maxz

<p>Spencer, Howard has already identified the brand. The circular "peace sign" is the logo of Manfrotto. Their tripods are usually branded Bogen in the US. Unfortunately the numberings are not the same when they use the Manfrotto or Bogen brand.</p>

<p>From what I have found on the net, one user claimed that the Manfrotto 144 corresponds to Bogen 3011, something <a href="http://photonotes.org/other/manfrotto-bogen/">Photonotes.org</a> confirms. This is an older model, now discontinued, or rather replaced, by the Manfrotto 055D (black version 055DB)/Bogen 3011N (black version 3011BN). I tried finding the 144 in my old Manfrotto catalog from 2004, but it is not in it. I threw the even older catalogs in the recycling bin years ago and I cannot find them on-line.</p>

<p>The Manfrotto 055 series has a bit longer legs than its cousin Manfrotto 190. This makes for a slightly bulkier package when carrying but allows for a better working height when extended, at least for a person of average height. Other than that it is a standard basic tripod. Nothing hi-tech, but it is reliable and gets the work done. The build quality is good enough that I can let someone inherit the tripod from me even though I have thrown it around a bit.</p>

<p>Myself, I have a the old and discontinued Manfrotto 055PRO (which allows for ground level positioning). I love it and think the Manfrottos/Bogens were great value for money until the chinese brands really came onto the market. They make some really great tripods, cheaper but with the same features. Mind you, all of these are not the "wet-dream tripods" I dream of owning, but the tripods I can actually afford as a hobbyist.</p>

<p><em>[Edit: Too slow typing, Matthew seems to have nailed it already. :-)]</em></p>

Walter is correct that RAW converters basically do not change original image data. By thinking about the name "RAW converter" this is fairly obvious, the program converts the raw data into image data. Overwriting/manipulating the raw image is not what you want to do.

 

Having said that, Capture NX is MORE than just a RAW converter. NX allows you to edit the images using control points. These control points might affect only a portion of the image, whereas standard RAW-converters usually apply their adjustments to the whole image. The adjustments you do in NX need not be saved to a JPEG or TIFF, you can save the image back as a NEF. When reopening this NEF-file you can delete the adjustments. I suppose that the control points are just saved as metadata and "applied" when you open the NEF in NX. I have not tried adjusting a NEF using NX, saved it as NEF and then opened the new NEF in for example Adobe Camera Raw. I guess that ACR simply would ignore the NX specific changes.

 

So, in some sense it seems like NX has the capability to edit NEF-files without destroying the original image data. I have not tested it thoroughly though since I mainly use NX for conversion and am more comfortable to do these kinds of other operations in Photoshop.

A stray whitespace messed up the link. The correct one is <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0092qL">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0092qL</a>.

Where have you heard that the SB-R200 (forgot the "R"?) is controlled by radio? I believe this to be false, since if it WAS true the SB-800 would be unable to control them. The SB-800 has no radio transmitter.

 

The SU-800 is a "flash" that emits light in the 800-1000 nanometer range, that is near infrared, according to the information found on nikondigital.com.

 

The pre-flashes from the built-in flash in commander mode is needed for two reasons, first to tell the remote unit to emit a pre-flash so that the camera can meter the light, then to tell the remote unit what power it should set to for the main flash. These pre-flashes should come before the shutter opens according to Nikon. In a swedish photographyforum people has taken images of themselves in a mirror showing that the on-camera flash shows. But when others have tried this with "real" subjects, ie photographing a glass sphere, there is no specular highlight from the built-in flash and only the remote flash unit lights the subject. I am not sure how to interpret these tests.

 

In an older swedish Nikon catalog there was a diagram that showed how the wireless system works in CLS. I haven't been able to find a PDF-version of that or the english language catalog so I took the liberty to recreate the diagram, attached below. I find that the pre-flashes when going wireless introduces a delay, not much but enough that some subjects react to it, thus turning away thinking the picture was taken or blinking. Because of this I prefer using a TTL-cable. YMMV.

Just as Shun said, it is hard to describe the sound of the shutter. Then we can be thankful that Phil Askley creates MP3-files with the cameras shutter sound when writing reviews over at DPReview (<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond200/page5.asp">link to page five of the D200 review</a>). This is actually the first time I think I found a use for that "data" :-)

Oops! Sorry, the Tokina showed *less* CA than the Nikon in their test.

 

That is what happens if you type late at night...

