Pro shooters - what's the consensus on the SB-900 overheating issue?

<p>I am a working professional and also own the SB-600/SB-800. Recently I bought a new SB-900 and use it with my Quantum Battery 1+ packs - I have not loaded any batteries in it yet. When I went to use it like I did with my SB-800 the thing shut off (thermal warning) after 15-20 mins of what I consider 'light use' as a fill.</p>

<p>It was during a wedding so I was a bit concerned that Nikon's flagship speedlight became so useless so fast. I grabbed my SB-800 and finished the job. After a bit of online research I find that this is a common thing and is due to "user error" not a design flaw. (HA!)</p>

<p>I love the 900 due to the flexibility with the button placement..etc. I do not use on camera flash much at all and if I need any external lighting I use my Lumedyne system and Pocketwizards. Out of 1000 shots I might use the on camera flash for 100 or less of them - and it is for fill only. When I need it, I NEED IT and will not accept waiting around for it to cool off.</p>

<p>I am a bit concerned about if I should keep this or not and return it. I just thought that Nikon's top of the line flash would function a bit better than this. For now I have the thermal warning turned off and hoping that I do not melt the thing but my SB-800 has been a workhorse for years and I have abused that flash without one problem.</p>

<p>Is it worth keeping the 900? I need all the space I have in my gear bag and do not need a sketchy item getting in the way.</p>

<p>Should I trust that it will function properly with the thermal sensor turned off? It seems like maybe Nikon is only trying to implement a warning system to keep from making a lot of service repairs but honestly with the thermal warning on it is far from a professional item.</p>

<p>Maybe the SB-700 is a better unit for me? Is it prone to this as well?</p>

<p>Maybe a different battery system would be better?</p>

<p>Oh, and BTW - Nikon support S-T-I-N-K-S. I knew more about the flash than they did.</p>

<p>Just switch off the stupid thermostat on the SB-900. However, just like any other flash, don't push it too far. If you are making a lot of consecutive flashes, I would rotate among multiple flashes so that they have time to cool off.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just switch off the stupid thermostat on the SB-900.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So if his SB-900 overheats and is damaged, will you pay for the repairs? I wouldn't call the thermostat the Nikon engineers installed in the SB-900 "stupid." They certainly put it there for a reason. Telling someone to turn the thermostat off, that was put there to prevent the flash from being damaged due to heat, is not a very good idea...</p>

<p>Personally, I like the SB-900. I only once recall getting the "thermal warning" and it was on an unseasonably hot day and I was using the flash with diffuser A LOT!</p>

<p>I've since changed how I work and I do not use the Nikon supplied diffuser dome. I also use the SD-9 Battery pack with 1500 or 2000 mAh Rechargeable Eneloop batteries.</p>

<p>Really, I think that the thermal warning is a bit of a nuisance when it goes off, but I use flash so infrequently that I don't find that it interferes with my workflow very often.</p>

<p>RS</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So if his SB-900 overheats and is damaged, will you pay for the repairs?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dave, you are quoting me completely out of context. In my original post, I have already explained that people shouldn't push the flash too far; that is true for the SB-900 as well as the SB-800; the latter does not have a thermostat.</p>

<p>The problem is that Nikon totally messed up the thermostat on the SB-900. Nikon has been selling electronic flashes for 20, 30 years. There was no thermostat on Nikon flashes before the SB-900 and they have been working fine for years.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just switch off the stupid thermostat on the SB-900.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shun, you did write this, and no, I did not misquote you. If his flash does become damaged due to ill advice from someone on an online forum, it would be regrettable, wouldn't you agree?</p>

<p>I thought Shun's comments in context were clear. Whenever I anticipate needing lots of flash I'll tote a spare or rent an extra SB-800. The instruction manual makes it clear that the user is responsible for keeping track of how it's used, and includes a table to help estimate usage before there's a risk of overheating.</p>

