Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / March 2005
D70, iTTL, off-camera flash, multiflash (long)
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Diane Wilson - 27 Mar 2005 17:29 GMT Anyone here have much experience with multiple flashes and the D70, using iTTL? (Or any of the Nikon exposure automation and connection tools, including the SU-4 optical slave unit). I just finished reading through the SB-800 book and the flash sections of the D70 manual, and it's a bit confusing and intimidating still. I haven't yet started to experiment, where no doubt I'll learn a lot more.
I upgraded from a Coolpix 990, and I have three SB-28 flashes that I used with the 990. I'd like very much not to have to trash the SB-28s, but I do understand that they're not TTL-compatible with the D70, and that at best they can be used as remotes triggered by either the SU-4 or by cables (maybe).
My initial purchase included the D70, one SB-800, and the SC-29, which gives me a remote (wired) hotshoe and an AF-illumination unit that stays on-camera. I also have one SU-4 from my Coolpix days.
The reason for all the heavy-duty flash investment is to do high-quality "still life" shots of jewelry, glass, pottery, etc., as well as occasional portrait work. I'm not a pro, but I do want the best quality photos that I can achieve.
Anyway, here are my questions.
1. I truly hate on-camera flash, due to the risk of red-eye, flat illumination, glare, etc. I also don't want the built-in D70 flash active if I'm doing multiflash work with careful placement of flashes, diffusion screens, softboxes, etc. The SB-800 has a "commander mode" that seems much more flexible than the D70's built-in commander mode. Any experience using the SB-800 as the commander, especially if it's off-camera?
2. The SB-800 manual says that putting the flash behind a diffuser can affect exposure. Any expierience with this? How much of an issue is this?
3. I use softboxes a lot, including putting SB-28's inside a softbox. How strict is the need for line-of-site between flash units using iTTL? Would putting a SB-800 inside a softbox interfere with wireless flash control? If the flash is pointing into a reflector, then out through a diffuser, is this really going to mess up iTTL exposure calculations? Could I put the commander SB-800 inside a softbox?
Here's a web page showing how I put a SB-28 into a Westcott softbox, with sample photos at the bottom of a shooting setup and a typical result. http://www.firelily.com/photography/softbox.html
4. As for the SU-4 to set up multiple flashes, the SB-800 book contradicts itself. It says that you can't do TTL using the SU-4 to control a remote flash, and that you must set the master to AA rather than TTL. However, the step-by-step instructions tell you to set the master flash in TTL mode. Which is right?
5. The SB-800 says that digital SLRs compatible with the Creative Lighting System (e.g., the D70) cannot use cables for multiflash connections. What's up with this? I've been using Nikon's TTL cables for years with the Coolpix, and I'm very comfortable with using them.
Sorry for the load of questions. Any insight will be appreciated!
Diane
Avery - 28 Mar 2005 17:31 GMT Hi,
I have a D70, 2x SB-800 flash units, SC-29 cable, and plently other stuff that makes having a camera fun.
I've got a Photoflex (medium) LiteRoom and I use my rig primarily for taking pictures of fountain pens.
I must say this, I don't know much about photography. I just follwed the advice of a number of friends and ended up with some nice equipment.
I'd be more than happy to test some things out for you, maybe help you answer your questions but please understand I'm an amature in the greatest sense of the word.
Oh, the Nikkon SC-29 shoe cord supports all functions of the SB800.
Best, Avery
Roxy d'Urban - 29 Mar 2005 13:31 GMT > Anyone here have much experience with multiple flashes and > the D70, using iTTL? (Or any of the Nikon exposure automation [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > TTL-compatible with the D70, and that at best they can be > used as remotes triggered by either the SU-4 or by cables (maybe). Your SB-28's will work, but only in Auto or Manual modes. The SB-28 was designed for use with 35mm film bodies. It uses OTF (off the film) metering which is obviously not present in a DSLR, so it cannot provide an accurate metering through the lens.
<snip>
> Anyway, here are my questions. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > flexible than the D70's built-in commander mode. Any experience > using the SB-800 as the commander, especially if it's off-camera? I have used this and it works very nicely. It's easy to set up and the results are very good. For what you want to do you wouldn't need anything else.
