Well someone commented on my thread the other day that the SB-900 wasn't all that powerful... said that the Metz was the better flash.... well I gotta tell ya, I'm not takin mine back for an exchange

Here is a shot from the drag races tonight... D3, ISO 2000, Manual Ex 1/250th @ f4, with a 50mm f1.4 Nikkor (this is a crop) and the SB-900 set to TTL and 200mm zoom. Check out the background.... wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy back.

T

Oh... I had to increase the contrast a bit because of all the tire smoke in the air... it flattened the contrast out quite a bit... you can see it in the upper part of the image.

Maybe shot #2 will give a better idea of how far away I was and what coverage the flash gave. I didn't process this except for USM.

The third shot is with no flash, same lens at 1/320 sec. @ f2 which is 1 2/3 stops more light with what the track lighting has to offer. There is 1/4 the ambient light coming from the camera side... the pit side. All I did was USM to this so as not to alter the original results.

Edited by Terry D on Aug 23, 2008 at 11:54 AM GMT

How far away were the cars? How about the stands in the background?

Gerald

ISO 2000, f1.4? I'm wondering what this image would have looked like without the flash. The very bright specular highlight on the hood of the black car doesn't look like it came from your flash. If that is true, it would be hard to tell how much light was provided by the flash or by other sources.

Chris_Platt wrote:
ISO 2000, f1.4? I'm wondering what this image would have looked like without the flash. The very bright specular highlight on the hood of the black car doesn't look like it came from your flash. If that is true, it would be hard to tell how much light was provided by the flash or by other sources.


You can tell be the direction of the shadow under the cars that the flash is contributing very little light into the total scene. So to answer your question: pretty similar to what you're seeing here except for the nearest car, which is clearly illuminated by the flash.

I'm still impressed with 200mm though, especially if it can come in place of the clumsy beamer.

Chris_Platt wrote:
ISO 2000, f1.4? I'm wondering what this image would have looked like without the flash. The very bright specular highlight on the hood of the black car doesn't look like it came from your flash. If that is true, it would be hard to tell how much light was provided by the flash or by other sources.

You guys have to read the details D3, ISO 2000, Manual Ex 1/250th @ f4, with a 50mm f1.4....NOT f1.4

If you look at the strong ambient light shadow coming from the OTHER side of the track and realize that the far car is black ... the flash is clearly filling the camera side.

Again there was a WALL of tire smoke lingering between the bleachers on both sides of the track that splayed the light and it still got through.

I was probably 70 feet from the car sitting up in the bleachers.

Terry, who is driving the little golf cart in the third picture? Teen Wolf?

Flash looks plenty powerful, I guess the drivers aren't distracted

Well it says here that the SB-900 is no better than the SB-600: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/sb900.htm

Elan II wrote:
Chris_Platt wrote:
ISO 2000, f1.4? I'm wondering what this image would have looked like without the flash. The very bright specular highlight on the hood of the black car doesn't look like it came from your flash. If that is true, it would be hard to tell how much light was provided by the flash or by other sources.


You can tell be the direction of the shadow under the cars that the flash is contributing very little light into the total scene. So to answer your question: pretty similar to what you're seeing here except for the nearest car, which is clearly illuminated by the flash.

I'm still impressed with 200mm though, especially if it can come in place of the clumsy beamer.




Not adding a lot of light! The dark shadown from the wall is GONE! And even the car shadows are greatly reduced. The Nation Guard sign is reflecting back.

However, the irony is I like the 3rd shot best, but, these pictures show what the SB900 is capable of.

Grognard wrote:
Well it says here that the SB-900 is no better than the SB-600: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/sb900.htm

Is it just me or does Ken Rockwell not come across as a very happy guy.

stuuke wrote:
Grognard wrote:
Well it says here that the SB-900 is no better than the SB-600: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/sb900.htm

Is it just me or does Ken Rockwell not come across as a very happy guy.


I'm happy....

Jack White wrote:
Terry, who is driving the little golf cart in the third picture? Teen Wolf?

Flash looks plenty powerful, I guess the drivers aren't distracted

Teen Wolf is right Jack. they planted themselves there for half a dozen passes and screwed up my view.

