Altura flash units

Evening everyone,

A friend stopped by with a bag of equipment she wanted to get rid of. This collection included Nikon D5101, a couple of decent lenses and a flash under the name Altura. Never heard of that one and first thought it dated back to the Pentax K1000 that was in the bag too. A closer look and reading the instructions indicate it is compatible with Nikon DSLR bodies. Is anyone familiar with this brand? The lenses in the bag are nearly new condition and I can use them with my crop frame bodies but honestly I wouldn’t mind having a decent flash along for the ride if it is worth having. Interestingly it came with a remote triggering system. I only use flash when I absolutely have to but once in awhile it’s what works. Anyone familiar with it? Thanks.

Rick H.

Altura? Not a 'known' make.

Is this their website?

If it's the 305n model shown there, then it appears to be made by Godox, and shouldn't be too bad.

Anyhow, it'll cost nothing to try the flash out.

I don't think the camera can be a Nikon D5101, since that number doesn't appear to exist. Is it a D5100 by any chance?

Altogether not a bad little haul you've been given.

It should be noted that I am apparently incapable of proper typing on Sunday. Yes a 5100. The lenses are a Tokina 11-16/2.8 and a Nikkor 14-140. Also an 18-55 Nikkor. My biggest gripe about digital has been the dx format as it screwed up all my wide angle perspectives. A 28mm just wasn’t the same . These are literally the first wide lenses I have ever had for that format. It has taken less time and more money to get full frame bodies. The whole rig looks pretty decent though I doubt the 5100 will get out much. Having looked more closely at the manual for the flash it is starting to look quite versatile.

Rick H.

A 28mm just wasn’t the same

No it wouldn't be. It gives the same AoV as a short-standard 42mm on full-frame.

You need an 18mm on DX to emulate a 28mm on full-frame.

Personally, I don't see the DX format as an either/or choice. It complements a full-frame kit for subjects that need magnification: Telephoto or macro work. Where the extra depth-of-field for a given aperture is often a big advantage. And carrying a DX camera plus VR 300mm f/5.6 is no big deal. Whereas a good 450/500mm f/5.6 VR lens is A) bulky and heavy, and B) bloody expensive!

Having said that; if I was starting out from scratch, I'd get just a hi-res full frame mirrorless body. These auto-switch from FF to DX if you fit DX lenses. Giving equal resolution to a good DX body with DX lenses, and mind-blowing resolution at Full-frame, and with less weight and bulk than a DX DSLR. Win, win.

BTW, if that 11-16mm Tokina is as good as my 11-20mm version, you should be well pleased.

I doubt the 5100 will get out much.

You say that now. Report back when you've used it a few times.

Personally, I don't see the DX format as an either/or choice. It complements a full-frame kit for subjects that need magnification: Telephoto or macro work. Where the extra depth-of-field for a given aperture is often a big advantage.

There is no extra depth of field. At any given f-number, and magnification, it is the same no matter how big or small the sensor.

There's also no extra magnification when going form FF to DX. Just tighter framing. A crop from FF.

Filling both frames, FF and DX, with the same subject, FF will indeed have higher magnification... on the sensor. If you go on and view both mages displayed at the same size, magnification and depth of field, will be the same again.

Which is one strike against DX: any FF sensor also is a DX sensor. You just have to crop. Most FF cameras will do that for you, if you so wish. Or you can do so in post. So, apart from financial issues, and maybe size, there is no need for DX cameras.

There is no extra depth of field. At any given f-number, and magnification, it is the same no matter how big or small the sensor.

Nonsense. Utter nonsense.

The magnification is obviously not the same if the field of view is kept the same across formats. Otherwise, as you say, it's simply a crop.

The whole point is that the lens focal length is changed along with the format size, in order to keep the subject framing the same.

Get yourself a decent depth-of-field calculator and see what happens as the focal length changes in proportion with sensor size.

Or you can simply shoot the same scene from the same viewpoint and aperture with two different focal length lenses. View the same area at the same size, and the shorter focal length will show a greater depth-of-field.

Which is one strike against DX: any FF sensor also is a DX sensor. You just have to crop.

No you don't! You have to change the lens focal length downwards as well.

Jeez. This stupid argument should have been settled years ago!

Nonsense. Utter nonsense.

The magnification is obviously not the same if the field of view is kept the same across formats. Otherwise, as you say, it's simply a crop.

 

The whole point is that the lens focal length is changed along with the format size, in order to keep the subject framing the same.

It would be good if you read and respond to all that was written.