> 2. The SB-800 manual says that putting the flash behind a > diffuser can affect exposure. Any expierience with this? > How much of an issue is this? Think about how iTTL works. The flash fires a small burst of light which bounces off your subject and back into the unit's sensor. The flash knows what settings you have on your camera as this is transmitted to the flash by the body just prior to the release of the shutter. It is then able to provide a second, more powerful burst of light, properly illuminating your subject.
If you are putting a diffuser in front of the flash in such a way as to obscure the sensor, the flash will not know what it is supposed to be exposing for. It might think that the inside of your diffuser is what it is supposed to be illuminating.
If you are talking about the little plastic diffuser that comes with the SB-800, that will not affect exposure, but because it chews up more juice, your batteries won't last as long.
> 3. I use softboxes a lot, including putting SB-28's inside > a softbox. How strict is the need for line-of-site between [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > going to mess up iTTL exposure calculations? Could I put the > commander SB-800 inside a softbox? See above.
> Here's a web page showing how I put a SB-28 into a Westcott > softbox, with sample photos at the bottom of a shooting setup > and a typical result. > http://www.firelily.com/photography/softbox.html That's not going to work with wireless iTTL. Your flash will expose for the inside of your softbox and in all likelihood won't trigger at all in slave mode.
> 4. As for the SU-4 to set up multiple flashes, the SB-800 book > contradicts itself. It says that you can't do TTL using the > SU-4 to control a remote flash, and that you must set the master > to AA rather than TTL. However, the step-by-step instructions > tell you to set the master flash in TTL mode. Which is right? I had an SU-4 once upon a time, but I'm not sure about the various methods it uses. I do know that it was intended for the old Nikon TTL flash system, not the Creative Lighting System that the D70 and SB-800 bring to the party.
> 5. The SB-800 says that digital SLRs compatible with the > Creative Lighting System (e.g., the D70) cannot use cables > for multiflash connections. What's up with this? I've been > using Nikon's TTL cables for years with the Coolpix, and I'm > very comfortable with using them. Not in iTTL mode. You can still use your cables in the other modes.
> Sorry for the load of questions. Any insight will be > appreciated! > > Diane Here's what I suggest you do:
Keep all your SB-28's and cables and buy yourself a good flash meter. Use the SB-28's in manual mode remotely using SU-4's (or a suitable alternative) as optical slave units. Set your onboard pop-up flash to Manual and turn it way down to 1/16th power.
Set each flash output manually according to your desired results and fire off the D70 to get a non-continuous reading from your flashmeter. I use a Minolta IV meter and I am very happy with the results.
 Signature The good old days start now.
Owamanga - 29 Mar 2005 13:50 GMT >> Here's a web page showing how I put a SB-28 into a Westcott >> softbox, with sample photos at the bottom of a shooting setup [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the inside of your softbox and in all likelihood won't trigger at all in >slave mode. This is incorrect. iTTL relies on TTL metering only, the flashes don't meter themselves in this mode. So his softbox setup would be safe.
Here's a bit I stole from a website, explaining the process:
"Nikon has long been known for their 3D matrix metered fill-flash capability, and the exceptional ease it brings to fill-flash exposures. With iTTL (the "i" is for "intelligent" TTL), they're further extending the capabilities of their flash technology. For the first time, iTTL makes use of the 1005-element RGB sensor used for the main exposure system, the accuracy of the metering pre-flash has been improved, and wireless capability has been dramatically expanded, with the implementation of true multi-unit, TTL wireless flash autoexposure. To me, that's the most amazing part of the new flash technology: Not just that it provides automatic flash operation without wires, but that it offers true Through The Lens (TTL) metering for flash exposures, even with multiple remote flash units: With an SB-800 speedlight as a master controller, up to three separate groups of SB-600 and SB-800 strobes can be controlled independently, each group consisting of an unlimited number of units. The D70 itself can also serve as a master controller, although it can only control one group at a time, and its internal strobe can't contribute to the exposure when it's acting as a controller. (Note though, that if you mount an SB-800 on the D70's hot shoe, the SB-800 can both act as a master controller, as well as contribute to the exposure itself.)
