Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] F280 vs 3rd party Fill Flash

Subject: Re: [OM] F280 vs 3rd party Fill Flash
From: *- DORIS FANG -* <sfsttj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:13:51 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 14 Jun 1999, Terry Mair wrote:

> I have a question why would you want to shoot men with or with out hats at 
> NOON?
> if it possible move into open shade and still use fill or balance flash.

   I can understand that situations may arise where due to expediency
of a certain background such a shot would happen.

> >   At the risk of sounding atavistic, I'll go one further and say that
> > using flash on manual (WARNING: Non-OM content !) beats any other
> > means of using a flash besides a test shot on a flashmeter,
> 
> I hardly ever use my flashes on Manual, but I do meter them to find out just 
> what the
> output is at a given distance range! I have never used dedicated flash so I 
> cant
> speak for them, but I do know that thyristors are not 100% at all rainges, 
> and do
> change there output at different distances.

   
   Since the exposure is dependent on output and distance from your
subject, once you have figured out your real GN, the distance/manual
business works extremely well [though whenever possible/convenient, I
 also pull out the flashmeter and take a reading]. The thyristor "problem"
has more to do with reflectivity variations and included ambient light
than anything else.
  If I read you right, you're using flash on AUTO and metering the 
exposure with a handheld flashmeter ? Why ? If you recompose and the 
total scene reflectivity/background brightness changes, your 
exposure is also changed. Once you know the true GN for your unit,
it is like working with an incident reading. Many flashes with adjustable
manual f/stops allow for precise and easy fill-ratio bracketing (yes,
it was possible long before the Wunderbricken landed in Roswell :-) 

> >   Probably buying an OM-2000 and a HD handlemount flash is the best
> > solution to the OM-fill-flash "problem".  Any increase in synch speed
> > means a big difference in your fill-flash range & flexibility.
> 
> Wouldn't any camera on manual be the same as using an OM-2000??
> Terry

  No. In Mondo-OM, the homely OM-2000 is the only bod that
synchs above 1/60th. There's a sizeable difference there. 
For example, with a flash unit of 4000 BCPS (Beam Candle Power Second
Output), the max range for 2:1 fill ratio is 10 feet at 1/60th synch.
Change the synch t 1/125th with the rest being equal, and now you 
get 2:1 at 14 feet, which may not sound like much, but in the real world,
is sizeable. 
   If you use a leaf shutter camera that range expands to 21 feet
if you synch at 1/500th. This is why it is not the same...
   For an excellent understanding of this, buy a tiny Kodak book called 
the Kodak Master Photoguide, and read it very throroughly, checking out
the numbers in the tables, and figuring things out with your own
camera & flashes, and TEST shoot what you think you have learned to
see if it works.
                                    *= Doris Fang =*

Ps. Before anyone points out my "error" in that I haven't included
ISO speed in the fill ranges, be aware that it doesn't matter...

Pps. This fill-range business is yet another reason why a short zoom 
is your friend. Because with on-camera flash, in manual, without moving
(and changing distance/exposure/fill ratio), you can shoot several
different subject croppings/compositions, specially with a Winder/Motor
very quickly.
   
Ppps. Now that I've bored everyone to sleep...


< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz