david_king11

Swivel the flash around so that the infared portion of each flash is pointing directly to you.

 

This is a simple suggestion, but maybe the most important if it's not set up this way.

I owned a D70...

 

The D70 will act as a commander and WILL fire. You cannot use the SB800 off camera with no flash from the D70.

 

As another poster reccomended, you can use a diffuser or something to block the D70 flash, but it will never go away.

Frank -

 

"The flash /camera max range in any auto mode did not change from SB-800, and remains the same 20 meters or 66

feet. The only benefit could be saving some flash energy by using narrower beam and not wasting light on wider view

that is not needed for tele extended lens."

 

 

Now I see what you mean...it's not a distance thing, it is an are covered thing - narrow/wide depending on the lens

focal length.

Frank - "The flash /camera max range in any auto mode did not change from SB-800, and remains the same 20 meters or 66 feet. The only benefit could be saving some flash energy by using narrower beam and not wasting light on wider view that is not needed for tele extended lens."

 

 

Now I see what you mean...it's not a distance thing, it is an are covered thing - narrow/wide depending on the lens focal length.

Frank,

 

Your answers are greatly appreciated and will probably save me from the SB900 purchase!

 

I hate the flash jargon in general. It's one of those things I dont comprehend and is almost impossible for me to explain and interpret. I know how to use my SB800, I know how to get the results I need, and that is all that matters to me.

 

I do shoot with direct fill flash when outdoors - often with my 70-200. I just figured that the SB900 would be more beneficial in these circumstances. Other than that, the SB900 will probably not benefit me too much with the Gary Fong lightsphere (as you mentioned).

 

As for the recycle time, and power saving feature, this means nothing to me since I use the Quantum Turbo. On occasion if I am shooting a few casual shots (maybe on vacations) I wont use the Turbo 2x2, but I dont think I need the faster recycle time for those instances.

 

I think I may stick with my SB800 for now and maybe try out an SB900 if I run into anyone using it.

 

Thanks!

Very nice shots.

 

I just posted a question asking about the SB900 and how good it really is. I currently own a D3 but came from the D200 / SB800 combo.

 

I was wondering if you could tell us how much better is the SB900 compared to the SB800? Is it worth the extra cash? Not just for people purchasing their first Nikon flash, but for those who currently own the SB800 and are thinking about upgrading.

 

Thanks!

I currently have 2 SB800s and thought about selling one to a friend fof $150 and buying an SB900 to be my new on

camera master flash.

 

I have the D3, so the FX recognition would be a plus. The 16-200mm TTL feature would also be a great plus.

 

I shoot mostly with a Gary Fong Lightsphere and try to avoid any type of direct flash.

 

I have the Quantum Turbo 2x2 to pwer my flash...I know the SB900 has the heat lamp meter which could potentially

save my flash from overheating - although I have not had any problems to date with the 2x2 and my SB800.

 

So the question is, with my style of shooting, and with the features of the SB900 and the cost factor ($500 - $150

(sale of SB800) = $350) is it worh the purchase?

The largest difference you will see is the more shallow depth of field in your images.

 

 

If you are shooting outdoors as you mention, or indoors with flash, you will rarely "absolutly need" the benifits of f2.8. And, you said you have the faster primes, so in your case, you are fine with what you have.

Could the shutter have calibration problems? Kinda like a human trying to say a word like "because" 15 times fast...you are going to start botching up the word after a few tries. Question is, in sunlight, will you see the exposure difference? If the shutter is off by sat 1/100 second, and you are testing it in sunlight shile shooting 1/2000, 1/100 (5%) of the exposure is not going to make a large difference.

 

 

If you were shooting at 1/160, ISO 2000, f5.6, and the first shot was good, I would think that to get dramatically darker shots, your ISO would have to drop to 800, OR, your shutter would have to increase to 1/400. I cant imagine your f stop changing, but if it went up to f9 somehow?

"I`m currently using a Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8 VR althought I think it is a sweet&sour lens for portraits. "

 

 

What does this mean? Sometimes good and sometime bad?

What the heck is that a shot of? It looks like a closeup up some dudes temple? Ummmm, sweat? I have no clue what that is but it looks like reflection from the flash on the skin...possibly due to sweat or skin bumps.

 

That is a disgusting pic by the way!

Get a Nikon 50mm f1.8 lens for $110 shipped:

 

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/247091-USA/Nikon_2137_Normal_AF_Nikkor_50mm.html

 

 

Shoot on MANUAL mode . Begin with ISO 800, 1/100, f1.8. If the kids are running around too fast, bump the shutter speed up to 1/200 and ISO up to 1600. I cant imagine you would need any additional light. Once you find the right exposure, try popping up your flash for a few shots (I would turn the flash's compensation down to -1 or so) and see what you get.

