If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon CP8800 and Fast Shutter Speed
Have any of you CP8800 owners out there succeeded in taking a correctly
exposed photograph on a bright sunny day with a shutters speed of 1500 or 3000 ?? If so, then what were the other major settings you used? This is a serious question and I would really appreciate you coming back to me with your results. Thanks in advance, Leo. In Auckland, NEW ZEALAND |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Based on the 'Sunny 16' rule you should get a correctly exposure of 1/1500
sec. at f:2.8 or slightly less with the default ISO of 50. Since Nikon restricts the f:stop range when using 1/3000 sec. you would have to increase the ISO to 200 or posibly 400 to use 1/3000 within the restricted range. Be aware that you will likely see noise at the increased ISO settings. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Ruf" wrote in message
... On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:05:48 +1300, in rec.photo.digital.zlr "Leo R." wrote: Don't own an 8800, but if you tell us what settings you've tried and what problems you're having owners of other models might be able to offer useful suggestions. ---------- Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ) Thanks Ed, but I'm hoping other CP8800 owners will tell me actual results from their camera. Kind regards Leo |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Cooter" wrote in message
. com... Based on the 'Sunny 16' rule you should get a correctly exposure of 1/1500 sec. at f:2.8 or slightly less with the default ISO of 50. Since Nikon restricts the f:stop range when using 1/3000 sec. you would have to increase the ISO to 200 or posibly 400 to use 1/3000 within the restricted range. Be aware that you will likely see noise at the increased ISO settings. Hi Cooter, Yes, have tried that on a briliantly sunny day and end up with very much underexposed photos at these shutter speeds even at iso 400. I am trying to determine whether it is just my camera or if they are all like that. It's not as simple as going into a camera shop and trying one as they have have none in stock. I'm hoping other CP8800 owners will tell me of their experiences. One of the key reasons I bought this camera was for the higher shutter speeds and now it appears to be unusable. Thanks for your advice Cooter. Kind regards Leo |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Leo R. commented courteously ...
Yes, have tried that on a briliantly sunny day and end up with very much underexposed photos at these shutter speeds even at iso 400. I am trying to determine whether it is just my camera or if they are all like that. It's not as simple as going into a camera shop and trying one as they have have none in stock. I'm hoping other CP8800 owners will tell me of their experiences. One of the key reasons I bought this camera was for the higher shutter speeds and now it appears to be unusable. I've been following this thread because I'm in the market for a new digital to replace my Nikon 5700. Although my big heartburn is inconsistent flash exposures (as you may have noted in my post recently), I am equally interested in any apparent anomolies the 8800 might have. I'll never use such high shutter speeds for taking car pictures that are standing still, but your observation is still useful to me. In my case, living in a so-called upscale suburb of Detroit, MI, there are a number of camera stores that not only have the 8800 in stock, they're competing for my busines by offering a 10-day no-questions-asked return policy. Ultimately, that's how I'll decide if the 8800 works for my very peculiar shoot situations. Thanks for the info. -- ATM, aka Jerry |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"All Things Mopar" wrote in message ... Leo R. commented courteously ... I've been following this thread because I'm in the market for a new digital to replace my Nikon 5700. Although my big heartburn is inconsistent flash exposures (as you may have noted in my post recently), I am equally interested in any apparent anomolies the 8800 might have. I'll never use such high shutter speeds for taking car pictures that are standing still, but your observation is still useful to me. In my case, living in a so-called upscale suburb of Detroit, MI, there are a number of camera stores that not only have the 8800 in stock, they're competing for my busines by offering a 10-day no-questions-asked return policy. Ultimately, that's how I'll decide if the 8800 works for my very peculiar shoot situations. Thanks for the info. Hello Jerry, Yes, I think the 8800 could work for your style of photography but be aware the on-board flash is not very "flash" and if you decide on a dedicated flash unit then the SB-800 is the way to go, the SB-600 just doesn't cut it. Also, be aware that not all the SB-800/600 features work, notably the zoom variation of the flash intensity. Your acess to the 10 day trial sounds the way to go. We don't have anything like that here or I would probably have returned the camera. As it is it looks like I'm gearing up to have an argument with Mr. Nikon. I'm still hoping some other CP8800 owners will come back to me with their high speed shutter experiences. Kind regards, Leo |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Leo R. commented courteously ...
