I am having a problem with my AC3 and Pocket Wizard System after updating to rev 3.00 firmware for Nikon Mini and Flex. I am using a D3 and a D3s plus SB900 flash units. The problem occurs when the AC3 is installed on the Mini. The flash unit fires at max output, the flash pilot light blinks (under exposed) and the flash indicates the exposure is 3 stops down, when it is actually completely blown out. If I remove the AC3, the system works perfectly. Also, if I use an SU800 instead of the AC3, I get the same blown out image and the under exposure warning. This happens with any combination of flex and SB900. Even a flex on camera with the AC3 causes the problem. If I place the AC3 in Manual, the system works as expected. I have tried rear and normal sync with no change.
I have new batteries in everything and there does not appear to be a connection problem.
After much troubleshooting, I have learned the problem centers around the preflash. If I move the flash unit very close to the subject, (6 ft) everything works fine. If I move 10 ft away, changing nothing else.....blown image. If I zoom the flash head to 200mm, it works until I move back to 12 ft. then blown image. All of this is done in a dimly lit room with the camera set for 1/160, f5.6, and ISO 800. The ambient exposure is 4 stops down from that so it would be a 100% flash exposure. It would appear the AC3 or anything on the Mini hot shoe is changing the preflash output or timing in such a way as to cause the exposure system to over expose the image.
I have sent an email to the Beta Lab to see if it is possible to roll back the firmware. Has anyone else experienced any problems with Nikon, the AC3 and firmware rev 3?
Thanks for the link. That is not the problem I am having. I received an email from PW and they were able to reproduce the problem, so I assume they are working on a solution.
Canon tested and it works ok. They still haven't fixed the channel bug. You can't just go to C2 - you have to go to C1 first then down to C2. Stupid problem and easy workaround - thank goodness i was paying attention when it happened or I'd assume C2 was busted...
BubbaJon wrote:
Canon tested and it works ok. They still haven't fixed the channel bug. You can't just go to C2 - you have to go to C1 first then down to C2. Stupid problem and easy workaround - thank goodness i was paying attention when it happened or I'd assume C2 was busted...
Richard's using NIKON not Canon, Nikon v3 firmware, not Canon v6. I don't know how having Canon v6 working helps Nikon at all?
Since when has having to employ a workaround been anything other than 'not working'?
Nikon v3 includes a lot of useful features which should have been incorporated when it was first released. Getting to a working setup is taking it's time, and I hope it happens well before v7 for Nikon !
Thanks for checking. It looks like this may be a Nikon problem. I did notice buried in Desmond's link, one guy with a D90 say he was getting severe over exposures in iTTL. So this may not be just a D3 / D3s problem.
UK,
They did fix a few bugs, but the VR issue is still there. The speed cycler looks interesting, but this preflash problem is a new bug.....I didn't have the issue with the older firmware. What is odd is they have beta testers that have been testing this firmware for sometime. I don't know why it wasn't spotted before now because it is so obvious. In fairness to PW, they took down my information, grab the same gear I am using, went back to the lab and reproduced it. So they are responsive, I give them "one thumbs up" The guys I don't care for either don't answer the phone, tell you that you don't know how to operate the gear, or try new batteries.
This is a complex product and I am willing to give PW the benefit of the doubt as long as they continue to answer the phone, and test the problem you call about.
Being able to use an SB900 in the TT1 is useful.. as well as being able to trigger any hotshoe based flash in a TT5 as a remote was sort of expected (why didn't they do that originally??).
The VR problem and the rear focus issues are supposed to be fixed, so I'm surprised that you still have your VR problem.. and now pre-flash problems (!)
With your V3 can you get a decent Hypersync speed using a flash in the camera TT1 ? If you remember previously Hypersync was only available if you were triggering a remote.
ukphotographer wrote:
The VR problem and the rear focus issues are supposed to be fixed, so I'm surprised that you still have your VR problem.. and now pre-flash problems (!)
With your V3 can you get a decent Hypersync speed using a flash in the camera TT1 ? If you remember previously Hypersync was only available if you were triggering a remote.
UK,
I haven't tried Hypersync since upgrading to V3. As soon as I loaded the new firmware, I immediately began experiencing severe over exposure issues. I have spent all of my PW time trying to figure out what was wrong with iTTL. It would work in one room of the house, but not in another. I looked at WiFi, cell phones, cordless phones, and anything else electronic, thinking this was an RFI / EFI issue. I finally realized the issue was distance to subject and it clicked.
I will double check the VR issue, but I thought I got the dreaded black frame when I had the VR lens installed.
ukphotographer wrote:
Richard's using NIKON not Canon, Nikon v3 firmware, not Canon v6. I don't know how having Canon v6 working helps Nikon at all?
Since when has having to employ a workaround been anything other than 'not working'?
Nikon v3 includes a lot of useful features which should have been incorporated when it was first released. Getting to a working setup is taking it's time, and I hope it happens well before v7 for Nikon !
