Lighting

[jrr]

I have been out of photography for a while. I recently purchased a D100 along with one SB800
and one SB30 speedlight and a SB29S ringlight. I am totally confused with the different "modes"
(TTL, i-TTL, D-TTL AA M Gn...etc.). Then there is "SU-4 multiple flash wireless", "advanced wireless shooting", etc.
More confusion is added when one tries to figure out what what works with what (SB30 with SB800, SB800 with built in
camera flash, etc. etc.).
If anyone out there can give us confused souls a primer on Nikon flash lighting it would help a great deal.

Thanks in advance

 

[lodaniel]

As I understand it, the only one of those flashes that will work in ANY TTL mode with the D100 is the SB-800. The SB-30 and 29S are relegated to manual and sensor (non-TTL) automatic...like the 1975 Vivitar 283. You see, the "D" in "D-TTL", in my opinion, stands for "dysfunctional". Like you, I bought a D100 last August, fully aware that the flash system sucked and would do less than a $350 N80. I expected that Nikon would announce the "D200" in February for $1500-$2000. I would sell the D100 for $1k or so, then upgrade. Instead, Nikon undercuts the D100 with the D70, making my $1700 camera now worth maybe $700. So, when the "D200" does appear, I won't be able to afford the trade.

I came so close to switching to Canon with a 10D last August. I wish I had. I have to buy new strobes either way. I figured I'd lose at least a grand swapping lenses, and stuck with Nikon. Nikon then ensured that I would lose that grand on the camera anyway. When I cough up $1700 of new money on the next camera, it will have Canon written on it. They didn't shaft their 10D customers when marketing the 300D (Rebel).

If you want to use flash, return the D100 and get a Canon or a D70.

Lloyd
(formerly loyal Nikon user since 1983)

P.S. If you want TTL, return the SB30 and SB29S. They won't work with the D70 either. The SB-800 and SB-600 will work in i-TTL mode, which is light years ahead of d-TTL. I-TTL is similar to what Canon and Minolta have had for years.

 

[jrr]

Lloyd:

Thanks for the reply. I too have been a loyal
Nikon user for 30 yrs (with a hiatus in between) and I agree that Nikon blew it on this one. I wonder what they had in mind?

 

[tomsteffan]

Jorge,

What Lloyd says about comatability is true. You will have better consistancy with the SB800 over Lloyd's SB80. I've used them both on my D1x & am more impressed with the 800.
Now jumping to Canon?!?! The number 1 reason to jump from Canon to Nikon is Canon's unreliable flash systems on their digital cameras. There are some other reasons to jump to Canon but you may have to jump back to Nikon in 6 months when new products appear, then back to Canon in another 6 months. You get the idea. I would never buy anything "expecting" the manufacturer to do what I think is right in 6 months.

Tom

 

[jrr]

So... if have this straight, none of the units will work in TTL mode using multiple flash--have to use A, AA or manual, but the SB800 will work in
TTL mode with the D100 if used as a single flash?

Jorge

 

[tomsteffan]

Correct.

Tom

 

[tom_rains]

Boy, looks like you digital boys are in a pickle. Canon? forgetaboutit! There's something out there that works like a charm when you are using flash. I am enjoying it more every day and every time I read about this problem with digitals and flash. It's called film and I can beat your pants off any day with film and flash. I don't have to worry about burning out highlights like you do. Long live film forever I say while I watch your quandries with amusement. Sorry 'bout that, but I do not yet see any advantage whatsoever in using digital in flash situations. Digital is great for sans-flash, I will give credit for that, though

 

[lnbolch]

Tom

Shooting digital is almost identical to shooting Kodachrome. If you have the skill to get a high level of quality with it, you will have no problems shooting digital - with or without flash. Negative film is extremely forgiving, and you have a one-hour lab with a $100K machine and a trained operator to save you from your ineptness.

For those without basic photographic skills, digital is often an ongoing disappointment.

larry!
ICQ 76620504

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[six_wheeler]

Right on, Larry!

Some time ago, I went to do a shoot with the paper's D1H at a newly-opened car dealership in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Glossy cars, hard discharge lighting - the works. And in true Arabian fashion, the owner had lots of regular tungsten bulbs thrown in for good measure. So I went on shooting, making sure to under-expose by a stop or so to keep the light reflections off of the glazed car finishes from washing out. When my friend the chief editor saw the pictures on my laptop, his very first question was: Why are they all underexposed? (he's a self-proclaimed professional photographer

) I patiently explained to him that digital is like slide film, you inder-expose to keep the highlights... etc.

All he did was laugh at me, and tell me that he had been the art director of four graphic design companies, and he knows what he was talking about.
But he couldn't find the words later when I "pumped up" the pictures in Photoshop, and showed him what I was talking about.

Some people just don't get it.

Shady in hot, not-so-sunny, windy, d&, smelly, dusty Jeddah! (I'm going back home to Amman next week - Yeppee!

)

 

[lnbolch]

Shady

He would probably be even more distressed with my shots. Not only are they exposed to protect the highlights, but also quite mushy. I have turned the in-camera sharpening off, since I have learned to simulate the accutance of film using Lab mode and sub-pixel sharpening of the Lightness channel. I use the unsharp mask based upon the need of the individual image. The result is that they do not look "sharpened", just look sharp when I am done.

larry!
ICQ 76620504

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[hotrats49]

Well, I'm afraid some of us traditional types do get it! I for one use digital imaging in my employment and can see the benefits for that and other purposes, but I would not jump to the conclusion that it's any better than film. I prefer film for my personal 35mm photography. We can see the real danger of the new digital equipment in some of the previous messages: a lot of talk about jumping ship to another brand over this or that. Who will benefit from this? Not the general photographer, I can assure you (Tom Steffan made a good point about this). And..."for those without basic photograpy skills" any form of photography can be disappointing. Probably a bit pointless to get too excited about this line of discussion anyway, digital vs film, as they both have advantages and disadvantages. I just think everyone should enjoy their photographic experience and try not to get caught up in the consumerism bit!

Cheers

 

[lodaniel]

Greg,

It's great that you prefer film. I still shoot some film too. But, I have decided on digital printing rather than darkroom. The digital camera saves me a lot of time by not having to scan. Scanning has its problems, too.

I've been doing this for 25 years, shooting slides more than prints. The minilab is not correcting for my mistakes. One of the advantages of doing your own B&W and color printing is that it's you that corrects for any shooting mistakes. That encourages you to stop making them. The same is true with digital.

The issue here is not film vs. digital. Crummy design is not "a danger of the new digital equipment". It is the fact that Nikon's engineers didn't know what they were doing when they came up with d-TTL, or they didn't care. They devised a system with limitations that didn't exist with their film cameras, even cheap ones. This isn't a liability of digital. It's a liability of poor engineering. (I am one, BTW.)

If the F100 had come out with such a limited flash system, followed by the N80 with a vastly superior system, I'd be raising h*ll over that had I invested in the former.

If Nikon couldn't handle flash with DSLR's of that generation perhaps they should have stayed out of the market until they employed some people who could handle it. Fuji managed to get TTL working in the S2 without DX and d-TTL. I think they ruined the S3 by including it, unless they have improved upon the D1/D100 implementation.

Lloyd

 

[peke]

Jorge - you may want to check out

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

- he has a Nikon Flash Manual listed - I don't know if its still available but I do know he's publishing a CD version of the manual soon. I have his D100 Manual and found it to be very helpful - I will get the flash manual as soon as it's available...

 

[jrr]

Mike:

Thanks for the tip. Lots of good information at that site. I'm getting the manuals.

Jorge