Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/12/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Now that I'm back from the Christmas experience with 4 rolls of 100-speed
color with the Hexar, I can tell you that TTL and auto flash each have
nothing on a flashmatic (aperture varies with distance) system with
twin-exposure capability (mid-exposure stop-down, "rear curtain" synch), such
as the Hexar I used. I'm looking at the same formulaic pictures shot over the
years with Vivitar 283 (GN120?), Nikon SB-20 (GN120, TTL) and a HX-14 (GN45).
The Hexar shots are the only ones that show properly exposed faces *and*
white walls as detailed but bright white.
Why no GN-Nikkor type lens for rangefinders? I know that you can't balance
the background as well with a slow-synch FP shutter, but still -
Cheers
Dante
In a message dated 12/26/99 12:07:37 PM, raimo.korhonen@pp2.inet.fi writes:
<< Hi!
The TTL flash works quite accurately on Pentax LX - the only problem is the
low synch speed, which is the same that Leica M6 TTL has. TTL flash gives
more freedom in F-stop selection, limited by the synch speed. In this way
it is simpler than non-TTL automatic flash.
I´m not much tempted by the M6 TTL because I´m quite satisfied my 15 year
old non-TTL M6 and because I have bought a very second-hand Osram flash
(for about $15) which is small and light and gives for 100 ISO film an
aperture of 2.8 which balances nicely with existing light indoors. If I
need more power I use the Vivitar 283 at the same aperture. With TTL I
could use other apertures, too - but that´s not very important.
All the best!
Raimo
Photos at http://personal.inet.fi/private/raimo.korhonen
- ----------
> From: Alex Brattell <alex@zetetic.co.uk>
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: [Leica] re - Automatic flash vs. TTL
> Date: 26. joulukuuta 1999 15:51
>
>
> Good question.
> The only camera I've had TTL flash on is Pentax LX, and I've never felt
I
> wanted to rely on it or trust it. No need, it doesn't take much
experience
> to know how your flash set up behaves. It seems another way around the
same
> old flash equation with less versatility. Am I missing something?
>
</XMP>
- ----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
Return-Path: <daemon@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Received: from rly-yg04.mx.aol.com (rly-yg04.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.4]) by
air-yg01.mail.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 12:07:37 -0500
Received: from mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [192.147.236.1])
by rly-yg04.mx.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 12:07:26 -0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (8.9.1/8.9.1) id IAA17869; Sun, 26 Dec 1999
08:48:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.inet.fi (smtp.inet.fi [192.89.123.192])
by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA17859; Sun, 26
Dec 1999 08:48:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from user-pri1-45.dial.inet.fi ([195.156.183.45]:1029 "EHLO
default")
by smtp.inet.fi with ESMTP id <S29115AbPLZQct>;
Sun, 26 Dec 1999 18:32:49 +0200
From: "Raimo Korhonen" <raimo.korhonen@pp2.inet.fi>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Subject: Re: [Leica] re - Automatic flash vs. TTL
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 18:04:41 +0100
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Message-Id: <19991226163253Z29115-5154+488@smtp.inet.fi>
Sender: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
id IAA17869
>>