Nikon Flash Question

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by lekaicasi46, Aug 7, 2021.

  1. What's a DIY?

    DIY is Do It Yourself here in the UK. Are people making their own flashguns?

    ... and the SC-29 external TTL Flash Cable.

    Err, why are they RED, so as not to ruin peoples night vision when you use it for portraits? :p
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2021
  2. Actually my $35 Cameron's were miss-priced in store, just like Amazon were selling expensive Sony lenses for pittance on Black Friday:) And I'm not Pro in photography.
    But on serious side, if I would Pro, Godox is beating overpriced Nikon and Canon lights flat and square. You should try one:)
  3. Great!
    Great. Please report back when you become a professional photographer. :) I do have some Godox somewhere, I think one of the things had a glitch or incompatibility and I had not used it for a long time. Now I have no idea where it/they went.

    Re what pros use: The most successful nature and wildlife professional photographers I know use Nikon or Canon for everything, and usually the most expensive models (Except for Maria Zorn whom I will always respect as the most creative macro photographer. She was a minimalist. Maria has retired for years now and does not even own a camera anymore. I forgot which Nikon camera she used - think it was F100 - and she almost exclusively used the Nikon 200mm micro lens to create her film magic that sometimes looked like manipulated digital shots right out of the camera. Sometimes she used the Nikon 70-300. I don't remember her using flash - I remember her using natural light or reflectors - but, if she did, I wouldn't think it was anything other than Nikon.)
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2021
  4. Don't get me wrong, I love my Nikon cameras, they let me control my Cameron flashes remotely without extra flash triggers, my 50 dollars 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor just as sharp as Nikon newest 58/1.4 available for $2000, $1950 in savings for me:)
    Problem for Nikon started when photography gone digital, its not just camera or lenses anymore, its whole system , their software cumbersome and actually cost money, when competitors provide better programs and for free.
    As for lighting, Godox and Profoto went really long way in quality since inception, they present way better value now.
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2021
  5. May I propose a definition of "Professional Photographer"? My definition is if you can claim your photographic equipment and expenses for taking photographs on your Income Tax, you are a "Professional". If you cannot, you are an amateur. Note, there is nothing said about how good a photographer you are or who ohs and ahs over your pictures. It is a simple business definition with accountants (and auditors) making the final decision.

    With that definition in mind, who here is a professional?
    Erik-Christensen likes this.
  6. This bar is low because writing off some photo equipment is easy, and the $35 flash mentioned above would be an interesting item in this regard. The Washington Post defines a professional photographer as “anyone who earns more than 50 percent of his or her annual income from photography.” I would only change "annual income" to "annual living income."
  7. Glad you are pleased with your great values, but other people may be pleased with what they have. If value is all one needs and wants, everyone would just about drive the same cars, wear similar clothing from Walmart. Re Nikon, they are fine, though not "perfect" in some people's minds. They will continue to stay for a long time IMO.
  8. To op
    Nikon SB-910 I-TTL Speedlight Flash [GN111, 35mm] {Bounce, Swivel, Zoom} $160 KEH.
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2021
    gabriel_heyman and Mary Doo like this.
  9. I did write "off your TAXES" not just write it off the books. That requires you derive a certain percentage of your income from photograph. So inexpensive or expensive, you still have to make at least 50% of your income from photography or the IRS will not allow it. There are other requirements as well, but I am not a CPA.
    Mary Doo likes this.
  10. Retirement comes to us all, eventually. So while I and I'm sure others here may no longer make a living 'doing' photography, I still like to take pictures. In fact (re)becoming an amateur is very liberating.

    But, there's now no VAT reclaim, tax write-off, nor any other government perk to ease the price-tag or excuse overspending on equipment.

    There are also youngsters just starting out in the 'game' that simply cannot afford the finest of everything, especially when it comes to simple stuff like lighting equipment. Clients just don't care what brand is written on your speedlights or studio strobes, as long as it gets the result. The photons coming out of the flash-tube have no Nikon, Canon or Leitz logo emblazoned on them!

    Be that as it may. Those 3 well-known and widely used 3rd party flash manufacturers, named above, make entirely well put-together and useable equipment, and at a considerable saving over the comparable marque item. Plus their triggering systems are now, and have been for some time, entirely RF connected. Unlike Nikon's flakey 'Advanced' (hah!) Wireless Lighting optical communication.
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2021
    bgelfand likes this.
  11. BTW, and WRT the DIY aspect. You might want to look at some of Steve Sint's excellent video tutorials on studio lighting. Bits of string, gaffer tape, knocked-up wooden frames, cardboard baffles and tracing paper everywhere, but his end results were superb.

    I was a great admirer of his postings on PNet and elsewhere on the web. Well worth seeking out.
  12. Ah, OK.

    So, nothing to do with DIY flash-guns, as such. Big capacitors can kill you....:eek:

    Just the light modifying bits and pieces everyone I know makes themselves ....:)
  13. What type of photography were you in? May we see some of your work?
  14. Good question Mike.
    Since lenses generally aren't designed to have their optimum focus in the deep red part of the spectrum, it makes no sense whatsoever to use red light for autofocus.

    It might have its roots in the fact that early LEDs were only available in red, or that early silicon detectors were more sensitive to red. Who knows? But it's almost certainly not the best option these days..... Unless maybe you want a slightly mis-focussed picture.
  15. I've posted plenty of my private stuff here.

    My professional involvement was with industrial recording and promotion. Very boring but steady, and with employed or commissioned work you don't even own the copyright of the pictures you take. That belongs to your employer or whoever commissioned the work.
  16. Soft focus portraits?

  17. So mostly documentary where accuracy is important.
    Don't see much other than some casual illustration. May be I am not looking everywhichway. Anyway, it's OK.
  18. Yup, same here.

    If I put up any of my 'paid-for' work, I wouldn't get any more.... It's a very small niche and everyone knows everyone. :(

    Luckily, I have the time to do hobby stuff (usually natural history) too....:)

    For lighting big interiors, think churches, having a bunch of YN-560iii or iv s that are all individually controllable in power and flash angle from the camera position is very handy indeed.

    Oh, and very affordable....:cool:
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2021
  19. It would be great if hobby photography makes a living wage.
    Good if you have special permission to do the setup in private. Most famous churches and cathedrals - the ones most people would like to shoot - would not afford that kind of luxury. Some churches would not even allow flash. To me flashes are not necessary and may not even work well. Well-composed wide angle shots in slower shutter speed can yield respectable results.
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2021
  20. I didn't say hobby photography makes a living wage.

Share This Page