SONY flash options

It has gotten to the point where you cannot tell a player without a scorecard. I mean, come on. As it now appears, you cannot consistently use an existing SONY flash properly throughout the SONY system. You need easily misplaced adapters!

SONY is releasing all upcoming models (SLT-a58) of their cameras with the "new" ISO-style flash hot shoe, which came in on the SLT-a99. This is designed for direct use with the "new" HVL-F60AM. Fine, you pop for another $600 for fully compliant external flash operation. The new flash costs as much as the camera!

What this really implies is "problematic" flash operation with the $300-$500 electronic SONY/Minolta flashes you probably already own. The biggest problem experienced is with the "adapter" you will have to employee to get the older flash to even trigger. You may even experience restricted operation of the HVL-F56AM or HVL-F58AM.

I do not know about you guys, but IMO this solution stinks and leaves very few options to the existing flash gear you already have invested thousands of dollars into. Opinions may differ, but I am not seeing a "bright side" to your investment. :mad:

Aren't you invested too?

Another great move from Sony. They are showing more signs they are taking photography more seriously. Well done.
Who knows what's next ? Maybe a body without all the Sony proprietary acronym garbage defacing the whole thing like some nerd billboard !!

The point is that it makes planning your future expenses rather hard and retires reasonably good equipment far too early to be practical. I suppose if your pockets are stuffed with cash, SONY will just find another way to get it transferred into theirs, by making more changes to the product line.

Their corporate thinking: Short term and quick earn, right?

If only. Acch! :p

Let's face it... if you eliminated the hot shoe as a point of contention, say by adding "RF" triggering, control and synchronization directly sourced from the camera body (via the camera's menu)... ahhh, a far more futuristic concept and eliminates the "easily lost" and problematic ADAPTERS entirely. :D

Just tell them "NO!"

Attachment 60339

Nah, that would appear to be too intelligent a thought process. Cannot have that going on, can we? http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r...ff/smilies.gif They must have erased "The Mind of Minolta"

So you want rf triggering which would not be able to work on any old flash without an adaptor...hmm...sounds like the very same problem to me. lol

I know that will annoy most Sony users, as i would be if I shot Sony, but I can't think of any logical reason for Sony to stick with a proprietary hotshoe mount.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rooz

So you want rf triggering which would not be able to work on any old flash without an adaptor...hmm...sounds like the very same problem to me. lol

I know that will annoy most Sony users, as i would be if I shot Sony, but I can't think of any logical reason for Sony to stick with a proprietary hotshoe mount.

---

Other than compliance with ALL the existing hot shoe products that were sold over the past twenty years for Minolta and SONY? Yeah, not so much. :rolleyes:

The pressure should be on eliminating the need for any hot shoe at all, if SONY is going to press forth with this. RF would marry EVERYTHING together... not ISO.

[http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r...psec0a29d9.jpg

left: SONY HVL-F56AM (Proprietary hotshoe) center: SONY HVL-F58AM (Proprietary hotshoe) right: Minolta 4000AF (ISO hotshoe)
All working... TOGETHER... wirelessly through RF!

All future flash units could easily eliminate the need for an RF adapter, by building the RF-technology IN THE FLASH, too, replacing the Infra-Red sensors and transmitters (see front of flash units).

Lift up thy eyes, mate... and see the horizon.

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r...yourcamera.jpg

It's out there... just waiting. I know that I can certainly wait for the change. Wake me up when it happens. For the moment, I am ALREADY geared up... and unconvinced.

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r...a700PRIMES.jpg

Today, I took some time to "experiment" with the Pixel KING (TTL transmitter and receiver set) to see just how capable they were with the SONY HVL flashes I have and the Metz 76 MZ5 w/ 3302 adapter foot (SONY-proprietary).

Now, when the Metz 76 is directly connected to the camera, w/ the special TTL-adapter for SONY... it is fully TTL responsive, through the camera's upper hot shoe. That includes the pre-flash measurement and the subsequent calculated flash power for the shuttered image. I found it amazing just how accurate the flash determination is, actually.