<p>The thermostat issue with the SB-900 is so widely discussed around the web it's easy to get a diverse range of opinions. But that wouldn't be my primary concern regarding any consensus on the SB-900.</p>

<p>My impression from reading too many discussions around the web to count: I'd pass up the SB-900. For my purposes the SB-800 was good enough. Discontinuing the SB-800 was probably the first significant misstep Nikon has taken since introducing the iTTL/CLS system. The SB-900 is too heavy (for my comfort) and too expensive. The improvements to ergonomics and controls aren't enough to make it appealing to me.</p>

<p>If I needed a better portable flash system I'd ask Ellis Vener for suggestions - he's tested several brands and seems to stay current with what's new in pro quality portable flash systems.</p>

<p>The SB-900 is a superb flash in every way. I have not used my SB-800 as a primary flash since I got the 900. I think it is worth the extra cost for what you get.. I turned the thermostat off early on. I agree... just switch off the stupid thermostat on the SB-900. It would take a lot of abuse to kill a flash, probably more than anyone would typically do.</p>

<p>I melted the lenses in an SB-800 while on location in Mexico awhile back. AA batteries, no abuse. I can't explain it and it's not happened again.</p>

<p>OTOH, I've used SB-800s for bike races. I'd push pretty hard to where the batteries would get almost too hot to handle. No problems. Go figure.</p>

<p><em>15-20 mins of what I consider 'light use' as a fill.</em></p>

<p>May I ask what ISO and aperture you used for this? And how many shots in that period?</p>

<p>I have, by now, 4 SB900s (and 2 SB800s and 2 SB600s) and, even though they do occassionally call it quits, it's a rare occassion and not one that has caused me serious problems...True, using it with Nikon's diffuser seems to exaggerate the problem, and so is sticking it inside a fully enclosed softbox - the temperatures around the sensor rise much quicker than they should and this can cause problems. Similarly, when you're shooting, for example, in a low, hot church, with your flash right next to 100 candles, that can cause problems too...</p>

<p>However, I always shoot with my flashes set to manual (and commanding them through my SU800) and I usually have them firing at 1/4 or even less power, which truly mitigates the issue enormously, to the point of it being non-existent.</p>

<p>Personally I would not turn the thermostat off - not to protect the flash, but to avoid a fire or something, but I still try to use ALL my flashes reasonably...;-)</p>

<p><em>I usually have them firing at 1/4 or even less power,</em></p>

<p>I typically shoot at around 1/16; at 1/8 a small flash already starts to make sounds and the recycling time becomes noticeable. I rarely use 1/4 or higher. If you keep the flash energy setting low it should not overheat unless the temperature rises due to external conditions.</p>

<p>I love the power, flexibility and easo-of-use of the SB-900 but when I push it hard I'm always disappointed. I have 3 of the blighters and have still found myself in the situation where all of them are cutout. I also use them with a Quantum Turbo3 battery since I heard that powering externally is meant to help with the overheating, but in my experience it didn't (but I will admit that the almost instant recycling that the Quantum gives me does mean I tend to take more shots...).</p>

<p>I'd also be interested to hear about people's experiences of the SB-700 - from shooters who push their flashes hard (I use mine at badly lit fashion shows, trying to get 8+ shots per garment with anything up to 100 garments or more in an hour show).</p>

<p>As well as considering the SB-700, I'm also considering a Quantum flash now that I already have their battery and would just use the speedlights for strobist-type more sedentary set-ups, not at events ;).</p>

<p>The thing is that everybody has been running their flashes too hot since digital become the norm. In most cases no immediate damage was done and in other cases the flash burned out. Especially with external battery packs there is always a risk of permanent damage to the flash head when shooting a lot or at high power.</p>

<p>With the SB900 you have an option to prevent you from damaging the flash. It's not too sensitive, it's just as sensitive as it needs to be to prevent you from being able to ruin your flash in any situation. If you don't want or need that protection you can just disable it.</p>

<p>If you want something better you need to look at flash designs that are specifically made for heavy use. The new <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/754952-REG/Quantum_Instruments_QF8NB_Qflash_TRIO_Basic_QF8CB.html">Quantum Qflash Trio Basic</a> for instance.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>"Personally I would not turn the thermostat off - not to <a id="itxthook1" rel="nofollow" href="../nikon-camera-forum/00YkMF?start=10">protect</a> the flash, but to avoid a fire or something,..."</blockquote>

<p>Has anybody ever seen an on-camera flash bursting in fire?! A true pro would keep on shooting using flaming flash as a source of light!</p>

<p>If you into making money with your SB-900, the easy fix is to purchase a second SB-900. When one SB-900 over-heats, switch to the other SB-900, fixing the problem you seem to be having....</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Jerry, if one is making money with the SB-900, you cannot wait for the flash to overheat because that means at some critical moment when your SB-900 overheats, you will not be able to shoot and will miss some important shots when you are busy switching flashes. That is a major no no, especially for e.g. wedding photographers.</p>

<p>That is why I would rather switch off the thermostat. As I said, we have been using Nikon flashes for several decades without the thermostat, and it has been fine. However, regardless of which flash you use, you need to pay attention and if you shoot a lot, you need to swap flashes periodically at times that are convenient to your photography so that the flashes can cool off. An overheat flash might not burst in flames, but it can damage the flash over time.</p>

<p>Thanks for the feedback guys! I think some of my problem was also using the diffuser that came with the flash.<br /><br />Ilkka - I have no idea what aperture or ISO I was shooting at. Generally I tend to not really think about those things anymore unless I specifically need a shallow depth of field. I am going to assume that is was ISO 100 somewhere around 5.6 or 8 as it was a backlit sunny scene. Probably shooting 20-30 fill shots over that course of 15 mins. Again, my SB-800 never gave me a problem - but of course it does not have the thermal shutoff so maybe it was running just as hot.<br /><br />Shun - I agree, the thermostat is pretty stupid. While I understand that digital shooting allows a bit of finger trigger happy shooting as compared to film - the fact that the sensor just shuts off after a few mins of shooting is concerning - especially when shooting something like a wedding where every shot is crucial. Worrying about my equipment working/not working is the last thing that I need to be doing.<br /><br />I really do like this flash, especially for the on/off/master/remote button - actually that is the only reason I like it over the SB-800. I use Pocketwizards a lot and this made my life a LOT easier.<br /><br />I think the "switch out the SB-900 when it get's hot" idea is a terrible way to justify the performance of this flash. I have used so many different past versions of Nikon's Speedlights and not once in over 20 years have I ever had a problem - not once - well, at least not like this. So I should assume, based on that, that I should continue to not have any problems. As mentioned before, I am not a heavy on camera flash shooter. At most this is only used as fill in extreme situations so I suppose I am not the best example. <br /><br />Rather than buying two SB-900's why not a better on camera flash that is proven to work in heavy situations? Would the Quantum Qflash Trio basic be a better option? Price wise they are about the same.</p>

<p>The thermostat in the SB-900 merely enforces what Nikon has always recommended - play it cool! That's what Shun meant in his statement, taken out of context by contrarians. It's hard to pass along years of experience in a paragraph.</p>

<p>I turn the thermostat OFF when shooting weddings, because I know what I'm doing, and can't afford a momentary lapse to shut the flash down for 10 minutes to cool. If it smokes, I have two spares, but there's no time to be swapping unless there's a crisis.</p>

<p>Referring to p51 in the SB-800 manual, and paraphrasing slightly, Nikon recommends a duty cycle of not more than 15 full-power flashes in 10 minutes, or up to 40 1/4 power or less flashes. You can easily exceed this at a wedding or event using internal batteries, and even more easily using an high-voltage power pack like a Quantum Turbo.</p>

