Old external flash OK for digital cam?

In article , 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.

On 2/6/2013 11:59 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , 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

In article , 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 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

nospam writes:

In article , 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

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.

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 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

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

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.