When I first heard about it, the whole wireless TTL system sounded like just so much magic, but it's actually pretty straightforward once you know what it's doing. (Straightforward, but no doubt requiring a lot of clever engineering.) The key to it all is strobe circuitry that can turn on and off very quickly, and fire multiple precisely timed bursts in a very short period of time. The iTTL system uses this capability in two ways. First, it uses rapid series of very brief pulses of the strobes to let the Master Controller "talk" with the various groups of remote units. The Master can command groups of remotes to fire either very brief pulses for metering, or more powerful flashes for the exposure itself. It does this by sending treating the flash head as a digital data channel, encoding commands about the type and intensity of pulse to fire in the form of rapid bursts of light.
The second way that the fast-pulse capability facilitates iTTL is by making it possible to determine exposure levels from multiple flash groups very quickly. (The speed is important, as you don't want the flash exposure determination to introduce an unacceptable shutter lag when working with multiple groups of speedlights.)
The way the iTTL system works is that the camera tells the Master controller to individually command each group of remote flashes to fire a metering pulse. Using its internal TTL sensors, the camera measures the amount of light coming from each strobe group, and integrates the light readings from all of the strobes with the ambient light coming through the lens. Via the Master controller, it then tells each strobe group how much light to emit for the exposure itself, and triggers them to fire when the shutter is opened.
If this sounds like a lot that has to go on before the shutter opens, that's because it is. It all happens very quickly though, without introducing an appreciable delay in the shutter release. (If you have several groups of strobes involved in a single exposure, and have quick enough visual reflexes, you can actually see a very brief period of flickering strobe flashes before the main exposure itself.)
The results are really pretty amazing. You can more or less scatter strobe units around the set any which way you want, and the iTTL system will deliver not only an accurate default exposure, but perfect control over the light being delivered by each group."
Source: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D70/D70P.HTM
-- Owamanga! http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Roxy d'Urban - 30 Mar 2005 09:18 GMT >>> Here's a web page showing how I put a SB-28 into a Westcott >>> softbox, with sample photos at the bottom of a shooting setup [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > This is incorrect. iTTL relies on TTL metering only, the flashes don't > meter themselves in this mode. So his softbox setup would be safe. Thanks for the input, O. However, if an SB-800 is inside a softbox surely it won't be able to receive any signals from the D70?
 Signature The good old days start now.
Owamanga - 30 Mar 2005 13:10 GMT >>>> Here's a web page showing how I put a SB-28 into a Westcott >>>> softbox, with sample photos at the bottom of a shooting setup [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Thanks for the input, O. However, if an SB-800 is inside a softbox surely >it won't be able to receive any signals from the D70? Some risks exist, certainly. A quick test will see if it fires reliably in a given setup. If this became a problem, he'd have to go with a wired solution, but the metering is taken care of either way.
-- Owamanga! http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
DoN. Nichols - 31 Mar 2005 06:52 GMT [ ... ]
>>> This is incorrect. iTTL relies on TTL metering only, the flashes don't >>> meter themselves in this mode. So his softbox setup would be safe. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >reliably in a given setup. If this became a problem, he'd have to go >with a wired solution, but the metering is taken care of either way. Might I suggest a short length of fiber optics cable, to route the triggering information to the sensor in the flash unit? If necessary, route it all the way to the camera's transmitter, but you could probably add a little lens or reflector to focus it on the fiber optics end.
Enjoy, DoN.
P.S. Pity the "wireless" link is not actually RF based, at which point it would be fine, unless totally enclosed in aluminum foil. :-)
 Signature Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Owamanga - 31 Mar 2005 13:14 GMT > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >could probably add a little lens or reflector to focus it on the fiber >optics end. This might work. My guess is it won't be necessary.
As for a cheap source of fibre optic cable (probably want to work with the plastic 'light-guide' stuff instead - no requirement to polish the ends) I have no ideas.
