Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Old external flash OK for digital cam?

Reply
Thread Tools

Old external flash OK for digital cam?

 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, David Dyer-Bennet
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> >> > I have an old external flash, a Sunpak 333D. Used it with my old Nikon
> >> >> > FA but haven't used it on any camera since I went digital. Have heard
> >> >> > that some older flashes have high voltages present at the hot shoe
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > could damage a digital camera. How can I tell if this flash is OK to
> >> >> > use
> >> >> > with something like my Nikon D40?
> >> >>
> >> >> It won't work with iTTL, though; just A or manual, I believe. They had
> >> >> to design a completely new TTL mode for digital because the sensor
> >> >> reflectivity wasn't anything like film reflectivity (and the new mode
> >> >> doesn't work nearly as well, drat it).
> >> >
> >> > the new ittl is *much* better and far more capable than the old ttl
> >> > ever was.
> >>
> >> Not for producing accurately exposed pictures it isn't.

> >
> > yes it is.

>
> I've shot many thousands of pictures both ways, it's clearly not.


others have shot far more than that without any serious problem.

> >> The whole CLS
> >> thing for controlling a group of flashes is pretty neat

> >
> > very neat, and very powerful.
> >
> >> -- except that
> >> it introduces enough delays that animals I've tried to use it with ALL
> >> manage to blink during the actual exposure (it does test flashes in each
> >> group, and then uses communication flashes to tell each group what power
> >> to select, so that's a lot of pre-flash).

> >
> > yes, it fires a series of preflashes, which is an effective way for the
> > flashes to communicate with each other.

>
> In particular, it avoids the complex government regulations around RF
> emissions, which differ a lot around the world.


that's true but either way works. buy a pocket wizard and no more
preflash.

> > you can mitigate the blinking with infrared filters, and a blinking
> > animal does not affect the exposure *at* *all*.

>
> An infrared filter would also make it not much of an exposure, though.


you don't put an infrared filter on all of the flashes.

you only put one on the master, the one that's sending the preflashes
to the slaves. or you get the su800.

> Yes, I got adequately exposed portraits of various animals with their
> eyes closed. These were totally useless.


if you aren't using multiple flashes, you really don't need the
preflash.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-09-2013
nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, David Dyer-Bennet
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> >> >> > I have an old external flash, a Sunpak 333D. Used it with my old Nikon
>> >> >> > FA but haven't used it on any camera since I went digital. Have heard
>> >> >> > that some older flashes have high voltages present at the hot shoe
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > could damage a digital camera. How can I tell if this flash is OK to
>> >> >> > use
>> >> >> > with something like my Nikon D40?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It won't work with iTTL, though; just A or manual, I believe. They had
>> >> >> to design a completely new TTL mode for digital because the sensor
>> >> >> reflectivity wasn't anything like film reflectivity (and the new mode
>> >> >> doesn't work nearly as well, drat it).
>> >> >
>> >> > the new ittl is *much* better and far more capable than the old ttl
>> >> > ever was.
>> >>
>> >> Not for producing accurately exposed pictures it isn't.
>> >
>> > yes it is.

>>
>> I've shot many thousands of pictures both ways, it's clearly not.

>
> others have shot far more than that without any serious problem.


Certainly people have shot more than me, but I've talked to lots of
people who agree the new system isn't as good as the old.

>> >> The whole CLS
>> >> thing for controlling a group of flashes is pretty neat
>> >
>> > very neat, and very powerful.
>> >
>> >> -- except that
>> >> it introduces enough delays that animals I've tried to use it with ALL
>> >> manage to blink during the actual exposure (it does test flashes in each
>> >> group, and then uses communication flashes to tell each group what power
>> >> to select, so that's a lot of pre-flash).
>> >
>> > yes, it fires a series of preflashes, which is an effective way for the
>> > flashes to communicate with each other.

>>
>> In particular, it avoids the complex government regulations around RF
>> emissions, which differ a lot around the world.

>
> that's true but either way works. buy a pocket wizard and no more
> preflash.


