 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / May 2007canon 20D flash sync at 1/320?
When I attach a canon speedlite 550ex (high speed sync off) on a 20D, the shutter speed automatically reduced to 1/250s if I had it faster. Is there a way to override this? I found by experiment, I can flash sync at 1/320s (the experiment is done with a 3rd party flash that does not change the shutter speed). So I would like to use this speed with the canon speedlite, but it won't let me. Any ideas? I checked all the custom functions and none of them look like it would help. > When I attach a canon speedlite 550ex (high speed sync off) on a 20D, the > shutter speed automatically reduced to 1/250s if I had it faster. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Any ideas? I checked all the custom functions and none of them look like it > would help. Turn high speed sync on. That's why they call it high speed sync. >> When I attach a canon speedlite 550ex (high speed sync off) on a 20D, the >> shutter speed automatically reduced to 1/250s if I had it faster. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Turn high speed sync on. That's why they call it high speed sync. I don't want to, that why I turn it off. High speed sync is less powerful than low speed sync. Cheating the sync speed is equivalent to boosting the flash's output power when used as a fill flash. Don't know why canon won't allow it even in manual mode. Why is it called manual mode if the shutter speed is changed automatically for me?? $Don't know why canon won't allow it even in manual mode. Why is it called $manual mode if the shutter speed is changed automatically for me?? Remember that the output of a flash is controlled not by adjusting its intensity but by adjusting its duration. The more power you want, the longer the flash is on. The camera's maximum X-sync speed has to be designed such that it will not cause problems with the longest possible flash burst, which will depend on the flash unit but is usually more than 1 ms and perhaps as much as 2 ms. With the flash taking that long, that means that in order to achieve a maximum X-sync speed of 1/250, the shutter curtains must be able to make their full motion in 2 ms (during the first 2 ms, the first curtain opens; for the next 2 ms, the shutter is fully open; during the next 2 ms, the second curtain closes). 2 ms isn't a lot of time to take a physical device, accelerate it from rest to full speed and have it traverse the opening. Chances are that if you fire a full-power flash burst with the shutter speed set to 1/320, the second curtain is going to start closing before the flash has completed firing. Now, since flash output rises rapidly and falls slowly, the part of the flash burst that you're blocking as the second curtain starts to close is quite dim and likely will be very hard to spot in the results - but it's nevertheless not syncing correctly. On the other hand, if you fire a partial-power burst, it will take quite a bit less time, perhaps much less than 1 ms, and in this case there *is* enough time for the flash to complete before the second curtain starts to close, even at a shutter speed above maximum X-sync. As for why the camera doesn't allow you to pick a higher sync speed at least some of the time, well, the camera doesn't know how long the flash burst will be. That's controlled by the flash. And the flash may not know, either; among other things, it depends on whether you let the capacitor charge fully before firing the flash. The camera and the flash don't even know at what strength to fire the flash until flash metering is done, which (unless you use flash exposure lock) doesn't happen until after the ambient exposure value has already been set. Anyway, the bottom line is that the camera's specs clearly indicate that 1/250 is the maximum X-sync speed. If you expected something else, you were mistaken. If you absolutely need to use a flash along with a shutter speed that's only a third of a stop above what the specs say, go ahead and use a non-dedicated flash (the camera doesn't know it's there and therefore will not impose the maximum X-sync limit) and hope for the best.  SignatureStephen M. Dunn <stephen@stevedunn.ca> >>>----------------> http://www.stevedunn.ca/ <----------------<<< ------------------------------------------------------------------ Say hi to my cat -- http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/toby/ Another resounding reason (among dozens) of why I went with advanced P&S cameras instead of DSLRs when I switched from film to digital. On my Sony I can shoot with flash (IN SYNC) up to 1/2000th of a second. Using shutter speeds above 1/500th of a second to even alter the strength of flash I'm exposing for. On my Canon S3 I can shoot (IN SYNC) up to 1/500th of a second, even in 1st and 2nd curtain modes. There's just no getting around last century's SLR mechanical shutter & mirror-slap technology when you go the DSLR route. It's a shame that so many are still hoping that DSLRs will be able to incorporate digital imaging technology to its fullest. They keep giving