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r...00-M76-Mz5.jpg

I, then, added just the Pixel KING transmitter to the equation, to facilitate an on-the-camera TTL shot, under nearly the same distances and position. You need to understand that the Pixel KING transmitter unit also has a SONY-style hot shoe built into it, so you can still effectively mount a flash on the hot shoe, as well as have an RF-transmision sandwiched between the flash and the camera. It's kind of neat, actually. I mean, what's an inch or two between friends, right?

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r.../PixelKing.jpg

BUZZ! TTL didn't work. The pre-flash misfired and TTL was effectively useless. I did this several times, to make sure, but it was not working correctly! I was able to get successful synchronization with the flash in "A" mode and "M" mode, but just not "TTL" mode.

Okay, after calming down... I replaced the Metz 76 with the SONY HVL-F58AM flash, under the identical flash scenario:

First, with the '58 on the hot shoe. Worked fine.
Next, with the '58 "sandwiching" the Pixel KING. Wow, still worked fine. Okay, so what's with the Metz?

I, then, took the '58 off the PK transmitter and placed it on a PK Receiver unit, on my stubby tripod.

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r...psec0a29d9.jpg

I fired it up and yes... still a successful TTL shot. I then tried it with the Metz in the same way... again, TTL failed.

I guess I find this a little hard to resolve, because the Metz 76 never failed directly attached to the camera's hot shoe. TTL was razor accurate. But when I introduce the PK... trying use the TTL function on the Metz... it fails miserably. Heck, the timing/synchronization is way off and there is no successful flash for the image.

Again, to make clear... the SONY HVL does not have this issue. It works quite successfully with the Pixel KING, in all flash modes (TTL/M).

So... how this relates to the "RF standard" in-camera-body. I am certain that all protocols would work if "the standard" was shared among ALL camera manufacturers. Heck, you could even have a C-N-P-S-O-? (Canon-Nikon-Pentax-Sony-Olympus-???) switch on the flash units, if you need to be picky. What I do not understand is this failure of the third-party Pixel KING to relate to the Metz flash. You would think it would be transparent, but it is not.

Just some footnotes if you are flashing your way to happiness.

It does sound weird. I wonder what's causing the issue ? It shouldn't really make any difference what the brand is as I assume Metz must be using the Sony proprietary TTL algorithms.

Like I said, with the Metz 76 attached to the camera's hot shoe... there is no TTL problem. It works as designed. I feel the images are better "lit" than I get with the SONY HVL flash in TTL mode.

When you put it on the Pixel KING (T or R), though... it fails to operate properly. Now, you have to consider how powerful something like this might be, if it worked. I can only reach so far (1.5 more feet) with a off-camera shoe cable added to the equation. It also will leave the Metz's hot-shoe sensor dangling precariously and improperly directed in space. (BTW: The Off-camera Shoe cable works just fine with the Metz and SONY HVL flashes in TTL mode with it directly connect to the camera's hot shoe. Put it on the Pixel KING and you still get the same problem.)

Attachment 60345

It has me curious as to whether the Phottix "Odin" might act similarly. Phottix does state that "after-market" flashes may not work.

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r...ps787e5dc7.jpg

The thing about the Phottix unit is that you cannot mount a flash on the transmitter. like you can on the Pixel KING, so that's out and it is a significantly more expensive solution to implement when you do one basic flash set (T/R) @ $329.99 and add the three receivers for your other flashes @ $129.99/ea. ($716 total) The Pixel KING's four receivers and one transmitter kit was under $400 total.

Note: The Phottix "Odin" receiver unit does NOT have the standard "pc-sync" port, so another cable solution using a mini-plug will be necessary for studio strobes synchronization.

Again, this all tends to point to having a standardized "RF" solution in the camera body would tend to alleviate many of these shortfalls.

Even considering the issue of the "third-party" TTL-operational shortfall (which the Pixel KING is marketed for TTL operation), the PK does offer excellent RF control for a Manual synchronized trigger shot. I have not tested maximum range, yet, which might be fun, but still... if you are forced to live with manually adjusting the flash power LOCALLY, this set up definitely gets it done.