I intended to buy the Nikon for a very long time and even saved up money for it. In the meanwhile a friend bought the Tokina which i checked out and it impressed on me. Also the Swedish photography magazine FOTO tested these two (in a test of ten wide angle zooms and wide to normal zooms) in the November issue last year together with MTF, vignetting and distorsion at three different focal lengths for these two. The Tokina got the only "award" ("Prisv䲤" =~ "Good value for the money") in the test (the other "award" they give in tests is "Toppklass" =~ "Top grade").

 

The Tokina showed less distorsion, performed slightly better in the MTF-tests and in a test image showed a bit more CA. Not much, they are very similar performance wise according to that test. Feeling my friends Tokina i my hand I had a hard time deciding.

 

AF-S was a big deal for me a long time, until I realised that the clutch mechanism of the Tokina is really neat. Of course, I cannot just grab and twist like on the Nikon, I have to grab, pull back and twist. In the end I bought the cheaper Tokina and used the rest of the money for other fun photography stuff.

 

If you have the opportunity, check them both out. They are both fine lenses. Only you know what you want, need and how thick your wallet is.

Interesting. My folding technique is a variant. Of course this is just a habit but have tried this now, after having read the web instructions and looked at the animated GIF.

 

I guess it all comes down to how you are used to doing it. I find this variant requires a bit more force but then it more gently slides into place as opposed to how I was doing it before where I don't think I had to use any muscle but a bit more guiding it into place. But any method that works is good so...

Grab two opposite "edges" of the reflector. I personally prefer when I hold them so that the hands are facing opposite sides, that is I grab it so that the fingers of my left hand is on the back of the reflector and the right hand is twisted so that the fingers is on the front of the reflector. I find this especially helpful if the reflector is a bit larger.

 

Slowly twist the whole reflector into an "eight" while at the same time gently pushing the hands closer together. If you hold the reflector as I described in the previous paragraph you should really just be twisting your right hand so that you are holding them in front of you as if you read a large newspaper. The reflector should "want" to fold itself nicely into three "circles". If you get a "real eight" you have twisted too much without pushing your hands together enough. The last part really comes by it self, you merely have to guide it right. There should be little force or effort to fold it.

 

I find it a bit hard to describe, especially in english, since it is something that I do almost automatically. Although I must admit that the first few times were a bit tricky.

Also, remember that the sensor of the SB-800 is the small round window on the side of the flash, just next to the door to the battery compartment. Make sure that it isn't obscured.<P>

 

Otherwise I second Franks advice to set the SB-800 to manual, <i>you</i> should do the metering/decisions in the studio, not the camera/flash, that is kind of the point :-)

<I>Contrary to opinion express elswhere in photo.net, the SB-800 does not have any "optical slave trigger" built-in, that is why you need a third party trigger, or Nikon SU-4 that is also a controller (but not iTTL controller).</I><P>

No, the SB-800 has a optical slave built in. This can either be set to "REMOTE" which means that it is a slave in the Creative Lighting System (CLS) using iTTL for measuring the flash, or it can be set to "SU-4" for it to operate as a flash with the SU-4 attachement. In the latter you can use either mode "A" where the SB-800 both fires and quenches synchronized with the main flash or "M" mode where it only fires and you can set power output from full to 1/128. On page 84-88 in the SB-800 manual this is described (page numbers are from the Swedish language version but I believe that all language versions share the same layout and page numbering).<P>

 

Be sure that you have fresh batteries in the flash. When I tried just a moment ago I couldn't get it to work first before realizing the batteries were almost empty. I had some trouble getting a picture of this since the only working camera I have now is a compact with digital pre-flashes that I cannot turn off (thus I must set the SB-800 to a power so low that it can recycle/not discharge completely to flash twice). Sorry for the lousy picture.<div></div>

Among my photos here at <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=233761">Photo.Net</a> there are a few night shots from my first ever attempt at night photography. I bracketed all shots on the roll (+/-1 stop) and out of the 12 scenes there was only one case where I had a hard time choosing between two exposures. In all other cases the metered one was spot on. Here are my thoughts on the subject...

<p>

First a disclaimer, these were taken in Sweden on a late summers night, and here in Stockholm it can be quite light even late in the evening. As you can see in the pictures it is seldom pitch black. But then I find that most "night" shots are actually most interesting when shot in the twilight/dusk unless special lighting are available.