The track photogs ( the guy leaning over the wall) are right in the driver's faces with a flash... I think the drivers are too focused for it to be much of a distraction... of course I don't think that the photog by the wall had an SB-900 either.... it might have melted the plastic on the side of the car if he had

Grognard wrote:
Well it says here that the SB-900 is no better than the SB-600: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/sb900.htm

"I got my hands on one, and my first thoughts are that the high price is for all the gizmos and things that just get in the way of ever being able to figure it out and take a picture," says Ken Rockwell.....


Kenny, Boobala, call me.... I'll explain it to ya.

Terry D wrote:



Kenny, Boobala, call me.... I'll explain it to ya.

Good one Terry.

I like #3 best. But again, this is all about the SB-900 and it is a great flash.
Dan

there needs to be a rule in FM that disables any account mentioning or linking to KR.

danjacquitaylo wrote:
Terry D wrote:



Kenny, Boobala, call me.... I'll explain it to ya.

Good one Terry.

I like #3 best. But again, this is all about the SB-900 and it is a great flash.
Dan


Hi Dan... thanks

AJ Nadershahi wrote:
there needs to be a rule in FM that disables any account mentioning or linking to KR.

But then what would we do for giggles AJ

I'm very happy that KR's comments were ignored.

Terry, have you tried a Better Beamer attachment? It will extend the limits of your flash. Outdoor photogs use it when shooting wildlife.

James R wrote:
I'm very happy that KR's comments were ignored.

Terry, have you tried a Better Beamer attachment? It will extend the limits of your flash. Outdoor photogs use it when shooting wildlife.

Hi James. I have one, but I'm afraid to use it in fear of starting my woods on fire.

Andre Labonte wrote:
Elan II wrote:
Chris_Platt wrote:
ISO 2000, f1.4? I'm wondering what this image would have looked like without the flash. The very bright specular highlight on the hood of the black car doesn't look like it came from your flash. If that is true, it would be hard to tell how much light was provided by the flash or by other sources.


You can tell be the direction of the shadow under the cars that the flash is contributing very little light into the total scene. So to answer your question: pretty similar to what you're seeing here except for the nearest car, which is clearly illuminated by the flash.

I'm still impressed with 200mm though, especially if it can come in place of the clumsy beamer.




Not adding a lot of light! The dark shadown from the wall is GONE! And even the car shadows are greatly reduced. The Nation Guard sign is reflecting back.

However, the irony is I like the 3rd shot best, but, these pictures show what the SB900 is capable of.



When I posted my comment, only the first image was included in Terry's post and my comment is therefore limited to this image only. I don't know what your background is. I just finished a shoot today where as many as eight strobes were used at one time for a given shot. I know my ratios and I know what I'm seeing here.

No worries Elan .... we're all friends here. I'm not going to fight over a strobe light.... but you get between me and my supper and buddy you're goin down.

Terry D wrote:
No worries Elan .... we're all friends here. I'm not going to fight over a strobe light.... but you get between me and my supper and buddy you're goin down.


I'll try to remember that!

I'm not knocking the SB-900. I just don't want someone reading this post to get the impression they can illuminate a football field with one. The power and recycle times of the SB-900 are about the same as those of the SB-800. That leaves the ability to focus the light to 200mm as the one major benefit I see and the reason I might buy one. I'm going to wait for some feedback and hopefully reviews by wildlife photographers before parting with $500 though.

Point well taken Elan.... I do see the new controls as an asset too. Working with it the other night was quite easy (sorry Ken... ) in addition to the 200mm capability.

I shoot some birds, too and I'm curious as to how well it works compared to the BB.

T

Neil van Niekerk just posted his first impressions of the SB900. His main points were full rotation in both direction and easier use of working with CLS.

http://planetneil.com/tangents/2008/08/21/sb-900-speedlight-review/

Maybe Ken R was mistakenly writing about the new Canon flash instead of the SB-900.... "The menu of the 580EX II (and the original) is so obscure you need to carry the manual with you, or some kind of note," says Neil van Niekerk.


Thanks for the link Butch.

Well it says here that the SB-900 is no better than the SB-600: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/sb900.htm

That's not what it says at all.

The SB900 has all the bells and whistles and for a great majority of people (the people Ken feels he is speaking to) has for more than they could ever even think they need. His major complaint about the 900 is that it isn't some drastic leap in the realm of off-camera flash to justify its existence.