Seems a tad crazy to screw around with this when a simple wired connection isn't going to be that expensive, and will *definitely* work, especially if a working solution requires the fibre to be routed all the way to the camera.
>P.S. Pity the "wireless" link is not actually RF based, at which point >it would be fine, unless totally enclosed in aluminum foil. :-) Indeed. Although I haven't played with this too much, I have yet to see a setup (and I also haven't boxed a flash yet) that fails using wireless. There is certainly no requirement for direct line of sight.
Think of it this way: The camera is aimed at the subject, which means the on-board flash will illuminate the subject. The white box or other enclosure is usually also aimed at the subject, so at least some of the light will bounce and illuminate the inside of the white box.
Modern electronics are fairly sensitive. We hope....
-- Owamanga! http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
DoN. Nichols - 31 Mar 2005 22:13 GMT [ ... ]
>>>Some risks exist, certainly. A quick test will see if it fires >>>reliably in a given setup. If this became a problem, he'd have to go [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >This might work. My guess is it won't be necessary. Hopefully not.
>As for a cheap source of fibre optic cable (probably want to work with >the plastic 'light-guide' stuff instead - no requirement to polish the >ends) I have no ideas. Sure -- cheap multi-strand plastic fiber, of the kind which is normally used for microscope illuminators and the like, not the expensive and difficult to terminate single glass fibers used for computer communication links. You certainly don't need the bandwidth that the single fiber offers, and the single fiber also needs a coupling at each end, while the multi-strand probably is sufficient to just point each end at the proper sensor/generator.
>Seems a tad crazy to screw around with this when a simple wired >connection isn't going to be that expensive, and will *definitely* >work, especially if a working solution requires the fibre to be routed >all the way to the camera. Hmm ... I'm not sure about the wired connection if there is supposed to be communication between the camera and the flash beyond the "flash *now*" bit of information. The SB-28 which I have, either connects to the camera with a multi-contact hut shoe, or has provisions for a cable with three pin connector, which does not match anything on the D70 -- though it does match a connector on the N90s, and the CoolPix 950. The shoe adaptor which I have for connecting the built-in flash on the Medical Nikkor to the camera's shoe is a single PC contact. (The SB-28 has such a contact as well as the three-pin, but I doubt that it carries anything more than a "flash now" command.
>>P.S. Pity the "wireless" link is not actually RF based, at which point >>it would be fine, unless totally enclosed in aluminum foil. :-) > >Indeed. Although I haven't played with this too much, I have yet to >see a setup (and I also haven't boxed a flash yet) that fails using >wireless. There is certainly no requirement for direct line of sight. Assuming that the command IR is bright enough, and that the soft box's diffuser will pass IR (And perhaps that the subject is reflective enough in the IR to bounce the command pulse train to the flash.)
>Think of it this way: The camera is aimed at the subject, which means >the on-board flash will illuminate the subject. The white box or other >enclosure is usually also aimed at the subject, so at least some of >the light will bounce and illuminate the inside of the white box. Assuming that none of the restrictions which I listed get in the way.
>Modern electronics are fairly sensitive. We hope.... Amen!
Enjoy, DoN.
 Signature Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Owamanga - 31 Mar 2005 22:39 GMT >In article <c5qn41hh3e9kqpqaf4ob0i4l3lmoch7ojh@4ax.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >SB-28 has such a contact as well as the three-pin, but I doubt that it >carries anything more than a "flash now" command. Good questions, and I don't know the answer. I'd hope that the same data can be passed through both connections too, but you never can tell what crazy designers decide.
A series of tests are required. The technology is called "Plug and Pray".
>>>P.S. Pity the "wireless" link is not actually RF based, at which point >>>it would be fine, unless totally enclosed in aluminum foil. :-) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >box's diffuser will pass IR (And perhaps that the subject is reflective >enough in the IR to bounce the command pulse train to the flash.) From my own tests with a remote control, human skin seems to be fairly shiny to IR.
I'd hope soft box diffuser wouldn't block IR, they are *supposed* to be color-flat, which should allow for the deeper end of the reds to go through. All good theory anyway...
-- Owamanga! http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
|
|
|