manufacturers excuses and a fool's financial-incentive to put R&D into DSLRs instead of surpassing them with more advanced P&S cameras, from which we will all benefit. >$Don't know why canon won't allow it even in manual mode. Why is it called >$manual mode if the shutter speed is changed automatically for me?? [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >know it's there and therefore will not impose the maximum X-sync >limit) and hope for the best. > Another resounding reason (among dozens) of why I went with advanced P&S cameras > instead of DSLRs when I switched from film to digital. On my Sony I can shoot > with flash (IN SYNC) up to 1/2000th of a second. How about posting some of those Mavica shots so we can have a laugh (oops, I meant a "look"). >> Another resounding reason (among dozens) of why I went with advanced P&S cameras >> instead of DSLRs when I switched from film to digital. On my Sony I can shoot >> with flash (IN SYNC) up to 1/2000th of a second. > >How about posting some of those Mavica shots so we can have a laugh >(oops, I meant a "look"). Who said it was a Mavica? Fool. My Sony P&S has more megapixels and higher resolution than your DSLR and can take photos in the pitch-black using only IR. Surpassing your ancient DSLR in every respect. Jealous? You should be. > Who said it was a Mavica? Fool. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Jealous? You should be. More megapixels? Possibly. More resolution? I kinda doubt it. Can't wait to see some of your awesome pics, like those 1/2000 shots with flash. Or just a regular pic shown full-size. Then maybe we can judge the superiority of your Mavica. >>> Another resounding reason (among dozens) of why I went with advanced P&S >>> cameras [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Jealous? You should be. Let's see some ISO 1600 shots, or how about shots at 640mm focal length (35mm equivalent)? >>>> Another resounding reason (among dozens) of why I went with advanced >>>> P&S cameras [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Let's see some ISO 1600 shots, Please. Let's not. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >>> Another resounding reason (among dozens) of why I went with advanced P&S cameras >>> instead of DSLRs when I switched from film to digital. On my Sony I can shoot [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Jealous? You should be. Of what? There are only four Sony cameras with better than the 8.2 MP of the 20D; the DSLR-A100, which is a dslr, not a P&S, so that's out; the DSC-R1 which is properly a zlr, not a p&s; and two point&shoots, the DSC-W200 at 12 MP on a small 1/1.7" sensor; and the DSC-N2, a 10MP P&S with another 1/1.7" sensor. Neither of the latter two have external flash capability, so raving about shooting flash at 1/2000 sec with the miniscule herring-gutted internal flash is a joke, not to mention the fixed lens maximum length of only about 110 or 120 mm. The implied comparison with Canon lenses is farcical. Noise from those sensors at higher ISO speeds seriously limits the practicability of using those speeds whereas the 20D and similar dslrs have good noise characteristics up to at least 1600 ISO, just no contest there. As for IR shots in the dark, how many shots like that do you take? Is that a cogent reason for rejecting a camera that is otherwise light-years ahead in capability? Of course, it could be that you do have a DSC-R1 zlr, in which case it would appear that you don't know what is a P&S and what isn't. But even if that is the case you are still stuck with a 24-120 mm zoom, and 3 frames max at a time (then wait for 4 seconds or more) for sports shooting. And at 10 MP versus Canon's 8.2 MP, the practical difference is barely discernible, and then only at big enlargements. You sound like an inexperienced youngster with no practical experience, and all your 'knowledge' is learned from websites and brochures. Come back later when you've learned a bit more. This is not to say that Sony cameras are no good; it's to say that 'Nobody' doesn't know what he is talking about. Colin D. PS: The above references to Canon apply also to Nikon and other genuine dslrs; Canon is mentioned only because 'Nobody' was boasting about his P&S as against Annika's Canon 20D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > When I attach a canon speedlite 550ex (high speed sync off) on a 20D, the > shutter speed automatically reduced to 1/250s if I had it faster. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Any ideas? I checked all the custom functions and none of them look like it > would help. High speed synch should be turned on. Signaturejohn mcwilliams > High speed synch should be turned on. High speed sync has many problems. It has a much lower GN, even at just 1/3 stop faster than the x-sync (and gets progressively worse with faster shutter speeds). It wastes power, with the majority of light at any given time falling on the shutter curtains instead of the sensor. It has no action-stopping power, beyond the shutter speed, as it is basically just an auxilliary pulsing lamp. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > When I attach a canon speedlite 550ex (high speed sync off) on a 20D, the > shutter speed automatically reduced to 1/250s if I had it faster. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Any ideas? I checked all the custom functions and none of them look like it > would help. As I'm sure you know, flash sync speed is driven by shutter mechanics. Faster shutters allow faster sync speeds, the best for FP shutters being 1/300 (Minolta, Nikon). Canon max sync speeds are 1/250. (Some Nikon dslr's like the D70 also have electronic shuttering in the way they use the sensor thereby achieving 1/500 flash sync). It's tough doing fast shutters. Nikon have reduced the max sync in the F6 to 1/250 from 1/300 (F5). OTOH, the added value is also questionable. With my Maxxum 9 (flash sync=1/300) I can get 1/350 shots using the flash sync terminal. With my Maxxum 7D (flash sync=1/160) I can get 1/200. With a Maxxum flash it of course limits it to 1/300 and 1/160 respectively (and 1/125 with anti-shake activated). With that and your experience it's reasonable to assume that the max shutter speed is conservative by 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop to allow for manufacturing variance, environment (temperature) and aging. Bret and John recommend high-speed sync but that reduces your available power considerably, esp. when you get to 1/1000 and faster. Most of the flash light is wasted on the shutter curtains... it remains a good way to get shallow DOF on bright scenes where you want some action freeze and fill in the foreground. But then so does a ND filter with normal sync flash... and paradoxically due to the great inefficiency of HSS, you'll actually save flash batteries with a 2 stop ND in place once you're at 1/1000 (or so) and faster. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > With that and your experience it's reasonable to assume that the max > shutter speed is conservative by 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop to allow for [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > due to the great inefficiency of HSS, you'll actually save flash batteries > with a 2 stop ND in place once you're at 1/1000 (or so) and faster. Thanks, you're the only reply that understands my need (almost). I do plan to use a ND filter to reduce DOF. If I can cheat the sync speed, I could effectively reduce the sunlight's intensity and enable fill-in flash at greater shooting distance, or save flash power at the same distance (battery pack last longer), and less blinding flash into the subjects' eyes. This auto-limiting sync speed in *manual mode* reminds me of parents who tell their child they can do whatever they want, and then meddle in the child's business. > I do plan > to use a ND filter to reduce DOF. How does an ND filter reduce depth of field? Roger On Sat, 19 May 2007 22:08:34 -0700, Roger N. Clark, who cannot possibly see this reply as anything other than a personal attack, (change username to rnclark) wrote: >> I do plan to use a ND filter to reduce DOF. > > How does an ND filter reduce depth of field? You should know the answer to that quite well. A larger aperture produces a smaller DOF. Depending on conditions (lack of tripod, slow shutter speed required for shot, already using lowest ISO, excessively bright day) it may be difficult or impossible to increase the aperture unless an ND filter is available. Technically, and rather obviously, an ND filter by itself has no effect on the DOF. Cameras have many interrelated attributes (think ISO/noise), but in the process of trying to show your mastery of all things photographic by winning an easy debating point, you show that once again a clear response that actually helps people probably isn't the primary goal. The flash complicates matters, and if you think that it would somehow prevent an ND filter from helping the OP to get a shallower DOF, it would have been nice to explain why, rather than baiting the OP with your question. You have better things to do, and as I've said elsewhere, Floyd is currently on a roll. Why not help him out. He needs you, desperately. :) <attack deleted> > Technically, and rather obviously, an ND filter by itself has no > effect on the DOF. Of course I know how an ND might be used too change DOF. I posted a simple question to see how the OP was using an ND with a flash. It is not a simple problem, and the ND does not itself change DOF. From his response, it might open other dialog, but with your attack, he is probably scared off. To the OP: some people in this newsgroup seem only out to attack other people, and waste a lot of space and often destroy discussions. The attack by ASAAR is yet another example. Roger photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com > Of course I know how an ND might be used too change > DOF. I posted a simple question to see how the OP > was using an ND with a flash. It is not a simple > problem, and the ND does not itself change DOF. > From his response, it might open other dialog, > but with your attack, he is probably scared off. And