The size, and thus final magnification, an image is viewed as is not determined by the size of the film or sensor used to capture it. Whether you use a DX or FF camera, if your favorite viewing method is a 4x5" print or a 14" computer screen, that, not the sensor size, determines the amount of magnification.

The imaged captured on the smaller DX sensor will be enlarged more. And depth of field is the same

Get yourself a decent depth-of-field calculator and see what happens as the focal length changes in proportion with sensor size.

Impossible.

Any decent (!) depth of field calculator will not (!) show any difference when focal length changes. Those that do are completely worthless.

Focal length only (!) figures in depth of field as part of the one of two things that do really matter: magnification (magnification is the product of focal length and lens to subject distance).

Or you can simply shoot the same scene from the same viewpoint and aperture with two different focal length lenses. View the same area at the same size, and the shorter focal length will show a greater depth-of-field.

If only you, and may other people, would do that themselves...

You would see that there is no difference in depth of field.

But instead the same old same old fallacies are passed around. A shame.

No you don't! You have to change the lens focal length downwards as well.

 

Jeez. This stupid argument should have been settled years ago!

It has been. But you didn't get the memo?

The size of a sensor has nothing to do with the focal length of whatever lens you want to put in front of it.

36 mm = 36 mm. 24 mm = 24 mm. You can use a 24 mm part from a 36 mm sensor. See?

But you're confusing a couple of things (that have been settled long ago, yes. Jeez...!). Viz. your talk about extra depth of field.

So, to sum up: your reply is

Nonsense. Utter nonsense.

Sorry!

If only you, and may other people, would do that themselves

Do you really think I haven't?

Q.G. please follow your own advice and do the experiment(s) for yourself. You'll clearly see that using a shorter focal length with a proportionally smaller format, gives a greater depth-of-field than a larger format/lens pairing, regardless of how much you magnify the result.

Depth-of-field isn't an absolute. It's a comparative change of 'blur' compared to the minimum point-spread in the image. Closer examination, or greater magnification of the image increases both the minimum point-spread, and that due to defocus, equally.

Impossible.

Any decent (!) depth of field calculator will not (!) show any difference when focal length changes.

Of course it will. Depth-of-field is linked to the physical aperture size. Therefore a shorter focal length at any given f-number and subject-distance will have a smaller 'hole' diameter, and give more depth-of-field than a longer lens. It's DoF calculators that don't show any difference that are useless.

In addition, for a given focal length, lenses designed to cover a smaller image circle tend to have greater resolution than those designed for a larger circle. This adds to the advantage of using a smaller format, but has nothing to do with the very real increase in depth-of-field shown.

Your brain sees what your eyes do not, Rodeo Person.

Depth of field does not change with image capture format or focal length. It only depends on final magnification and f-number. Nothing else.

That's fact.

What changes with focal length, at same magnification, is the rate that blur changes with changing distance. Faster with shorter focal lengths. Depth of field itself still is independent of focal length and capture format.

Depth of field is an absolute, based on a choice of how much blur is too much blur. Geater magnification will increase the size of the circle of confusion. When it gets bigger than the chosen limit, it's no more in depth of field. Whether a circle of confusion is smaller or larger than a given size is an absolute.

You're still wrong about DoF depending on focal length. And also that resolution figures in the concept. (though it has an effect, in that the sharper a lens is, the moe obvious it is when a point is no longer a point. It shows indeed that DoF is arbitrary. Acceptablr blur. But given the CoC size chosen, it is an absolute, still.

You're also wrong that lenses designed for smaller formats have greater resolution. That idea is an incorrect reversal of the knowledge that they have to have greater resolving power to be able to equal larger formats.

But is not a factual thing that they do indeed have a greater resolution. Some do. Most don't.

I'm getting a bit tired of doing this exercise for people that are too lazy to do it themselves.

1. Full-frame (36mm x 24mm) image taken with 36mm lens @ f/4:

2. 'DX' (16mm x 24mm) image taken with 24mm lens @ f/4:

3. 1/1.7" (5.65mm x 7.53mm) image taken with ~ 8mm lens @ f/4:

The subject distance remained the same in all cases, and each camera was carefully focussed on the 'Mixed Herbs' jar.

The overall magnification, as can be seen, has been kept as close as possible - with the same pixel height of the jars.

Now, while the difference in depth-of-field between the Full-frame and DX images isn't glaringly obvious, it is noticeable to those that care to look. However when we come to the tiny compact camera format, it would take an idiot to say that the depth-of-field was exactly the same, since it's clearly much greater.

FWIW. I posted similar visual proof a few years back, but the jpeg seems to no longer be linked to.