<p>

My advice is to take your time. The camera should be on a tripod and use some remote or wire operate the shutter. I used the in-camera meter of the Nikon F80/N80 I had, and set it to spot. I metered off a uniform area and if I knew that it was for example a light wall I adjusted the value. Most often I could meter from the asphalt of a road or a "medium" dark wall and use that value "directly".

<p>

Then I applied compensation for the reciprocity failure according to the manufacturers data sheet. Note all exposure times and the conditions. This will make it easier when going back to learn what worked or what went wrong.

<p>

When choosing film I chose one that I was told had as little color shifting as possible when used for long exposures. If you are using BW then this is, of course, a non-issue. But I recommend color photography. The long exposure times and the lights really come out in a way that our human vision does not register it, in my experience quite pleasing. Try a roll for fun.

<p>

If you do not have a suitable meter (not even in another camera) you will have to resort to some kind of tables and then bracketing becomes much more important. One such table is the <a href="http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm">Ultimate Exposure Computer</a>, another one is the Jiffy Calculator I found in an old photo magazine from the 60's. I created my <a href="http://www.stacken.kth.se/~maxz/programming.html#newjiffycalculator">own version</a> but have never really tried it as I bought my hand held spot meter shortly after.

<p>

I hope that this helped you a little. It would be nice to hear how your session went. Remember, patience and being thorough pays off.

I have never done it myself but if I were to try I would start out with this: One way would be to make the overall light in the scene to be green, perhaps by coloring it with a gel. Then you "overpower" the it with the main light that is white (and creating the shadows). Now, everything not lit by the main light (for example the shadows) will have the tint of the "overall" light. Of course you must make sure that the green colored light is really lighting up the shadows.

 

Essentially this would be like "filling" the shadows with green light.

Have you set the meter to "light measurement with cord"? (There should be a small arrow flash symbol with a "c" beside it). It sounds like you are in "flash light wireless mode" (the symbol in the upper left corner of the lcd is missing the "c"). Just press the mode selection button until you get the desired mode.

Hi,

 

<p>I am looking for a printer for my photo club. We have been a

traditional photo club with a darkroom (b/w dev/printing + color

printing from small and medium format film) at the technical

university here in Stockholm). The club has been a resource for those

photography interested students that cannot afford or have the

opportunity to build their own darkroom. The membership fee covers

rent for the darkroom and the chemicals. Papers are bought in large

packs and the members pay for individual papers which makes it cheaper

than if they buy a medium size pack themselves.</p>

 

<p>The last couple of years we have had an increasing amount of

requests from potential members on digital services. In an attempt to

satisfy these, we are looking into buying a photo so that people can

get prints of their digital pictures. What we want is to buy a good

printer that could be a valuable resource for the members.</p>

 

<p>Since none of us have any real experience with this we would really

appreciate input on what would be a good choice. Suggestions on

different models as well as technologies and pointers on the cost

would be extremely helpful. When speaking the other day we came up

with the following criteria:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Maximum size approximately A3 (297×420mm ~ 11.7x16.5in) but

printer should be able to take smaller sizes of papers if desired.</li>

<li>Using technology that gives reasonably good archival qualities

under normal circumstances (ie don't fade too quickly)</li>

<li>Gives good colors (several ink types/colors?)</li>

<li>Perhaps the possibility to buy/exchange/refill individual ink

cartridges?</li>

<li>Good life on the cartridges (shouldn't dry up immediately and more

importantly should last for a reasonable number of prints. We don't

want to have to run over to the lab every day to replace cartridges)</li>

<li>Quality paper and quality ink should be easy to buy</li>

<li>Reasonably cheap large prints, that is the good quality paper AND

ink shouldn't be too expensive. The printer must be an alternative to

let digital labs downtown print. We want to be able to tell the

members how much a print of each of the supported sizes will cost.</li>

<li>Operate without computer, just plug your memory card in and print.