Not true; presence or absence of pre-flashes depends on flash mode, not
accessories. The tt5 wizards and Radio Poppers capture the pre-flash
and route it via radio, solving some angle issues and some range issues,
but they do *not* magically prevent it from happening.

>> > you can mitigate the blinking with infrared filters, and a blinking
>> > animal does not affect the exposure *at* *all*.

>>
>> An infrared filter would also make it not much of an exposure, though.

>
> you don't put an infrared filter on all of the flashes.
>
> you only put one on the master, the one that's sending the preflashes
> to the slaves. or you get the su800.


Ah; didn't occur to me that one might have enough flashes to give up use
of the on-camera flash for lighting (and generally some direct fill is
needed, so setting up another flash on a stand right next to the
camera).

>> Yes, I got adequately exposed portraits of various animals with their
>> eyes closed. These were totally useless.

>
> if you aren't using multiple flashes, you really don't need the
> preflash.


iTTL depends on pre-flashes. It does a test flash *before* the
exposure, and controls the exposure based on that. I could do
completely manual settings, not via CLS, and avoid pre-flashes that way,
of course (and I did).

Here's a good summary of Nikon's TTL flash systems and how each works
<http://www.scantips.com/lights/ttl.html>.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-09-2013
On 2/9/2013 12:12 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>

<snip>>

>> if you aren't using multiple flashes, you really don't need the
>> preflash.


Wrong! See article.


>
> iTTL depends on pre-flashes. It does a test flash *before* the
> exposure, and controls the exposure based on that. I could do
> completely manual settings, not via CLS, and avoid pre-flashes that way,
> of course (and I did).
>
> Here's a good summary of Nikon's TTL flash systems and how each works
> <http://www.scantips.com/lights/ttl.html>.
>

Thank you for posting that interesting and authoritative explanation

--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-10-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, David Dyer-Bennet
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> >> > the new ittl is *much* better and far more capable than the old ttl
> >> >> > ever was.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not for producing accurately exposed pictures it isn't.
> >> >
> >> > yes it is.
> >>
> >> I've shot many thousands of pictures both ways, it's clearly not.

> >
> > others have shot far more than that without any serious problem.

>
> Certainly people have shot more than me, but I've talked to lots of
> people who agree the new system isn't as good as the old.


in nearly all situations, the new system blows away the old.

you've found an edge case with blinking, something that can happen with
any preflash system, not just nikon ittl. many film cameras had a
preflash, often for redeye reduction but also for exposure control.

> >> > yes, it fires a series of preflashes, which is an effective way for the
> >> > flashes to communicate with each other.
> >>
> >> In particular, it avoids the complex government regulations around RF
> >> emissions, which differ a lot around the world.

> >
> > that's true but either way works. buy a pocket wizard and no more
> > preflash.

>
> Not true; presence or absence of pre-flashes depends on flash mode, not
> accessories. The tt5 wizards and Radio Poppers capture the pre-flash
> and route it via radio, solving some angle issues and some range issues,
> but they do *not* magically prevent it from happening.


it is true.

> >> > you can mitigate the blinking with infrared filters, and a blinking
> >> > animal does not affect the exposure *at* *all*.
> >>
> >> An infrared filter would also make it not much of an exposure, though.

> >
> > you don't put an infrared filter on all of the flashes.
> >
> > you only put one on the master, the one that's sending the preflashes
> > to the slaves. or you get the su800.

>
> Ah; didn't occur to me that one might have enough flashes to give up use
> of the on-camera flash for lighting (and generally some direct fill is
> needed, so setting up another flash on a stand right next to the
> camera).


that's not the only thing that didn't occur to you.

> >> Yes, I got adequately exposed portraits of various animals with their
> >> eyes closed. These were totally useless.

> >
> > if you aren't using multiple flashes, you really don't need the
> > preflash.

>
> iTTL depends on pre-flashes. It does a test flash *before* the
> exposure, and controls the exposure based on that. I could do
> completely manual settings, not via CLS, and avoid pre-flashes that way,
> of course (and I did).


ittl isn't the only system that uses preflashes. some film cameras did
too.