of course you saw my reply as an "attack", just as I predicted you would. > To the OP: some people in this newsgroup seem only > out to attack other people, and waste a lot of > space and often destroy discussions. The > attack by ASAAR is yet another example. And as usual, your knee-jerk reaction is not to open the dialog that you profess to prefer, but to turn an imaginary attack into a real one. > And as usual, your knee-jerk reaction is not to open the dialog > that you profess to prefer, but to turn an imaginary attack into a > real one. Hmm.... Let's see who did the "knee-jerk" reaction. A simple question: Roger N. Clark wrote: > How does an ND filter reduce depth of field? It was an honest question. While I carry an ND filter as standard, I have never used one for such an application with a flash. The ND reduces the flash power reducing flash range, so it is not a simple answer. Perhaps the OP has some insight. Your response: > but in the process of trying to show your mastery of all > things photographic by winning an easy debating point, you show that > once again a clear response that actually helps people probably > isn't the primary goal. You are the one with the knee-jerk reaction, and further proof you are a troll waiting to pounce on people at your slightest perception of wrongdoing. You are ruining this newsgroup. I come here to learn, and sometimes I can help teach in the areas where I have some expertise. Roger On Sun, 20 May 2007 20:00:29 -0700, Roger N. Clark (change username to rnparanoid) wrote: > You are the one with the knee-jerk reaction, and further proof > you are a troll waiting to pounce on people at your slightest > perception of wrongdoing. You are ruining this newsgroup. THE VARIOUS GROUPS I OCCASIONALLY VISIT ARE HEREBY PUT ON NOTICE THAT THEIR PREVIOUS RANTS, LIES, DEFAMATORY COMMENTS, DISPARAGING REMARKS AND NICKNAMES, AND ALL OTHER FORMS OF DEFAMING ME, MY GOOD NAME, MY REPUTATION, AND MY ABILITY TO EARN A LIVING WILL HEREBY STOP - IMMEDIATELY. COMBINING WITH OTHERS TO DEMEAN ME WILL BE CONSIDERED TO BE PRIMA FACE EVIDENCE OF A CONSPIRACY OF TWO OR MORE PEOPLE TO COMMIT LIBEL, SLANDER, PERJURY, OR OTHER FORMS OF DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER. ALL OF WHAT YOU HAVE SAID TO DATE HAS BEEN CAPTURED INTO SAFE TEXT REPOSITORIES COMPLETE WITH YOUR HEADERS SHOWING YOU ISP AND NSP, IP ADDRESS, AND OTHER MEANS OF IDENTIFYING YOUR IDENTITY. The various games played by so many people under the guise of simple humor, flame wars, making sport, inventing lies, and other forms of believed light-hearted fun will stop immediately wrt to me. I will no longer tolerate any aspersions cast at me, my family, my career at work or in the military, or . . . or . . . oops. Whew! Please excuse. I don't know what came over me. Maybe it's the resemblence. Very slight. Very slight. No indication yet that meds are called for. :) >On Sun, 20 May 2007 20:00:29 -0700, Roger N. Clark (change username >to rnparanoid) wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >the resemblence. Very slight. Very slight. No indication yet that >meds are called for. :) Typical self-victimizing behavior. He manipulates people into victimizing him so he can blame them for his own actions. It's the way the whole middle-east works for 2000 years. Using self-victimization they manage to manipulate the world into giving them attention every day of their existence. Best to just ignore people like him and any cultures and countries like him, just pretend they don't even exist. Otherwise you get trapped in their infinite self-victimizing cesspool of manipulations. They'll just go do it to the next person if they can't manipulate you into their infantile trap. >> Whew! Please excuse. I don't know what came over me. Maybe it's >> the resemblence. Very slight. Very slight. No indication yet that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > middle- east works for 2000 years. Using self-victimization they manage to > manipulate the world into giving them attention every day of their existence. Interestingly, he made similar accusations a couple of months ago several hours after I praised him for posting the kind of helpful reply I was trying to nudge him towards, and which I knew he was knew he was capable of making. He sees things differently of course, but what I see is that he has a really hard time accepting criticism, seeing most positive criticism as negative, going so far as to equate it with "attacks". Contrast that with a number of others, especially from the much more mature Wayne J. Cosshall, who finds ways to recognize useful suggestions even from those that go out of their way to reply with insulting comments. On May 21, 5:00 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <usern...