Old external flash OK for digital cam?

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

  1. 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.

    >
    > 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.
     
    nospam, Feb 8, 2013
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. 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.

    >
    > 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
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 9, 2013
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. Ron

    PeterN Guest

    On 2/9/2013 12:12 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > nospam <> 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
     
    PeterN, Feb 9, 2013
    #23
  4. Ron

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet
    <> 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.
     
    nospam, Feb 10, 2013
    #24
  5. Ron

    nospam Guest

    In article <5116aabf$0$10810$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> 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.
     
    nospam, Feb 10, 2013
    #25
  6. Ron

    PeterN Guest

    On 2/9/2013 11:52 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <5116aabf$0$10810$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> 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
     
    PeterN, Feb 10, 2013
    #26
  7. Ron

    nospam Guest

    In article <5117cb65$0$10782$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> 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.
     
    nospam, Feb 10, 2013
    #27
  8. Ron

    PeterN Guest

    On 2/10/2013 12:48 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <5117cb65$0$10782$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> 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
     
    PeterN, Feb 10, 2013
    #28
    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:
    676
    °Mike°
    May 30, 2004
  2. Chris
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    11,074
    Chris
    May 3, 2006
  3. Mario
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    589
    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:
    557
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,163
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page