Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Mar 31, 2006, at 7:58 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote:
... I think of it as a crippled flash interface. ...
I understand your disappointment; it is one of the reasons I prefer the
DS body. However, for the newcomer to SLR cameras who is going to buy new
flash equipment along with body and lens, I imagine it isn't even a
consideration. "Crippled" is kind of a strong word ... If you bought a DL
and the appropriate AF360FGZ (or Sigma EF 500 DG Super) flash unit, the
system is anything but crippled.
Just like a DA/FA lens on a crippled KAF mount.
I think of a crippled mechanism when a well-thought evolution has kept the
best possible compatibility among old and new stuff, and then someone
decides it's time to get rid of some parts, messing up compatibility.
Of course, there's no crippling betweeen two devices designed to work
together.
There's cripplig when two devices that could work well together are forced
not to (by some kind of surgery).
For my own use, although I prefer to have the potential capability in the
DS body, I don't own any dedicated flash unit. I use a generic,
inexpensive Sunpak 383 and a couple of Paterson ELite flash panels. The
Sunpak has its own exposure metering and does a great job with flash
metering, beyond that I use a flash meter to measure things and set the
ISO/aperture/exposure time accordingly. A different way of working with
flash, yes.
One of these days I'll get a dedicated flash unit too, I imagine. I just
haven't seen the need as yet.
That's fine. The problem is for those who bought the DL thinking to use
their AF500FTZ and then discover they cannot. It's not me, as I own the D
(which also doesn't work as well as the DS with TTL).
However, a folk I know bought the DL 4 days ago and today he sent it back to
the seller because of this unexpected flash compatibility issue.
He wasn't completyely sure he wanted to stay with Pentax for a DSLR. Then he
had decided to buy the DL (the only Pentax DSLR available in Italy). Today
he has changed his mind. Gone.
Dario