@qwest.net> wrote: > It was an honest question. While I carry an ND filter > as standard, I have never used one for such an application > with a flash. The ND reduces the flash power reducing > flash range, so it is not a simple answer. Perhaps > the OP has some insight. If I use a 1 stop ND filter and open up the aperture by 1 stop, the balance of flash light to ambient light at each distance will remain the same as if there was no ND filter and my aperture was 1 stop wider, no? Or were you thinking of putting the ND filter on the flash instead (which would obviously have the effect you mention, ie reducing flash range)? > On May 21, 5:00 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" > <usern...@qwest.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > instead (which would obviously have the effect you mention, ie > reducing flash range)? I think this is how it goes with the ND: the flash has a maximum duration, which along with the intensity dictates the guide number. When you add the ND effectively the guide number drops, so even though you expose longer for a general scene, if you were at the limit of the flash without the ND, then with the ND you are over its limit and your image is underexposed. If you are still within range of the flash after putting on the ND, then you are OK and can effectively use the longer exposure/wider aperture. However, if you put on the ND without changing exposure and only increase aperture then there should be no change in the guide number, if the aperture change exactly compensated for the ND reduction. A lot of things to balance, including do you have enough aperture that you can open up to compensate for the ND. If you can't open up enough to compensate for the ND loss, then again you risk underexposure. Roger On May 22, 1:47 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <usern...@qwest.net> wrote: > > On May 21, 5:00 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" > > <usern...@qwest.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > If you can't open up enough to compensate for the ND > loss, then again you risk underexposure. Well I don't disagree with anything you say, but if I think of adding an n-stop ND filter as reducing the ISO by n stops, then I don't see much complication. Maybe I am missing something, I don't use ND filters or flashes. OP (:::) ::: If I can cheat the sync speed, I could effectively reduce the sunlight's ::: intensity and enable fill-in flash at greater shooting distance, or save ::: flash power at the same distance (battery pack last longer), and less ::: blinding flash into the subjects' eyes. >> I think this is how it goes with the ND: >> the flash has a maximum duration, which along with the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > much complication. Maybe I am missing something, I don't use ND > filters or flashes. You didn't miss anything and the OP gave every indication that he fully understands the tradeoffs of using an ND filter. Proving my contention that if Roger had any useful, helpful, unobvious information to provide, he should have simply posted it, and it would have been to everyone's benefit. He later claimed that his reply was simply an "honest question", but his final, 'obvious' explanation shows otherwise, the condescending "How does an ND filter reduce depth of field?" was more likely asked for the reason I gave than Roger's face saving after-the-fact explanation. I showed how the ND filter could reduce DOF, said that Roger should also know the answer "quite well" and I'd be amazed if the OP hasn't also known that for many years, as well as most people that have purchased ND filters. As you've shown, owning and using an ND filter (or flash) is no great obstacle to understanding such a simple concept. > OP (:::) > ::: If I can cheat the sync speed, I could effectively reduce the sunlight's [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > filter (or flash) is no great obstacle to understanding such a > simple concept. What is your problem? It was an honest question, and I had not thought through the implications because like acl, I have never used an ND filter with a flash. Stop trying to find a problems to pounce on people. You spend too much time doing just that to many here. Roger > What is your problem? It was an honest question, > and I had not thought through the implications because like acl, > I have never used an ND filter with a flash. > Stop trying to find a problems to pounce on people. > You spend too much time doing just that to many here. The problem is that you find it extremely difficult to admit the obvious. If a complete newbie asked "How does an ND filter reduce depth of field?" I'd have no problem believing that it was a simple, honest question. That you'd ask such a question and feign ignorance given your history of knowing and writing papers delving into the most minute, esoteric camera and photography details, such as (remember this?) trying to prove or demonstrate that DSLRs have as much DOF as point & shoot cameras, and then expect us to believe that you're asking someone to explain to you how a ND filter can reduce DOF? Give us a break! Whether we get along or rub each other the wrong way is of no matter in this instance. I readily admit that you know more about photographic minutia than most people here, and most ng regulars that have read your messages probably agree. But that doesn't mean that