Yes, I think the 8800 could work for your style of photography but be aware the on-board flash is not very "flash" and if you decide on a dedicated flash unit then the SB-800 is the way to go, the SB-600 just doesn't cut it. [snip] Hi, Leo. Yes, I agree that the built-in Speedlight can't cut it for anything other than a quickie snap shot shot in my house. It's got a GN down around 30 or less. I have a reasonable knowledge of strobe technology and power, but no real knowledge of modern TTL metering. So, I would ask if you could amplify why you think I should buy the 800. Being that I am a "documentary"-style car photog, I recognize and accept the many limitations of a single strobe on top of the camera, regardless of whose it is. My relatively new Sunpak 433D, that won't work on the 8800 because of it's iTTL, has a GN of 120, which gives me a theoretical shooting range of around 34 feet at an average wide-open aperture of f/3.5. That is more than adequate for car museums and will probably satisfy me even in large places like the Smithsonian. I could look this stuff up on Nikon's web site, but I'm much more interested in your experience, and not their specs. So, is it that the SB-600's GN is too low? Or, is it that it doesn't perform well at some focal lengths (you commented on its zoom faults)? Or, maybe it doesn't do nearly as good a job at "talking" to iTTL as the SB-800? I've *clearly* learned my lesson with my bad 5700 experience! I'm gonna test drive this time, and not scrimp on the bucks for the flash. So, while I'd be amenible to the approximately $300 for an SB-800, I don't mind getting down to $195 after rebate on the 600 if I can. And, I'm interested in keeping the weight of the flash as low as possible. So, please respond within the context of my admitedly peculiar shooting technique, rather than what a pro or "serious amateur" would do. I appreciate you help. -- ATM, aka Jerry |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Seems there really is a problem. Today was clear and sunny so I took my 8800
outside to check out the question of 1/1500 and 1/3000 second expoures. The first shot was at ISO 50 in program mode to establish a "Base" exposure. The result was 1/224 second at f:5.6 - almost exactly what would be expected. I then put the camera on shutter priority mode and made 1/1500 ans 1/3000 second exposures at ISO 50, 100, 200 and 400. Keep in mind that at 1/3000 the widest aperature is f:5.0. Since the base exposure (1/224 at f:5.6) was visually correct and had a normal histogram I compared all the other exposures to it. Following are the results including the f:stop reported in the EXIF data: ISO 50 1/1500 @ f:2.8 - about one stop underexposed 1/3000 @ f:5.0 - barely visible ISO 100 1/1500 @ f:3.2 - 1/3 to 1/2 stop darker than "Base" 1/3000 @ f:5.0 - very dark ISO 200 1/1500 @ f:5.0 - 1/3 to 1/2 stop darker than "Base" 1/3000 # f:5.0 - very dark ISO 400 1/1500 @ f:8.0 - 1/3 to 1/2 stop darker than "Base" 1/3000 @ f:5.6 - one to two stops darker than "Base" Conclusions: The three 1/1500 second exposures at ISO 100, 200 and 400 should have matched the "Base" exposure, but they were all darker by 1/3 to 1/2 f:stop. The 1/3000 second exposure at ISO 400 should also have matched the "Base" exposure. It was still too dark to be used. Either there is a problem with short exposure times on all the 8800s, or there are at least two cameras with the problem. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks very much for that Cooter. Tt's exactly what I was looking, for tho
