Jump to content

Metz 54MZ4i underexpose on the M8 ?


pascal_meheut

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just got my 3502-M5 SCA adapter and I tried to use both the Metz 40-MZ3 and 54 MZ4i on the M8.

The 40 MZ3 does not work at all in GNC mode: it fires a huge pre-flash but nothing during the exposure.

 

The 54MZ4 works in GNC mode but all the images are underexposed. The M8 histogram stops at half distance from the right.

I read the documentation, tried several obvious things (using exposure compensation on the SCA adapter, switching between 1st and 2nd curtain synchro, with and without the secondary flash, with the head in various position...) with no success.

 

Any ideas ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pascal:

 

Are you using a diffuser on the flash head? The preflash may not take this into the exposure calculation.

 

Somebody had posted here the steps to getting the Metz 54 working on the M8 in GN. You might want to search for it. If I remember correctly, the adapter had to be put into the GN mode and then the mode of the flash has to have GN selected as well. If it is anything like HSS on the DMR, the flash has to be on the camera and the camera awake to select the extra mode by spinning the little wheel after selecting M. On the M8, gN might be accessed through something other than the M mode.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm not using the diffuser but I tried and it didn't change anything. And the flash is in GN mode as well as the SCA adapter (even if the documentation says that all settings on the adapter will be ignored when connected to a 54MZ4).

 

I found and read the threads about the subject including the one you mentionned and I'm doing the exact same thing as far as I know. So I'm surprised of the results I get.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pascal,

 

I am sure you have already done this: To use the Metz 54MZ4i in GNC mode put the adapter in GNC mode, put the flash in M mode (not TTL mode) and turn the small wheel on the side of the flash until it shows GNC on the LCD panel.

 

The flash should not underexpose. I am attaching an untouched picture taken by the flash; the only post is resizing and adding about 9 units of Cyan to the highlights of the skin tones. I used an IR cut filter. A diffuser was used on the flash head, the TTL calculation by the camera takes care of this without causing any problems.

 

Furrukh

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another example; straight from the camera, no post except for +7 cyan on skin highlights.

 

Furrukh

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, this is the mode I'm using and I'm experiencing inconsistent behavior. I tried to change the exposure compensation on the M8 and by setting +1, I get it right. However, it works for some pictures and then it goes away...

 

I'm wondering if I'm having a problem with the M8 or the adapter. Everything works fine on the DMR or on the M8 in A-mode.

I'll try with another M8 first and if it still does not work, I'll try to return the adapter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've given up GNC all together. I use 'A' for both my 44MZ2 and SF24D. I get better and more consistent results with the flashes set this way and my D2. The electronics in the M8 might be better though. I still use the MZ with the 3502 as it communicates data to the flash that I find useful, ISO, focal length etc. Best of all 'A' eliminates the pre flash.

 

- Carl

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I just figured it out: the 75mm is the only lens I have an IR filter for yet. When I remove it, it underexposes too.

With the filter on it, everything works fine even with the secondary flash and the main one in indirect (I love Metz flash for this).

 

This is interesting. I will try it with all my lenses with and witout the IR cur filter and let you know what I find.

 

Furrukh

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pascal,

 

You are absolutely right. Without the IR cut filter the IR sensitivity of the sensor fools the TTL completely making the results underexposed and inconsistent. I just tried it; with the filter the exposures are excellent and consistent similar to the ones I posted above. Without the filter most results are underexposed and inconsistent. Very interesting!

 

Furrukh

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been taking shots with an without IR-Cut filter on the lens with a Metz 54 MZ-4 in GNC mode. Everything was fine.

 

Example No 1, GNC with Summicron 50mm and B&W 486 IR-Cut:

http://www.leica-camera-user.com/menschen/11057-senior-froehlich.html#post113521

 

Example No 2, GNC with Summicron 50mm and no filter:

http://www.leica-camera-user.com/menschen/10252-portrait-maennergesicht.html#post104112

 

When my camera is back from Solms I have to do some more testing.

 

Jens

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been taking shots with an without IR-Cut filter on the lens with a Metz 54 MZ-4 in GNC mode. Everything was fine.

 

When my camera is back from Solms I have to do some more testing.

 

Well, my camera is back from Solms and firmware 1.09 so maybe that's the reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, my camera is back from Solms and firmware 1.09 so maybe that's the reason.

 

Maybe they optimized everything for IR cut filters in the fixed version? I can reproduce your experience every time – good exposures with IR cut filters, inconsistent and underexposed pictures without the filter.

 

Below the two pictures were taken right after each other with only enough time given for the flash to recharge. The first one is with the filter the second one is without. No other post processing done except for resizing and white balance on the sheet of paper..

 

Furrukh

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they optimized everything for IR cut filters in the fixed version? I can reproduce your experience every time – good exposures with IR cut filters, inconsistent and underexposed pictures without the filter.

 

This is obviously what happened. But the exposure seems to be really good with the IR filter so it's ok. We just need to know this.

I do not like the delay caused by the pre-flash though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not like the delay caused by the pre-flash though.

 

Pascal, I agree with you. The pre-flash delay is really long, certainly more than a second. It effectively behaves like a very long shutter delay. I have missed some good pictures because of this. For pictures where timing is important and not easy to predict one has to revert to A mode for the flash.

 

Furrukh

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have missed some good pictures because of this.

… although I got the timing right here :)

 

Furrukh

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...