Preferably USB interface to let people with laptops connect. We do not

have the space for a editing workstation, but most members have

computers at home for this.</li>

</ul>

 

<p>We are aware that the wishes above might limit ourselves or that

they might not be possible to combine but in worst case we might have

to let go on one or more of these criteria.</p>

 

<p>The price of the printer is not the main issue here althought we

are on a limited budget. More important is the print cost and quality

of prints.</p>

 

<p>Thanks for your time and hope to hear your thoughts and

suggestions.</p>

<I>[...] with the incident mode (dome on pointing at camera) the readings are very slow. What is the benefit of the light meter, how can I use this better than the in camera (20D)?</I><P>

I wouldn't say better. It is two different ways of doing the same thing. If you do it right you'll get the same result in the end. What I mean is that the metering is ultimately about getting the photographer an aperture value (and perhaps a shutter speed) that gives the desired exposure. Many paths may lead to the same goal.<p>

 

If you know how to meter and do it right (aka "know your equipment") the in-camera meter can do just as well as the Sekonic in most cases. There are some differences though and one thing that your in-camera meter cannot really do, flash metering. If you aren't using manual/studio flashes this aspect of your 308B might not be an advantage to you. Mind that there are reflected flash meters although they are not as common as their incident cousins.<p>

 

In a environment where I control the light or where it doesn't change I prefer to use the incident meter. Then I can plan and meter first. Fix the settings and just concentrate on getting the pictures. Yes, this might be a bit slower, walking over to the place of model and measuring, but I am mostly not in a hurry. The real advantage is that I can meter <I>before</I> the model arrives and not bother them with a series of test shots just to the the exposure right.<p>

 

Sometimes I like to take an approach that forces me to work more slowly. It is rewarding to plan pictures and see that they turn out as you wanted (hopefully!). It is a welcome addition to all the spontaneous and unplanned shooting that I usually do. The incident meter fits very well into this style of shooting for me.<p>

 

But when shooting "in the field" or when lighting rapidly changes I prefer the in-camera reflected meter. Of course, I have to know what I am metering off! Is it a white jacket? Or is it a dark brown couch? It is not difficult if you know how your meter behaves. As I said, it is about knowing your equipment.<p>

 

There are many good books on light metering. Also this forum is a gold mine on the subject if you just have the time and patience to browse through the old postings.<p>

 

Alans and Richards postings in this thread pretty much sums up the basic ideas with the different methods of metering. I have an addition to Richards comment about harsh backlighting. One situation where I believe the incident method is hard to use (perhaps even impossible?) is when you are photographing the light (source) itself, for example a sunset or the aurora borealis. Then a reflected light meter, preferably one that can measure a tight area like a spot meter, (and some thinking) will give me the results I want.

Dennison,

 

I believe that you are greatly mistaken. If what you say is correct, how do you explain the photograph I took earlier and posted in this thread? (The 14th posting on this page, the one accompanied by the photo of the screws on a green box.)

 

It was taken with a D70 at 1/8000s and a SB-800 set to 1/128th power which according to the specs give a flash duration of 1/41600s. However I had to "fool" the D70 into thinking that I didn't have a flash attached. You can do this by attaching a non-dedicated flash or, as I showed in my later posting, putting a piece of non-conductive tape over the back two contacts of the shot shoe. (Sorry for repeating myself, but the long thread seems to discourage people from following it from the top.)

 

Of course, I do not *know* that the SB-800 only outputs for 1/41600s, I have to take Nikons word for it. But even if it is off by a factor of, say, two it is much shorter than the shutter speed I was using. If it is off by much more Nikon is either going to get sued and/or will lose it's reputation as a manufacturer of reliable photographic equipment.

 

I have not heard of many flashes that output full power for 1/500s or longer. And FP Sync (multiple synchronized flashes that matches the movement of the shutter) is not available on the D70.

 

I don't see this as a "trick". It is rather a characteristic of a hybrid shutter and I already stated my guesses to why Nikon doesn't advertise this as a feature.

Yes, that is how I understand it works. Or at least it is the only way I can think of that explain how I were able to take the image above :-)

Bah! Never write anything on an empty stomach. I dropped a paragraph to this:.<P>

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>If you have a hybrid system you have to differentiate between the speed of the mechanical shutter, the electronic shutter and the combination of these two. The combination will always be the faster of the two. My guess is that the D70 mechanical shutter only exposes the whole sensor if it operates slower or equal to 1/250s, just as the sync speed of the other Nikons with a maximum 1/8000s sync speed.</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I meant and I believe Joseph also meant was that when writing 1/4000s and 1/8000s we mean the shutter speed of the whole shutter system (ie hybrid shutter), not the actual speed of the mechanical shutter sub-system. The mechanical shutter on the D70 seems to <I>never</I> go beyond 1/250s or whatever value it has for exposing the whole sensor.<P>

 

