Illogical purchase.

[Socrates]

When the D80 syncs with anything above its 1/200th flash sync using FP, the output of the flash is (effectively) greatly reduced because of the the shutter speed. It is reduced (effectively) proportionally with the speed of the shutter.

Is the flash output "greatly" reduced or is it "proportionately" reduced?

 

[Tayfun]

Actually I will never prefer D40/D40x because of its limitations on lens, small viewfinder and small size. But I have adviced it to my friends which were to buy SLR-like cameras. It's price is likely the same by like cameras and I think D40/40x is better than any DSLR-like camera (as my opinion). The D40 users which I know use only one lens and find it enough so I think it is OK for them. But as I mentioned at the beginning, I don't like and think will never buy a D40/40x for myself but will respect to the D40 users choices.

 

[sabbath999]

Is the flash output "greatly" reduced or is it "proportionately" reduced?

Instead of looking at the generalities, let's look at specifics.

What the FP does, basically, is that it fires a bunch of "short", low powered high duration flashes instead of one big hard "long" flash. Not only is the total amount of energy used by each flash much smaller, it is also "undocumented" by Nikon, so we don't know what an SB-800's actual guide number is when shot at 200 ISO at 1/2000th of a second.

However, to make this system work, it has to provide nearly the same amount of light for all of the flashes in the series. It must use the same ISO.

Therefore, each of these flashes MUST have greatly reduced power limiting the range... the higher the shutter speed, the less flashes, the less range.

I have found in using my D80 that the range of an SB-600 at 1/500th of a second has about one third of the range that it has at 1/200th of a second (full flash). With the D40, it has full-range at 1/500th.

So, if I can properly illuminate something at 100 feet with the SB-600 at 1/200th, I can only illuminate it properly at about 40 feet in FP mode.

I don't know if that qualifies as "proportionally" but to me it makes the mode of very limited use, since I shoot a LOT of stuff in the 80-100 foot range.

If you shoot up close on targets that are not moving, it really doesn't matter that much. If you shoot longer distances, it is the difference between being usable and not.

 

[Socrates]

Instead of looking at the generalities, let's look at specifics.

I know EXACTLY how it works. I've personally designed similar systems and the correct word is "proportionally." However. there are very few photographers that "need" flash distances of eighty feet. FP mode might be "limited" with your usage but it's entirely satisfactory with the vast majority of photographers.

By the way, I never claimed that FP is equal to "regular" sync at high shutter speeds. I merely stated that it exists.

 

[sabbath999]

I know EXACTLY how it works. I've personally designed similar systems and the correct word is "proportionally."

I wish you would have just said that, would have saved me a bunch of typing. I have no idea your expertise level is, and am not psychic.

 

[Socrates]

I wish you would have just said that, would have saved me a bunch of typing. I have no idea your expertise level is, and am not psychic.

I was challenging your semantics.

By the way, the "one big flash" is NOT "long" and that's the problem. It's too darned short! In fact, one millisecond (1/1000 second) is a lengthy electronic flash. Back in the days of bulbs, there was an FP bulb. Bulb fires, then shutter opens, then shutter closes, then bulb firing finishes perhaps 1/60 second later! That's "long."

 

[sabbath999]

I was challenging your semantics.

By the way, the "one big flash" is NOT "long" and that's the problem. It's too darned short! In fact, one millisecond (1/1000 second) is a lengthy electronic flash. Back in the days of bulbs, there was an FP bulb. Bulb fires, then shutter opens, then shutter closes, then bulb firing finishes perhaps 1/60 second later! That's "long."

That's why the "long" was in quotes... "long" in flash terms is really not very long, obviously. I was saying quote-unquote long.

As far as challenging the semantics with a question... I read that as if you were asking me a question. I have a very literal mind, which can be good at times and bad at times.

Someone with a literal mind reads: "Is the flash output "greatly" reduced or is it "proportionately" reduced?" as an either/or question to be answered, and I tried to answer it as best I could realizing that this is the beginners forum where everybody isn't an engineer, including myself.

I don't know the formulas, and I don't know the numbers. I am not a flash guru, nor do I pretend to play one on the internet. All I do know is that using FP gives you about a third of the amount of light at 1/500th than it does at 1/200th because when I take pictures, that is what it looks like.

I will gladly leave the engineering to others, shut up, and go do some post processing on my pictures from yesterday.

 

[Socrates]

All I do know is that using FP gives you about a third of the amount of light at 1/500th than it does at 1/200th because when I take pictures, that is what it looks like.

That's about right.

As you've stated, it's insufficient for your purposes but I believe that it should be satisfactory for most users. Going a bit further, I doubt if most users really need such a high speed sync but, if they do, a true 1/500 sync is unquestionably better than an FP sync. For me, the primary value to FP is fill flash in daylight and, for that, just about any light at all is "good enough." (How's that for getting away from the engineering tech-speak?)

BTW, I do very little, if any, post-processing but that's because my mentality is still film. Just can't shake it.

 

[sabbath999]

BTW, I do very little, if any, post-processing but that's because my mentality is still film. Just can't shake it.

I do very little as well... tonight is RAW conversion night at my house, no way to really get around that moving from RAW to sending photos off to Mpix.com for printing.

 

[skyvue2]

Umm...Hi DSLR noob....I have a D40 and love it. Am I allowed to love my camera? IS that OK with you? Or should I just throw it in the trash and commit suicide?

But that's OK..I am a total noob and don't know any better.....

....ahh, ignorance is bliss!

 

[shorty6049]

SHHHH!

 

[Dubious Drewski]

So i can buy a used 50mm lens on ebay that has the exact same optics as their newest 50mm lens. and honestly, in some cases, the older lenses have better build quality.

Amen to that. Seriously, I heve never owned such a nice piece of precision equipment as this 50mm Asahi from 1975:

I started a different topic on this already, but no modern lenses can touch the build quality. And the optics are perfect, even for being 33 years old.

 

[eminart]

Wow, the D40 continues to stir up controversy.

How about if a D40 does everthing you need, buy one. If it doesn't, don't and don't worry about those that do?

I'm a complete newb who opted for a D80. But I've seen a lot of shots from D40's that are well beyond my capabilites at the moment. So I'm not bashing them.