External flashes

[ukcatfan]

Personally, I think Rockwell is mostly a joke. Bring his name up in a group of pro shooters, and laughter will ensue. Here's a site that's decided that Ken is the "Chuck Norris" of photography:

That is too funny!!!

He only has himself to blame for being teased. I say he is like the Paris Hilton of photography. Just like her, he could have laid low and lived his life virtually unknown, but he decided to put himself in the spotlight.

Kevin

 

[jann1033]

smartshooters listed metz 54 as #1 flash...the metz 58 also looks very good and has a usb outlet for updates...and epinions rated them good with nikon( some special nikon type of thing some 3rd parties dont' work well with the metz works well with...) both are mid $300s not sure how much the nikons are..

the good thing is also when you sell all your stuff and buy a canon ( )you can update the foot with the 54 and still use the same flash. both also have a neat little fill flash light that can be used if you bounce the main head and all the stuff like hs, modeling light, etc. (that is my anniversary gift this yr that i am " encouraging" husband to buy a few months early)

just thought i'd throw that in the confuse the issue.....

 

[handicap18]

Personally, I wouldn't bother with the SB-400. Sure its smaller and might be easier to carry around, but how much smaller is than the 600? At least the 600 folds out flat and takes up only a small section of the camera bag. In that regard the 400 would actually take up more room.

No bounce capability at all. Even though you might not have ever used a bounce flash in the past that doesn't mean that once you get one you still one. Its a whole new world of flash photography. The majority of my flash pictures I use the flash in the bounce position (mostly with a diffuser attached). I think it gives better colors to the picture and definately (IMO) distributes the light better.

The 600 is very easy to use and is pretty powerful too. If Ken Rockwell says it is all but uselss then he needs to go into rehab to get off any substance he is taking. If he's not on anything, then he should start taking something to get his head straight. No wonder I never read any of his reviews.

 

[Steve's Girl]

I have the SB-600 and really like using it. The SB-800 just seemed to be way more than I needed and not to mention quite a bit more expensive. The SB-600 was enough for me with plenty of room to grow into it and does not cost that much more than the SB-400. I probably use the flash more in portrait than in landscape and almost always bouce the flash inside. So, to me, if a flash can't do those things, why bother? Just my very novice opinion.

 

[KrazyPete]

Personally, I wouldn't bother with the SB-400. Sure its smaller and might be easier to carry around, but how much smaller is than the 600?.

I've seen the 400 next to the 800 in the store and I'd say it's probably about half the size. The 800 and the 600 are very similar in size.

No bounce capability at all.

I think the OP knows this already but the 400 does bounce. It flips up but won't rotate. So bouncing with the camera in a landscape orientation is no problem. When you rotate the camera into a portrait orientation then you're bouncing off the wall instead of the ceiling.

If Ken Rockwell is to be believed, then the built-in flash is awesome for almost every purpose. The 400 gives you some more power and the ability to bounce in one direction.

Personally, I think that if you bought a DSLR then you're a little more interested in taking artful photographs than your average snapshooter. If you are shooting in one of the automatic modes all the time then maybe you should have gotten one of the nicer point and shoot cameras. If you have a DSLR then I would think that you are at least experimenting with shutter speed, ISO, aperture, etc. If you are enjoying the creative control that DSLR provides then eventually you will want a flash like the 600 or the 800 (or maybe that Metz, I don't know). That's just my opinion. Take it for what it's worth... not much.

 

[Geoff_M]

I think the OP knows this already but the 400 does bounce. It flips up but won't rotate. So bouncing with the camera in a landscape orientation is no problem. When you rotate the camera into a portrait orientation then you're bouncing off the wall instead of the ceiling.

Wow, that's pretty funny... I've never heard computer page layout terminology applied to camera orientation. I guess I'm "old school" and still call it "horizontal" and "vertical"! Yes, just to clarify, I the 400 will bounce when the camera is shooting horizontally, but not vertically. I bounce vertically too often to be able to use an SB-400.

He only has himself to blame for being teased. I say he is like the Paris Hilton of photography. Just like her, he could have laid low and lived his life virtually unknown, but he decided to put himself in the spotlight.

My favorite articles of his are the "reviews" he writes of cameras that he hasn't even held and aren't yet released!

 

[fitzperry]

Okay, okay, I'll disregard the humble opinions of photography's Chuck Norris/Paris Hilton and spring for the 600. Anyone who thinks the on-camera flash is dandy fine for most purposes has different standards than I. Frankly, even taking into account his reputation, I was rather surprised to see a comment to that effect on Rockwell's site.

Haven't had a chance to check out the Metz yet (thanks for confusing me further jann ) as I've been knee deep in a painting project today, but I will do that before I buy.

Thanks for all the input.

 

[KrazyPete]

Wow, that's pretty funny... I've never heard computer page layout terminology applied to camera orientation. I guess I'm "old school" and still call it "horizontal" and "vertical"!

Sorry. I was a designer before I was a photographer. Old habits die hard.

 

[extreme8]

It was photography lexicon waaaay before it was applied to computers!

 

[KrazyPete]

It was photography lexicon waaaay before it was applied to computers!

Yay! I'm vindicated!

Actually that makes a lot of sense. I suppose you would tend to shoot a landscape horizontally and a portrait vertically.

 

[fitzperry]

It was photography lexicon waaaay before it was applied to computers!

That's what I thought too.

 

[Geoff_M]

It was photography lexicon waaaay before it was applied to computers!

Perhaps so, but I don't recall seeing a camera maker sell a "portrait grip" for the camera bodies or a camera have a "portrait shutter release" in the past!!!

 

[wkrider]

EXCELLENT,,,,,I just tried my flash for the hotshoe on the Pentax K100D and it works.

This is just getting better and better...now I have three lenses and a flash for the hotshoe.
It is a "Focal DT-5000 Zoom"
__________________

 

[tinksdad]

Nice!! Is that the flash model name? Pentax flash?

 

[wkrider]

Nice!! Is that the flash model name? Pentax flash?

This is what is written on the flash..."Focal DT-5000 Zoom"

 

[ukcatfan]

Just remember that b/c it is not a P-TTL, it will only work with manual adjustments to the flash settings.

Kevin

 

[Groucho]

Hmmm... I've never even bothered trying to use my old big flash on my Pentax DSLR... perhaps I should give it a try; even using manual settings would be a big improvement over the onboard flash, and may cut down on my distaste for flash photos.

 

[Groucho]

Man, I can't believe that I never actually bothered to try it. I had it on it once or twice when I first got the camera but never tried to take a photo. It does, indeed, work great!

My flash (a Sunpak auto 144 D) has very easy-to-read settings for what f-stop, ISO, etc to use. I went into manual mode on the camera, set the ISO to match, set the shutter to 1/60th, and instantly got a vastly superior flash photo when bouncing this off the ceiling. Guess I'll have one more thing to carry around... though I should still buy a "proper" P-TTL flash one of these days.

 

[photo_chick]

I had read before that using an older flash with a DSLR can cause problems. Something to do with the power in the flash causing a surge that could damage the DSLR.... So this is not true? I just remember reading it somewhere and have never used my older flash with my DSLR for this reason.

 

[donaldduck1967]

I've read the same thing. Older 35mm Flashes can cause some kind of power surge in the camera. I think I read it on dpreview, can't remember though.