<HR>

There is also the question to why the D70 doesn't want to sync faster than 1/500s with dedicated flash units. I can see two explanations, the first is the marketing one, it would be too "comepetent" and steal interest from the higher end cameras not having this "feature".<P>

 

The technical explanation would be that some flash pulses might be quite long (full effect on the SB-800 has a duration of 1/1050s) which could give unexpected results if you expose without having the full flash pulse to light the subject (say when shooting at 1/2000s and the flash is set to full output). The camera has no possibility to know how long each flash pulse might be from all kinds of dedicated flashes that are manufactured.<P>

 

To prevent the support department from getting hundreds of calls from people not knowing the limitations and being upset with getting inconsistently exposed photos they have simply prevented it to work. (Hmmm... Perhaps sometime in the future the flash can communicate this information to the camera and allow the automatic system to take it into consideration. Well, I said it out loud, now nobody can patent the idea.)<P>

 

Or it may be a combination of both. Note that this is just me guessing. I have no insight into the technical or marketing departments of Nikon (nor any other camera manufacturer).<P>

 

Why doesn't higher end bodies from Nikon have this feature? Probably they use another sensor type. From what I understand, sensors having electronic shutters loose surface area due to the light shielded registers needed for the electronic shutter. Sometimes you want to use as much area for your photosites. Again, only Nikon may properly answer to this design question. This <A HREF="http://www.electronicproducts.com/ShowPage.asp?SECTION=3700&PRIMID=&FileName=KODAK.feb2004.html">article</A> has some information on different sensortypes.<P>

 

Anyone that has additional information on sensor types are welcome to mail them to me or share them in the forums.

By the way. You don't have to use a Wein like I did, I just happen to have mine in the camera bag for connecting to the studio strobes, so it was convenient (in fact it was the first time I used the hot shoe on it).

 

You can put electricians tape (I am not sure if that is the correct name in english, sorry), or any non-conductive tape over the two contacts in the back of the hot shoe. See the attached image. I have tried the experiment again and I have all the images now, including the black one, if someone really badly wants to see them.

 

Just for the record, I do not find this "sync-at-any-speed" feature with the D70 especially useful (YMMV), these tests were just done to satisfy my curiosity.<div></div>

<blockquote><i>Joseph, you say that the mechanical shutter is fully opened at 1/4000. i have not done such tests but that is not possible, and not in such a low end camera anyway.</i></blockquote>

David,<P>

 

If you have a hybrid system you have to differentiate between the speed of the mechanical shutter, the electronic shutter and the combination of these two. The combination will always be the faster of the two. My guess is that the D70 mechanical shutter only exposes the whole sensor if it operates slower or equal to 1/250s, just as the sync speed of the other Nikons with a maximum 1/8000s sync speed.<P>

 

Electronic shutters are nothing new, they have been used in digital cameras before and have their advantages as well as drawbacks. Note that not all sensor types may have an electronic shutter. There are several types of sensors.<P>

 

But if you design your camera so that the mechanical shutter <i>never</I> operates faster than the sync speed of it (say 1/250s) this will mean that the whole sensor always will be exposed even if the <I>hybrid</I> (ie combination of the two) shutter is set to say 1/4000s. In other words, if you are, in this example, shooting faster than 1/250s the electronic shutter would be responsible for doing the "shuttering".<P>

 

<P><HR><P>

 

I will try to settle this once and for all. I am going to try this myself. I have owned a D70 for over a year and never needed synching as fast as this. I have read about this a number of times and accepted it as people I know from Swedish forums have reported this. Time to do a test. Please wait a moment...<P>

 

Thanks for waiting :-) Using a Wein Hot-shoe-to-hot-shoe Safe Sync I attached a SB-800 to the D70. The Wein doesn't have the extra contacts the SB-800/D70 has and thus the D70 has no idea that a flash is attached.<P>

 

The ambient light in the room was so low that the camera suggested 1/30s @ f/2. I set the camera to manual mode (1/8000s @ f/2.8). Without the flash the frame was completely dark. Adding the SB-800 and setting it too to M (1/128 power) I got the result below. If you want the full size JPEG/NEF please mail me. Stupid as I am I deleted the dark frame photo. But I have a small image taken using my compact digicam showing the D70 and SB-800 displays with the settings if someone distrusts me.<P>

 

According to the manual of the SB-800 the flash duration at 1/128 power is 1/41600s which would rule out the possibility of a long flash pulse affecting the result.<P>

 

What you see is the full frame of the image and not a crop. Original EXIF-information is present in this reduced version.<P><div></div>

To the best of my knowledge you are asking for the impossible.