I can read. A Canon test will tell you that it is a localized problem - not across the board. A workaround means it's still useable whereas broken means it is unusable. Hope this clears it up for you.
BubbaJon wrote:
I can read. A Canon test will tell you that it is a localized problem - not across the board. A workaround means it's still useable whereas broken means it is unusable. Hope this clears it up for you.
P L E A S E ...
Lacalized to what? ..another part of the universe in a different dimension? It's reassuring to know that theres such astute members out there making sure there's something wrong with Nikon equipment by testing Canon instead.
I'm familiar with workarounds, it's what you do when something doesn't work properly.
I think the point was - 'It did work - now it doesn't'. So by your definition it is in fact 'broke'.
Lacalized to what? ..another part of the universe in a different dimension? It's reassuring to know that theres such astute members out there making sure there's something wrong with Nikon equipment by testing Canon instead.
I'm familiar with workarounds, it's what you do when something doesn't work properly.
I think the point was - 'It did work - now it doesn't'. So by your definition it is in fact 'broke'.
Both Canon and Nikon received firmware updates recently. Some things will be peculiar to Canon and some Nikon - the vast majority of firmware code is probably common to both. As far as workaround - the original statement was about the C1-C2 bug. You'd have caught that if you weren't too busy trying to pick a fight. I posted my observations to be helpful to the OP. Someone else *also* posted their test with a Canon unit but you ignored that one. Anyway - if you don't find the post helpful or just feel a need to vent then PM me to take issue instead of cluttering the post. Thx.
BubbaJon wrote:
Both Canon and Nikon received firmware updates recently. Some things will be peculiar to Canon and some Nikon - the vast majority of firmware code is probably common to both. As far as workaround - the original statement was about the C1-C2 bug.
Similarities end at 'N' and 'C'. Probable software code sharing is a very 'iffy' assumption even on a small scale, moreso for the major.
I fully understood your C1-C2 problem for Canon but failed and still fail to see the relevance to a Nikon setup, using different hardware, different firmware, with different cameras and different flashes.
Maybe Richard will try the Canon C1-C2 fault out on his Nikon for you, just to confirm that yours is broken. Wait a minute.. it is, so that would be a pointless confirmation! Had you tried a Nikon D700 with V3, Mini, Flex and AC3 and SB900 and the combination worked - that would be a completely different matter.
The work around supplied by PW does work. As far as the VR issue, I believe PW considers it fixed. Originally, if I turned VR on or off, I would get a steady stream of black frames until I lowered the SS down to 1/30, take an exposure, then I could raise the SS back up and everything would be OK. Now if I turn VR on or off, you get one black frame, and then proper exposures with out having to change the SS. I'm guessing that may be the final fix.
The work around supplied by PW does work. As far as the VR issue, I believe PW considers it fixed. Originally, if I turned VR on or off, I would get a steady stream of black frames until I lowered the SS down to 1/30, take an exposure, then I could raise the SS back up and everything would be OK. Now if I turn VR on or off, you get one black frame, and then proper exposures with out having to change the SS. I'm guessing that may be the final fix.
Thanks to everyone who responded,
Richard K.
So what was the work around? Is it the turning VR on and off?
ukphotographer wrote:
Similarities end at 'N' and 'C'. Probable software code sharing is a very 'iffy' assumption even on a small scale, moreso for the major.
I fully understood your C1-C2 problem for Canon but failed and still fail to see the relevance to a Nikon setup, using different hardware, different firmware, with different cameras and different flashes.
Maybe Richard will try the Canon C1-C2 fault out on his Nikon for you, just to confirm that yours is broken. Wait a minute.. it is, so that would be a pointless confirmation! Had you tried a Nikon D700 with V3, Mini, Flex and AC3 and SB900 and the combination worked - that would be a completely different matter....Show more →
Gee - I happen to be a software/controls engineer and I can tell you it's more likely than you think. Likely the code is structured with a hardware abstraction layer to isolate the hardware differences from the actual control and interface algorithms. I will cede that it is an educated guess - albeit based on years of working with embedded code.
BubbaJon wrote:
Gee - I happen to be a software/controls engineer and I can tell you it's more likely than you think. Likely the code is structured with a hardware abstraction layer to isolate the hardware differences from the actual control and interface algorithms. I will cede that it is an educated guess - albeit based on years of working with embedded code.
HappyCamp wrote:
+1 from another software engineer.
Well pardon me gentlemen, it seems you both confirm that Nikon and Canon hardware would be treated completely seperately as I pointed out, and to add further insult to injury, Richard should expect the additional channel switch problem as well... just to make his day !
No - what we pointed out was the likelihood that a small part of the code would be dedicated to hardware differences - referring more to the communications protocol and "talking" to the strobe. Of course they have to be treated differently at that level, but functionally they are treated same/similarly at the "upper levels".