<p>It's easy to keep the power level down if you bump the ISO sufficiently. I get perfectly useable images at ISO 1600 (ISO 800 for a comfortable margin) with my D3, which cuts the power level so low in my SB-900 that the recycling is virtually instantaneous. I've shot 400 times on a single set of AA cells that way.</p>

<p>If you need more power without duty cycle restrictions, get a Lumedyne or a Q-flash, and blast away.</p>

<p>Just curious... anyone know how you would know that your flash is really overheating?</p>

<p>"That is why I would rather switch off the thermostat. As I said, we have been using Nikon flashes for several decades without the thermostat, and it has been fine."</p>

<p>If the engineers at Nikon put a thermostat in, there must have been a reason. The reason, my guess, would be to avoid "<strong>cooking</strong>" the speedlight. If you decide it does not matter, that is fine. If - during a wedding - you cannot pause for the 90 seconds it would take to swap out a speedlight, perhaps you should be using a video camera and never miss a moment of the wedding....</p>

<p>Older speedlights were not thermostat equipped: Nikon did put one in the SB-900. So for decades, no thermostat operation was the only option.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I had the same issue on a anniversary shoot 500 pics & the SB900 quit after 100 or so shots & my SB700 battery door broke so I was talking to Caulmet & they suggested a Metz 58AF2 SO FAR 3 SHOOTS & the metz is flawlessly . It seems easier to use than Nikon's, Hope this helps</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If - during a wedding - you cannot pause for the 90 seconds it would take to swap out a speedlight, perhaps you should be using a video camera and never miss a moment of the wedding....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jerry, you are missing the point. During a wedding, I can certainly pause for 20 seconds to swap flashes, but when that 20 seconds takes place has to be up to me (the wedding photographer) to decide. If you leave the thermostat on, the thermostat will decide when it is going to cut off; i.e. the flash will stop working all of a sudden. Given Murphy's Law, it is going to cut off during the ring exchange or first kiss, etc. A professional wedding photographer (which I am not) cannot let that happen. That is precisely why there are plenty of complaints about the SB-900. Early on, some people complained that the SB-900 would stop working after as few as like a dozen flashes.</p>

<p>I have shot a number of weddings and before the main ceremony starts, I put in a frash battery into the camera, a new memory card with plenty of space (or 2 cards with dual memory), and I would swap on a cold flash.</p>

<p>Adding a thermostat onto the SB-900 is a good idea, but Nikon's implementation leaves much to be desired. Hopefully in the near future I'll get to test the new SB-700 and see whether that problem has been corrected on the SB-700.</p>

<p>I don't know where the temperature sensor is placed but I'm guessing near the flash tube. Fire off a few full power pops and you'll fell the heat through the front.</p>

<p>Besides that the SB900 also have three thermal fuses. One on the step up transformer and two on the battery compartment. These are hard wired and will cut the power to the flash if they are submitted to a temperature around 110C (230F). You can't disable them. They prevent the flash from burning up if the batteries overheat or if the charging circuit overheats. They won't prevent you from destroying the flash tube though. The SB800 don't have any thermal fuses.</p>

<p>So the worst thing that could happen if you disable the temperature sensor is that you blow up the flash tube. A new tube is not expensive but it is a lot of work to replace it. I've seen Nikon prices around $150-$170. You might also melt the front cover a little or make it a bit yellow.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I purchased an SB900 right after they came out and I really love it. However, the first wedding I shot with it, it overheated when I least expected it. ( I was doing fill flash in what I thought was a fairly lit venue) It was with a D70s and I kept the iso around 200. After that, I disabled the warning and have never had a problem since. I also now have a D90 so I bump up the iso so there is less fill requirement. I also noted at another shoot, when I needed to change the batteries, I almost burned myself because the batteries were so hot. An off flash battery pack might help with the overheating. 2 cents</p>