hoping that it was only my camera as it would have been easier to "fix". Will let you know how I get on with Nikon. Their agent here will not yet admit there is a problem with the camera but for the past two weeks has been unable to demonstrate how to take a properly exposed photo at these higher shutter speeds. Thanks for your help. Kind regards Leo "Cooter" wrote in message m... Seems there really is a problem. Today was clear and sunny so I took my 8800 outside to check out the question of 1/1500 and 1/3000 second expoures. The first shot was at ISO 50 in program mode to establish a "Base" exposure. The result was 1/224 second at f:5.6 - almost exactly what would be expected. I then put the camera on shutter priority mode and made 1/1500 ans 1/3000 second exposures at ISO 50, 100, 200 and 400. Keep in mind that at 1/3000 the widest aperature is f:5.0. Since the base exposure (1/224 at f:5.6) was visually correct and had a normal histogram I compared all the other exposures to it. Following are the results including the f:stop reported in the EXIF data: ISO 50 1/1500 @ f:2.8 - about one stop underexposed 1/3000 @ f:5.0 - barely visible ISO 100 1/1500 @ f:3.2 - 1/3 to 1/2 stop darker than "Base" 1/3000 @ f:5.0 - very dark ISO 200 1/1500 @ f:5.0 - 1/3 to 1/2 stop darker than "Base" 1/3000 # f:5.0 - very dark ISO 400 1/1500 @ f:8.0 - 1/3 to 1/2 stop darker than "Base" 1/3000 @ f:5.6 - one to two stops darker than "Base" Conclusions: The three 1/1500 second exposures at ISO 100, 200 and 400 should have matched the "Base" exposure, but they were all darker by 1/3 to 1/2 f:stop. The 1/3000 second exposure at ISO 400 should also have matched the "Base" exposure. It was still too dark to be used. Either there is a problem with short exposure times on all the 8800s, or there are at least two cameras with the problem. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"All Things Mopar" wrote in message
... Yes, I agree that the built-in Speedlight can't cut it for anything other than a quickie snap shot shot in my house. It's got a GN down around 30 or less. I have a reasonable knowledge of strobe technology and power, but no real knowledge of modern TTL metering. So, I would ask if you could amplify why you think I should buy the 800. Being that I am a "documentary"-style car photog, I recognize and accept the many limitations of a single strobe on top of the camera, regardless of whose it is. My relatively new Sunpak 433D, that won't work on the 8800 because of it's iTTL, has a GN of 120, which gives me a theoretical shooting range of around 34 feet at an average wide-open aperture of f/3.5. That is more than adequate for car museums and will probably satisfy me even in large places like the Smithsonian. I could look this stuff up on Nikon's web site, but I'm much more interested in your experience, and not their specs. So, is it that the SB-600's GN is too low? Or, is it that it doesn't perform well at some focal lengths (you commented on its zoom faults)? Or, maybe it doesn't do nearly as good a job at "talking" to iTTL as the SB-800? I've *clearly* learned my lesson with my bad 5700 experience! I'm gonna test drive this time, and not scrimp on the bucks for the flash. So, while I'd be amenible to the approximately $300 for an SB-800, I don't mind getting down to $195 after rebate on the 600 if I can. And, I'm interested in keeping the weight of the flash as low as possible. So, please respond within the context of my admitedly peculiar shooting technique, rather than what a pro or "serious amateur" would do. I appreciate you help. -- ATM, aka Jerry Hello again Jerry, I probably don't know enough about your lighting requirements to give you really meaningful advice, however the 800 will give you more bang for your buck and in the overall context that is not many more dollars. The CP 8800 manual refers to the external speedlights. The following is from the 8800 Manual (page 106): "SB-800 and SB-600 Speedlights Set the optional Speedlight to TTL mode. In this mode, SB-800 and SB-600 Speedlights will use monitor preflashes for i-TTL flash control (Standard i-TTL fill-flash for Digital SLR). NOTE, however, that the camera does not support Advanced Wireless Lighting, auto FP high-speed sync, FV lock, or AF-assist for multi-area AF. See the Speedlight manual for more information." Good luck with whatever you decide. Leo |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|