you can get away with pretending to not understand such a basic concept as to how an ND filter can be used to reduce the DOF. That's so simple one might almost expect it to be rejected from a "Dummies" manual. And all this to avoid having to admit the real motive for your question. Sheesh. > The problem is that you find it extremely difficult to admit the > obvious. If a complete newbie asked "How does an ND filter reduce [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > to be rejected from a "Dummies" manual. And all this to avoid > having to admit the real motive for your question. Sheesh. You are wrong again. >> But that doesn't mean that you can get away with pretending >> to not understand such a basic concept as to how an ND filter can be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >You are wrong again. Perhaps this is an error in semantics. Some people assume or think that DOF refers always to a shallow DOF (depth of field) because that's when the term DOF is most often used. DOF does not automatically refer to a shallow (narrow) or deep (long) DOF, it's just Depth-Of-Field. It has to be further qualified on if you are intending to discuss a shallow or deep DOF. "Reduce the DOF" can be taken both ways. Are you reducing a shallow DOF (making it deeper) or reducing a deep DOF (making it shallower, more narrow)? I blame most of this on the english language and camera conventions. (Are you going UPtown or DOWNtown? In english they mean the same thing.) For a newbie, when you say "increase the aperture", they sometimes think that means to increase the f/stop number. This, of course, is backward. Because the greater the f/stop number the smaller/lesser the aperture. Or to use a greater shutter speed. Does that mean use a longer (greater) shutter time? Or shorter shutter time? The number 1000 is much higher than 1/4th after-all, and those are the numbers presented to them on their camera settings. All of these things can be taken in 100% reverse if some universal conventions or precise language isn't agreed upon first, leading to vast misunderstandings. Anytime you are reducing the available light entering the lens (as in using an ND filter) you are going to have to compensate for it in 1 of 4 ways, 1) Increase the length of the exposure (lower shutter speeds), 2) enlarge the lens aperture (decrease the f/number), 3) raise the available ISO number (by the film used or digital camera setting), or 4) add in more light, as in the use of a flash. Option #2 would indeed reduce (narrow, make more shallow) a deep DOF. But it would also increase the shallowness of the DOF (make it even more shallow). See, it can be written both ways but you have to define what kind of DOF you are referring to first when you are saying you are going to increase it or reduce it. >> . . . But that doesn't mean that you can get away with pretending >> to not understand such a basic concept as to how an ND filter can be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You are wrong again. English translation: I remain no less resolute than Señor Bush when it comes to admitting no error or deception, despite overwhelming evidence sufficient to embarrass a Wolfowitz. >>> . . . But that doesn't mean that you can get away with pretending >>> to not understand such a basic concept as to how an ND filter can be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > when it comes to admitting no error or deception, despite > overwhelming evidence sufficient to embarrass a Wolfowitz. Wrong again. I admit my mistakes. > <attack deleted> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > From his response, it might open other dialog, > but with your attack, he is probably scared off. I simply never came back to this NG since that posting, but the use of an ND to reduce DOF (by forcing a larger aperture) should be quite evident to most, whether or not flash is used. Yes, more flash power will be required, but it's still less than wasteful HSS. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. My 580EX has a high speed sync mode and I can pick any shutter speed I want. Don't know about your flash. I have found that using a slower shutter speed helps use more ambient light. >When I attach a canon speedlite 550ex (high speed sync off) on a 20D, the >shutter speed automatically reduced to 1/250s if I had it faster. > >Is there a way to override this? It's hard to know why you would want to. >I found by experiment, I can flash sync at 1/320s (the experiment is done >with a 3rd party flash that does not change the shutter speed). So I would >like to use this speed with the canon speedlite, but it won't let me. That's because 1/250s is the flash sync speed for that camera, and it will adjust the sutter speed accordingly. And, as a practical matter, it rarely matters much anyway sicne the flash speed it so much faster than the shutter. If you want to reduce non-flash light then you can also reduce the aperture or use a neutral density filter. Or turn off the lights. SignatureRay Fischer rfischer@sonic.net |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.