each new lens over and over again -- and these advantages are widely recognised among shooters and review sites (including DPReview for other Pentax cameras).

The fact that the K-3's AF-C is not on par with the very best Canon/Nikon models is not due to in-body image stabilisation. You'd see that if you tried a stabilised Sigma lens on the K-3.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 11, 2014 at 03:16 UTC
On Pentax K-3 Review preview (483 comments in total)

Why is "Built-in sensor-shift shake reduction effectively stabilizes all mountable lenses" not a "Pros" point for the K-3?

It is for the K-5 II.

The following "Pros" points for the Nikon D7100 apply to the K-3 as well:

* 3.5mm Stereo mic and headphone inputs
* In-camera raw processing
* 100% viewfinder coverage

Why are they not mentioned as "Pros" for the K-3?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 11, 2014 at 02:10 UTC as 94th comment | 4 replies
On Pentax K-3 preview (961 comments in total)
In reply to:

completelyrandomstuff: Regarding iso noise:

Nikon D7100 Exif: Iso 25600, Shutter: 1/3200, F-stop: 5.6
Pentax K-3 Exif: Iso 25600, Shutter: 1/5000, F-stop: 5.6
Canon 70D: Exif: Iso 25600, Shutter: 1/3200, F-stop: 5.6
Olympus E-m1: Iso 25600, Shutter: 1/5000, F-stop: 5.6

Come on Dpreview, that's not a standardized comparison... You put side-by-side two different exposures and suggest they are comparable.

No wonder a couple of the cameras look worse if you expose their shots with 2/3rds of the light!

Richard, you wrote "DxO does not report ISO accuracy or even test it."

Here is a quote from DxO that contradicts your statement:
"Normally, the user cannot access the effective or “real” ISO through the camera settings, but must rely on the ISO announced by the manufacturer, which is usually different. However, DxO Labs has carefully tested the above cameras to compare absolute ISO values with the ISO values announced by the manufacturers (see the results). "

This is from page "Real-life-comparisons" of the "More-pixels-offset-noise" article at DxO.

Do you now agree that DxO is indeed measuring to what extent manufacturers inflate their nominal ISO values?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 10, 2014 at 13:34 UTC
On Pentax K-3 preview (961 comments in total)
In reply to:

completelyrandomstuff: Regarding iso noise:

Nikon D7100 Exif: Iso 25600, Shutter: 1/3200, F-stop: 5.6
Pentax K-3 Exif: Iso 25600, Shutter: 1/5000, F-stop: 5.6
Canon 70D: Exif: Iso 25600, Shutter: 1/3200, F-stop: 5.6
Olympus E-m1: Iso 25600, Shutter: 1/5000, F-stop: 5.6

Come on Dpreview, that's not a standardized comparison... You put side-by-side two different exposures and suggest they are comparable.

No wonder a couple of the cameras look worse if you expose their shots with 2/3rds of the light!

So, in other words, the "real ISO"-discussion is not one about DxO using a different standard than "the industry".

it is about making sure that proper comparisons demand that the same total amount of light is used. The latter can only be achieved by forcing the same f-stop and shutter speeds.

If you let the shutter speed be determined by the camera based on an ISO value you specify then the camera is free to "interpret" your ISO value in any way it sees fit and hence chose a different shutter speed (optimised for light collection or avoiding overexposure).

It does not really matter whether one refers to the manufacturer-specific interpretation of ISO values as "mis-stating ISO" or not, the crux is that different interpretations lead to different shutter speeds and as a result to images that are unfit for noise comparisons.

I'd like to thank you very much for your attention.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 5, 2014 at 12:54 UTC
On Pentax K-3 preview (961 comments in total)
In reply to:

completelyrandomstuff: Regarding iso noise:

Nikon D7100 Exif: Iso 25600, Shutter: 1/3200, F-stop: 5.6
Pentax K-3 Exif: Iso 25600, Shutter: 1/5000, F-stop: 5.6
Canon 70D: Exif: Iso 25600, Shutter: 1/3200, F-stop: 5.6
Olympus E-m1: Iso 25600, Shutter: 1/5000, F-stop: 5.6

Come on Dpreview, that's not a standardized comparison... You put side-by-side two different exposures and suggest they are comparable.

No wonder a couple of the cameras look worse if you expose their shots with 2/3rds of the light!

Richard,

you wrote "It does tell you how the manufacturer is balancing noise and highlight DR, it does not tell you about whether ISO is being mis-stated."

Please note "highlight DR" only makes sense when talking about tone curve shapes. When you look at pure *linear* RAW data, there is only overall DR. In a linear space, there is no shadow vs highlight DR.

At the end of the day, noise is mainly a function of the total amount of light used for an exposure.

If manufacturer A's interpretation of ISO 400 leads to 1/50s shutter speed and manufacturer B's interpretation of ISO 400 leads to 1/100s shutter speed then manufacturer A will look better in noise comparisons because their camera will use double the amount of photons.

This is of course assuming that the same f-stop is used and that the same exposure (e.g., 18% for a homogeneous surface) is targeted by both cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 5, 2014 at 12:48 UTC
Total: 36, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »