D600 question before purchase critical issue

[robert_stig]

if I use an SB910 or SB 800 can I run it at HSS/fp speeds for outdoors? Im asking about on or off?

 

I was just about to buy it when I noticed this and wanted to know from others. there will be times I need to shoot outdoors and want some

fill flash for my B&G. and I shoot pretty wide open so this is critical. anyway to work around this to get fill flash, besides using a reflector?

which is too much of a pain to use when the BG are moving and doing different poses. it would slow me down. I dont care much for the

1/200 sync speed. indoors it isnt an issue. outdoors, and flash big issue.

 

can it even run CLS? use my speedlights as off camera? would this change anything if I used the yongnuo 622n? meaning can I get HSS

with the camera? im guessing id get a line across the image if I shot the flash at high shutter speeds, or even no flash at all, correct?

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Hi Robert. Yes, the D600 supports HSS with an SB910 or SB800 (or most other recent Nikon flashes), although flash power is obviously reduced in this mode. I can't speak for the 622n, but I believe FP/HSS works over CLS. (Edit: Confirmed, page 294 of the D600 manual.)</p>

[robert_stig]

Yes? Cause i looked at dpreviews review and it didnt show fp cls In the list.

I want to be certain

[tony_correa1]

<p>Manual: http://www.nikonusa.com/pdf/manuals/dslr/D600_EN.pdf<br>

Pages 234, 294</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The D600's 1/200 sec flash sync speed is not all that different from the 1/250 sec for the D4 and D800. They all support FP sync is that you are free to use 1/500 sec if necessary. There is some reduction of flash power, but as long as you don't use something like 1/2000 sec or faster, it is not a big deal. After all, you are using fill flash and don't need a lot of power.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>After all, you are using fill flash and don't need a lot of power.</blockquote>

 

<p>A bit of a sweeping statement, Shun - Joe McNally would tell you that you need at least ten SB800s, and some strobists would tell you that you need a leaf shutter or go home. But I'm happy to concede that for most cases, FP sync works fine. :-)</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>The amount of fill you need obviously depends on circumstances, and taste. I'm not a fan of close-ratio fill flash myself, but others seem to like the "startled rabbit with sweaty skin" look. However the reduction of power once you're into FP synch territory can be quite (read very) limiting.</p>

<p>There's a "trick" you can use to get a lot more power quite cheaply in FP mode - i.e. no need for 10 SB-800s! It involves having an FP capable speedlight in the camera hotshoe and connecting a proper flash to the P-C socket. Once the camera has been forced into FP mode by the speedlight the P-C socket follows synch and allows any other flash to work at FP synch speeds. Any other flash with a long enough duration, that is. And it's surprising how many of them there are around. Old Metz hammerheads, for example, work excellently well, and a good many older manual flashes will do the same as long as they're left on full power.</p>

<p>Below is an example of how much extra fill you can get with one of those old hammerheads - in this case a Metz 60 CT-4. The subject is just my neighbour's fence over the road from me, and about 8 metres away.<br>

Top is an exposure with no fill flash - late in the day at 1/500th and f/5.6, 200 ISO. The shadowed foliage is pretty much inpenetrably dark.<br>

Middle is with the speedlight on manual at full power. Same exposure.<br>

Bottom is with the speedlight + Metz hammerhead flash together, both on full output, also at 1/500th and f/5.6.</p>

<p>The speedlight on its own did a pretty good job I have to admit, but bear in mind that was at a shutter speed of only 1/500th. The power would be halved at 1/1000th and would be two stops down at 1/2000th. Also notice the spread of light from the Metz is much wider since it has no zoom head. BTW, that used Metz pack cost me £25 (about $40 US). Compare that to the cost of an extra SB-800 or 910 - urrh, shudder!</p><div></div>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>RJ - good tip. Still, if you have a flash with a long exposure like the Metz, its power is also going to be reduced as the shutter speed reduces - though as you say adding more of them is cheap. I'm not giving up on my used SB-600s just yet! (If the solution in these cases is adding more light, you could of course just add an ND filter and use the flash in normal mode with a longer exposure.) I still have a little envy of the idea of the Fuji cameras with leaf shutters for (mostly) this reason, but sadly I don't have the disposable income for one after all the other camera kit I've bought!</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>"Still, if you have a flash with a long exposure like the Metz, its power is also going to be reduced as the shutter speed reduces" - True, but for some reason a speedlight in flickery FP mode seems to lose more power as the shutter speed gets shorter than a bog-standard "pop" from a non-FP flash. By 1/4000th or thereabouts an FP mode speedlight is near to useless.</p>

<p>"..you could of course just add an ND filter.." Huh? The flash illumination will be reduced too, so wouldn't you just end up back at square one?</p>

<p>Anyway, next time I need to use fill flash for a large group over 8 metres away, and with no mains power in sight, I'll be reaching for that Metz. Or one or more of the 9 other hammerheads like it that I own. - Maybe I've bought too much gear as well!</p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>"..you could of course just add an ND filter.." Huh? The flash illumination will be reduced too, so wouldn't you just end up back at square one?</blockquote>

<p>To clarify: Yes, it would reduce the flash power, but so does truncating the flash with a short exposure. Using an ND filter would mean you could use any flash in normal mode, you just need a lot of flash power - but that may be easier to achieve without the sync issue (either with lots of cheap flashes or with studio lighting). If you're trying to freeze motion, it might also work better - the duration of some flashes would be shorter than most exposure times, and the shutter taking time to cross the focal plane wouldn't matter so much. Still a problem to solve, but it might be that the features of the solution are nicer. Though you would have a filter in front of the lens, with the subsequent effect on image quality.</p>

<blockquote>Maybe I've bought too much gear as well!</blockquote>

<p>Too...much... no, you've lost me there. (A friend once said to me "you know - well, no you don't, obviously - that feeling of having eaten too much?" - I'm beginning to think that I suffer from the NAS version as well. Especially while I'm looking at a replacement foot for my 200 f/2. The diagnosis may be proven by my looking at the 200-500 Sigma and my top reason for not wanting one is that it looks a bit soft. The fact that I can't afford one and that it's completely impractical to carry around are <i>way</i> down the priority list!)</p>