Old external flash OK for digital cam?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Ron, Feb 1, 2013.

  1. Ron

    Ron Guest

    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?

    --
    _____________________________
    Ron, the humblest guy in town
     
    Ron, Feb 1, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ron

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/31/2013 9:59 PM, Ron 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?
    >


    No need to find out. For about $10 you can buy a device that will sit
    between your flash and the camera, that will protect your camera from
    high voltagge. I just forgot what it is called.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Feb 1, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ron

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:59:52 -0800, d (Ron)
    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?


    Dunno about burning the camera, but the TTL function is lost.
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    Tony Cooper, Feb 1, 2013
    #3
  4. Ron

    Ron Guest

    Scott Schuckert <> wrote:

    > In article <1kxkso5.iak9e312k1mjqN%>, Ron
    > <> 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?

    >
    > According to DPAnswers.com, the trigger voltage for that flash is 4.3
    > volts. Nikon DSLRs can generally withstand up to 250V, so you should be
    > fine. I'd recommend, of course, that you confirm those figures with the
    > respective manufacturers, if possible.
    >
    > If in doubt, sync regulators like the Wein Safe-Sync. can be used.


    Thanks, gents. Good info.
    --
    _____________________________
    Ron, the humblest guy in town
     
    Ron, Feb 1, 2013
    #4
  5. Ron

    Guest

    On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:59:52 -0800, d (Ron) 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 is safe according to:-

    http://www.botzilla.com/photo/strobeVolts.html
     
    , Feb 1, 2013
    #5
  6. Ron

    Rob Guest

    On 2/02/2013 3:38 AM, ray carter wrote:
    > On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:59:52 -0800, Ron 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?

    >
    > Another option might be a hot shoe slave to fire the flash.
    >



    Yep slave the flash and use the pop up flash as a light source.
     
    Rob, Feb 3, 2013
    #6
  7. d (Ron) writes:

    > 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).
    --
    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
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 5, 2013
    #7
  8. Ron

    nospam Guest

    In article <510b307e$0$10793$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> 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?

    >
    > No need to find out. For about $10 you can buy a device that will sit
    > between your flash and the camera, that will protect your camera from
    > high voltagge. I just forgot what it is called.


    wein safe sync and it's *much* more than $10. it's also not needed.
     
    nospam, Feb 5, 2013
    #8
  9. Ron

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet
    <> 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.
     
    nospam, Feb 5, 2013
    #9
  10. nospam <> writes:

    > In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet
    > <> 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. The whole CLS
    thing for controlling a group of flashes is pretty neat -- 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).
    --
    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
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 6, 2013
    #10
  11. Ron

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet
    <> 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.

    > 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.

    you can mitigate the blinking with infrared filters, and a blinking
    animal does not affect the exposure *at* *all*.
     
    nospam, Feb 6, 2013
    #11
  12. Ron

    PeterN Guest

    On 2/5/2013 11:57 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet
    > <> 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.
    >
    >> 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.
    >
    > you can mitigate the blinking with infrared filters, and a blinking
    > animal does not affect the exposure *at* *all*.
    >


    Right. You just get a well exposed, technically correct, lousy image.
    Sheesh!

    BTW don't some flash systems have infrared?
    What does it take to convert a system to infrared?

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Feb 6, 2013
    #12
  13. Ron

    nospam Guest

    In article <51125a83$0$10816$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> 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.
    > >
    > >> 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.
    > >
    > > you can mitigate the blinking with infrared filters, and a blinking
    > > animal does not affect the exposure *at* *all*.

    >
    > Right. You just get a well exposed, technically correct, lousy image.
    > Sheesh!


    his concern was about exposure, not whether or not the image was a
    prize winner.

    > BTW don't some flash systems have infrared?
    > What does it take to convert a system to infrared?


    an infrared filter over the master flash or the nikon su-800.
     
    nospam, Feb 6, 2013
    #13
  14. Ron

    PeterN Guest

    On 2/6/2013 9:35 AM, nospam wrote:

    <snip>

    >> Right. You just get a well exposed, technically correct, lousy image.
    >> Sheesh!