> Here's a good summary of Nikon's TTL flash systems and how each works
> <http://www.scantips.com/lights/ttl.html>.


from that link,
However, there are a couple of expensive add-on radio trigger systems
that relay the multiple Commander infrared signals via radio,
achieving the same Commander system, with radio links.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-10-2013
In article <5116aabf$0$10810$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>, PeterN
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> if you aren't using multiple flashes, you really don't need the
> >> preflash.

>
> Wrong! See article.


i *own* an ittl flash. you do not need a preflash if you aren't talking
to other flashes. it can be disabled.
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-10-2013
On 2/9/2013 11:52 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <5116aabf$0$10810$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>, PeterN
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>>> if you aren't using multiple flashes, you really don't need the
>>>> preflash.

>>
>> Wrong! See article.

>
> i *own* an ittl flash. you do not need a preflash if you aren't talking
> to other flashes. it can be disabled.
>


Sure you can, but what functionality do you lose?

That is a simpoe question. Do not evade.




BTW what is your point in claiming to "own" an ittl flash unit?
Most Nikon users have one.
Canon users have
E-ttl, and Pentax users, P-ttl.
I am not impressed with your claim.

--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-10-2013
In article <5117cb65$0$10782$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>, PeterN
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >>>> if you aren't using multiple flashes, you really don't need the
> >>>> preflash.
> >>
> >> Wrong! See article.

> >
> > i *own* an ittl flash. you do not need a preflash if you aren't talking
> > to other flashes. it can be disabled.

>
> Sure you can, but what functionality do you lose?


ittl.

> BTW what is your point in claiming to "own" an ittl flash unit?


knowing how it works. someone who doesn't own one might not know all of
the features, perhaps basing their opinion on what they read somewhere.

> Most Nikon users have one.


most have the one in the camera, which is more limited than an external
unit, especially in the lower end cameras which do not support stuff
like master, modeling light, etc.

> Canon users have
> E-ttl, and Pentax users, P-ttl.


so what? those aren't ittl. i have no idea what features can be enabled
and disabled on those are.

> I am not impressed with your claim.


i wasn't trying to impress you.
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-10-2013
On 2/10/2013 12:48 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <5117cb65$0$10782$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>, PeterN
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>>>>> if you aren't using multiple flashes, you really don't need the
>>>>>> preflash.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong! See article.
>>>
>>> i *own* an ittl flash. you do not need a preflash if you aren't talking
>>> to other flashes. it can be disabled.

>>
>> Sure you can, but what functionality do you lose?

>
> ittl.
>


What is the functionality of iTTL? Or, don't you think it's important to
understand what functionality is lost when one turns off a feature. But
then, I guess it may not matter when taking pictures of test charts.


>> BTW what is your point in claiming to "own" an ittl flash unit?

>
> knowing how it works. someone who doesn't own one might not know all of
> the features, perhaps basing their opinion on what they read somewhere.
>
>> Most Nikon users have one.

>
> most have the one in the camera, which is more limited than an external
> unit, especially in the lower end cameras which do not support stuff
> like master, modeling light, etc.
>
>> Canon users have
>> E-ttl, and Pentax users, P-ttl.

>
> so what? those aren't ittl. i have no idea what features can be enabled
> and disabled on those are.


They are proprietary names for functionality, similar to iTTL.


>
>> I am not impressed with your claim.

>
> i wasn't trying to impress you.


Congratulations!
You have succeeded in reinforcing my opinion of your knowledge and ability.



--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Can I use an old fashion flash unit with a digital camera? magne.braaten@gmail.com Digital Photography 7 05-21-2007 01:27 AM
How to use an old external flash paul Digital Photography 4 01-10-2005 06:57 PM
flash question, external flash power Destin_FL Digital Photography 3 07-19-2004 01:14 PM
Coaxial flash socket for external flash Chris Digital Photography 9 01-23-2004 09:09 AM
Re: With More Flash More Lumix: using an external flash unit with the FZ1 and other digicams Hans-Georg Michna Digital Photography 4 08-24-2003 06:05 PM



Advertisments