 

If you want something suitable for full length shots it should (at least) be the size of a standing person. This makes it hard to use outdoors without EITHER using an assistant OR having some kind of support (tripod with reflector arm, and the support would not make it easier to transport) if there is any wind at all.

 

Since you want something that is easily transported I guess you are looking for something collapsible. When it comes to collapsible reflectors with multiple sides I have yet only seen circular in the size of 22"-42" (roughly 55-105cm) from Chameleon and Portaflash.

 

But someone else might have a really neat solution that I have not seen yet.

<I><BLOCKQUOTE STYLE="border-left: 1px solid blue; margin-left: 0.5em; padding-left: 0.5em;">How about answering my original question? Doesn't a flash meter need to have the film speed input before it can give a sensible reading?</BLOCKQUOTE</I>

Well Andy already answered it in the first posting. Of course it has to if you want to be able to get a EV or shutter/aperture combination that you can use directly without converting it yourself. But, as Andy said, it doesn't matter if it is flash or ambient, the principles are the same.

 

<I><BLOCKQUOTE STYLE="border-left: 1px solid blue; margin-left: 0.5em; padding-left: 0.5em;">My Minolta Spotmeter F manual has no provision for entering a film ASA in describing the use for flash.</BLOCKQUOTE</I>

Are you really sure? It seems very strange. According to what I could find when I quickly Googled was that the Minolta Spotmeter F has an ISO range of 12 to 6400 in 1/3-stop increments.

Sorry. When editing the quotes in my posting above I made a mistake and it looks like Edward H wrote the innermost quote. That was mine quoted by him, and the one immediately following is his. Sorry for the confusion. One shouldn't post before having breakfast...

<I><BLOCKQUOTE STYLE="border-left: 1px solid blue; margin-left: 0.5em; padding-left: 0.5em;"><BLOCKQUOTE STYLE="border-left: 1px solid blue; margin-left: 0.5em; padding-left: 0.5em;"><B>Edward H wrote:</B><BR>Note that some DSLRs (the Nikon D70 for example) have hybrid shutters that can sync at any speed.</BLOCKQUOTE>

 

No they don't. It's the high speed-mode on the on-camera flash that allows extreme shutter speeds.</BLOCKQUOTE></I>

Well, actually they do! This is two separate matters. What you are mentioning is <I>Auto FP High-Speed Sync</I>, something which the D70 used as example are <I>not</I> able to do. It is only available on the more advanced DSLR models from Nikon at the time of writing.<P>

 

What I mention, with hybrid shutters and fast sync speeds, is something that is neither documented nor supported by Nikon, but many people have done it. When attaching a <I>dedicated</I> flash to a D70 the camera locks the range of available shutter speeds, prohibiting the use of any speed faster than 1/500s. But you can easily <A HREF="http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d70flash.htm#flash">fool</A> the camera into believing that you don't have attached a flash (see the second "TRICK" on <A HREF="http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d70flash.htm#flash">Rockwells page</A>). It will fire, but you won't get any automatic metering. This trick has been documented by several parties on the Internet. When using my studio strobes I use a simple hot-shoe-to-PC adapter which doesn't make the camera "see" the strobes and thus can achieve this effect. Personally I have never had a use for this feature myself though, since I shoot with my studio strobes in the studio and there I don't need these shutter speeds.<P>

One should also consider the fact that some flash pulses are <I>longer</I> than the fastest shutter speed on the D70 (1/8000s) so this <I>might</I> lead to uneven/random exposure if using and metering for strobes at full power with extremely short shutter speeds.

<I><BLOCKQUOTE STYLE="border-left: 1px solid blue; margin-left: 0.5em; padding-left: 0.5em;"><B>Bradley Walker wrote:</B><BR>Well I'm a moron.</BLOCKQUOTE></I>

Bradley, don't be so hard on yourself. Sometimes one make "stupid" mistakes with simple things and the most obvious reasons are <I>impossibly</I> hard to see without someone pointing them out for oneself. I know what I am talking about and have done this myself at a number of times. But, even knowing this, you still feel silly each time. :-)<P>

(Ahem... If you want faster shutter speeds with your AB's, you and I <I>could</I> trade cameras. My D70 for your 1Ds ;-D Cheers.)