I am not positive, but I dont think the D40 / D60 / D80 allows you to change ISO unless you go into the menu on screen. It wont let you change ISO through a combination of pressing an ISO button and rotating the dial. I couldnt perform without this function.

B&H now has the Nikon D3 on sale for $4,819.95:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?ci=0&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=jsp%

2FRootPage.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t&shs=Nikon+D3&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=jsp%

2FRootPage.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t

 

 

Adorama currently has the D3 on sale for $4,799.95:

http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?addtocart=INKD3&src=itemlist

 

 

25 Days ago I paid the full $4,999.95 for my D3 at B&H....3 days ago they refunded me the price difference.

Customer Servis is what B&H will give you over some of the other websites.

B&H now has the Nikon D3 on sale for $4,819.95:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?ci=0&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=jsp%2FRootPage.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t&shs=Nikon+D3&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=jsp%2FRootPage.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t

 

Adorama currently has the D3 on sale for $4,799.95:

http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?addtocart=INKD3&src=itemlist

 

25 Days ago I paid the full $4,999.95 for my D3 at B&H....3 days ago they refunded me the price difference. Customer Servis is what B&H will give you over some of the other websites.

Ahhh...click on the link again guys. It went up $110 bucks since yesterday!

 

It probably was a steal yesterday at $5,139.00, but now that B&H has the body for less, you are better off saving the $$ and putting it towards...ummm, probably a 24-70 lens!

Just before I left work last night I went on B&H to see if they had any new bundles to offer - they didnt....BUT, they

did have the D3 for $4,819.95! I called them up immediatly and they refunded me the difference with no hassles at all.

 

B&H is great! Now I am not so down about Adorama's bundle price. As most of us know, anyone purchasing a D3

probably doesnt care much (or have much use for) the 70-300 VR lens. I would, however, pay the extra $139 just to

add it to my collection, but now that B&H sells the D3 body for $4,819.95, it's definitely not worth the extra $300.

 

I would, however, pay the extra money for a Ding Dong after my surf & turf dinner!

Hahah....

 

My thinking was to buy this bundle, sell the 70-300 (I have the 70-200) and the 17-55 lens and buy the 24-70 FX lens without adding any $$ to the deal.

I paid $4,999.95 for my D3 as most probably did/will, but for anyone thinking about making the purchase, take

advantage of this deal:

 

http://www.adorama.com/INKD3K1.html?searchinfo=nikon%20d3&item_no=91

I have experienced this problem with the 17-55 on the D3 as well. You are right though, once I switch to manual focus, the problem goes away.

 

Not to complicate things, but I also find the same auto focus problem apparent when trying to track someone in motion coming towards me. Even when I am walking backwards at the same pace, I feel like there is a delay in AF time. The D200 never had this problem.

 

I guess I may be expecting too much. I just figured the D3 would focus on just about anything in a minimal amount of time.

Ummm, can you post your three (3) shots for us, please?

I dont have this problem outside.

 

The obvious answer is maybe the lack of AF illumination. I am wondering if anything else could be contributing.

Not exactly sure what you are asking me to give you, Shun...

 

My best guess is:

 

mode: Standard

ISO: set to 800 - not auto mode

ADR - it was on normal, but turned it off and still saw the same problem.

 

ummmm....what else do you need to know?

So I was in my kitchen (pretty well lit from daylight coming though windows) the other day shooting my nephew and

noticed the AF on my D3 was considerably slow. When I mean slow, I dont mean the speed at which the lens

focuses, I mean the length of time it takes the camera to obtain proper focus to take a picture.

 

I was shooting with my D3 with the 50mm f1.8 lens. I believe my settings were around 1/100. f1.8, ISO 800.

 

The exposure at those settings was perfect, however, it took approximatly 3-5 second sometime to get the camera

to take the darn shot. I took my D200 out with the 17-55 f2.8 and it did not have any problem catchin a focus right

away. I understand the smooth face of a child may prevent the camera from obtianing AF, but I was zeroed in on my

nephew's shirt that had plenty of lines and contrast in it.

 

I have noticed this on multiple occasions with the D3 when shooting indoors.

 

Is there any setting within the D3 that may be holding this up?

I was not sure where to post this, but since I am a Nikon user and only post here...

 

I am looking for a good DVD slideshow program to use with Windows. I am not looking for something childish and

cute, and at the same time not looking to spend more than $100 or so. I want something that will give me

professional looking slideshows, playable / formatted for a widescreen, and high resolution images.

 

Any suggestions?