    >
    > his concern was about exposure, not whether or not the image was a
    > prize winner.
    >


    Who said anything about a prize winning image? You are saying that
    content doesn't matter, as long as the image is properly exposed?


    >> BTW don't some flash systems have infrared?
    >> What does it take to convert a system to infrared?

    >
    > an infrared filter over the master flash or the nikon su-800.
    >

    Oh!

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Feb 6, 2013
    #14
  15. Ron

    nospam Guest

    In article <51128032$0$10751$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >> Right. You just get a well exposed, technically correct, lousy image.
    > >> Sheesh!

    > >
    > > his concern was about exposure, not whether or not the image was a
    > > prize winner.

    >
    > Who said anything about a prize winning image? You are saying that
    > content doesn't matter, as long as the image is properly exposed?


    basically, yes.

    once again, his issue was that ittl did not expose as well as the older
    ttl. he is wrong. ittl exposure is more accurate.

    the problem he mentioned is that the preflashes, which ittl uses to
    communicate, can cause blinking. that's a *different* problem, and one
    which is easily solved by using an infrared trigger for ittl.
     
    nospam, Feb 6, 2013
    #15
  16. Ron

    PeterN Guest

    On 2/6/2013 11:59 AM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <51128032$0$10751$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>> Right. You just get a well exposed, technically correct, lousy image.
    >>>> Sheesh!
    >>>
    >>> his concern was about exposure, not whether or not the image was a
    >>> prize winner.

    >>
    >> Who said anything about a prize winning image? You are saying that
    >> content doesn't matter, as long as the image is properly exposed?

    >
    > basically, yes.
    >


    Point made.

    Go take your pictures of test charts.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Feb 6, 2013
    #16
  17. Ron

    nospam Guest

    In article <51128c8a$0$10805$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >>>> Right. You just get a well exposed, technically correct, lousy image.
    > >>>> Sheesh!
    > >>>
    > >>> his concern was about exposure, not whether or not the image was a
    > >>> prize winner.
    > >>
    > >> Who said anything about a prize winning image? You are saying that
    > >> content doesn't matter, as long as the image is properly exposed?

    > >
    > > basically, yes.

    >
    > Point made.


    the only point is that you snipped where i pointed out his concern was
    exposure, not content.

    > Go take your pictures of test charts.


    i don't take pictures of test charts.
     
    nospam, Feb 6, 2013
    #17
  18. nospam <> writes:

    > In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet
    > <> 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.

    >> 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.

    > 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.

    Yes, I got adequately exposed portraits of various animals with their
    eyes closed. These were totally useless.
    --
    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
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 8, 2013
    #18
  19. nospam <> writes:

    > In article <51125a83$0$10816$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> 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.
    >> >
    >> >> 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.
    >> >
    >> > you can mitigate the blinking with infrared filters, and a blinking
    >> > animal does not affect the exposure *at* *all*.

    >>
    >> Right. You just get a well exposed, technically correct, lousy image.
    >> Sheesh!

    >
    > his concern was about exposure, not whether or not the image was a
    > prize winner.


    A system which guarantees lousy images in a major category is not an
    acceptable general-purpose scheme, regardless of how well it works
    within its limited technical goals.
    --
    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
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 8, 2013
    #19
  20. Ron

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet
    <> wrote:

    > > his concern was about exposure, not whether or not the image was a
    > > prize winner.

    >
    > A system which guarantees lousy images in a major category is not an
    > acceptable general-purpose scheme, regardless of how well it works
    > within its limited technical goals.


    it's just one category out of many, and again, the problem is not
    exposure (which it does well).

    some cameras in the film days had preflashes. it's not just nikon.

    meanwhile, ittl/cls works amazingly well for everyone else.
     
    nospam, Feb 8, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Video cam as a web cam

    , May 30, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    661
    °Mike°
    May 30, 2004
  2. Chris
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    10,979
    Chris
    May 3, 2006
  3. Mario
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    544
    Bert Hyman
    Oct 13, 2003
  4. paul

    How to use an old external flash

    paul, Jan 10, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    546
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,009
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page