Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Nikon CP8800 and Fast Shutter Speed

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 11:05:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Have any of you CP8800 owners out there succeeded in taking a correctly
exposed photograph on a bright sunny day with a shutters speed of 1500 or
3000 ??
If so, then what were the other major settings you used?
This is a serious question and I would really appreciate you coming back to
me with your results.
Thanks in advance,
Leo. In Auckland, NEW ZEALAND
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 11:05:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:05:48 +1300, in rec.photo.digital.zlr "Leo R."
<lsrolfeFAKED@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

>Have any of you CP8800 owners out there succeeded in taking a correctly
>exposed photograph on a bright sunny day with a shutters speed of 1500 or
>3000 ??
>If so, then what were the other major settings you used?
>This is a serious question and I would really appreciate you coming back to
>me with your results.

Don't own an 8800, but if you tell us what settings you've tried and what
problems you're having owners of other models might be able to offer useful
suggestions.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 11:05:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Based on the 'Sunny 16' rule you should get a correctly exposure of 1/1500
sec. at f:2.8 or slightly less with the default ISO of 50. Since Nikon
restricts the f:stop range when using 1/3000 sec. you would have to increase
the ISO to 200 or posibly 400 to use 1/3000 within the restricted range. Be
aware that you will likely see noise at the increased ISO settings.
Related resources
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 11:10:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

"Ed Ruf" <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
news:151p0190l6tkn4o9f6prop1vtik0fotdfv@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:05:48 +1300, in rec.photo.digital.zlr "Leo R."
> <lsrolfeFAKED@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> Don't own an 8800, but if you tell us what settings you've tried and what
> problems you're having owners of other models might be able to offer
useful
> suggestions.
> ----------
> Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)

Thanks Ed, but I'm hoping other CP8800 owners will tell me actual results
from their camera.
Kind regards
Leo
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 11:19:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

"Cooter" <cooter@msn.com> wrote in message
news:MP3Pd.59395$dt3.6790474@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> Based on the 'Sunny 16' rule you should get a correctly exposure of 1/1500
> sec. at f:2.8 or slightly less with the default ISO of 50. Since Nikon
> restricts the f:stop range when using 1/3000 sec. you would have to
increase
> the ISO to 200 or posibly 400 to use 1/3000 within the restricted range.
Be
> aware that you will likely see noise at the increased ISO settings.
>
Hi Cooter,
Yes, have tried that on a briliantly sunny day and end up with very much
underexposed photos at these shutter speeds even at iso 400. I am trying to
determine whether it is just my camera or if they are all like that. It's
not as simple as going into a camera shop and trying one as they have have
none in stock. I'm hoping other CP8800 owners will tell me of their
experiences. One of the key reasons I bought this camera was for the higher
shutter speeds and now it appears to be unusable.
Thanks for your advice Cooter.
Kind regards
Leo
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 11:19:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Leo R. commented courteously ...

> Yes, have tried that on a briliantly sunny day and
> end up with very much underexposed photos at these
> shutter speeds even at iso 400. I am trying to
> determine whether it is just my camera or if they
> are all like that. It's not as simple as going into
> a camera shop and trying one as they have have none
> in stock. I'm hoping other CP8800 owners will tell
> me of their experiences. One of the key reasons I
> bought this camera was for the higher shutter
> speeds and now it appears to be unusable.

I've been following this thread because I'm in the market
for a new digital to replace my Nikon 5700. Although my
big heartburn is inconsistent flash exposures (as you may
have noted in my post recently), I am equally interested
in any apparent anomolies the 8800 might have. I'll never
use such high shutter speeds for taking car pictures that
are standing still, but your observation is still useful
to me.

In my case, living in a so-called upscale suburb of
Detroit, MI, there are a number of camera stores that not
only have the 8800 in stock, they're competing for my
busines by offering a 10-day no-questions-asked return
policy.

Ultimately, that's how I'll decide if the 8800 works for
my very peculiar shoot situations.

Thanks for the info.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 8:38:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Seems there really is a problem. Today was clear and sunny so I took my 8800
outside to check out the question of 1/1500 and 1/3000 second expoures. The
first shot was at ISO 50 in program mode to establish a "Base" exposure. The
result was 1/224 second at f:5.6 - almost exactly what would be expected. I
then put the camera on shutter priority mode and made 1/1500 ans 1/3000
second exposures at ISO 50, 100, 200 and 400. Keep in mind that at 1/3000
the widest aperature is f:5.0. Since the base exposure (1/224 at f:5.6) was
visually correct and had a normal histogram I compared all the other
exposures to it. Following are the results including the f:stop reported in
the EXIF data:

ISO 50
1/1500 @ f:2.8 - about one stop underexposed
1/3000 @ f:5.0 - barely visible

ISO 100
1/1500 @ f:3.2 - 1/3 to 1/2 stop darker than "Base"
1/3000 @ f:5.0 - very dark

ISO 200
1/1500 @ f:5.0 - 1/3 to 1/2 stop darker than "Base"
1/3000 # f:5.0 - very dark

ISO 400
1/1500 @ f:8.0 - 1/3 to 1/2 stop darker than "Base"
1/3000 @ f:5.6 - one to two stops darker than "Base"

Conclusions: The three 1/1500 second exposures at ISO 100, 200 and 400
should have matched the "Base" exposure, but they were all darker by 1/3 to
1/2 f:stop. The 1/3000 second exposure at ISO 400 should also have matched
the "Base" exposure. It was still too dark to be used. Either there is a
problem with short exposure times on all the 8800s, or there are at least
two cameras with the problem.
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 10:35:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

"All Things Mopar" <usenetMAPS123@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95FABE1B7CBF8ReplyToken@216.196.97.131...
> Leo R. commented courteously ...
>
>
> I've been following this thread because I'm in the market
> for a new digital to replace my Nikon 5700. Although my
> big heartburn is inconsistent flash exposures (as you may
> have noted in my post recently), I am equally interested
> in any apparent anomolies the 8800 might have. I'll never
> use such high shutter speeds for taking car pictures that
> are standing still, but your observation is still useful
> to me.
>
> In my case, living in a so-called upscale suburb of
> Detroit, MI, there are a number of camera stores that not
> only have the 8800 in stock, they're competing for my
> busines by offering a 10-day no-questions-asked return
> policy.
>
> Ultimately, that's how I'll decide if the 8800 works for
> my very peculiar shoot situations.
>
> Thanks for the info.
>
Hello Jerry,
Yes, I think the 8800 could work for your style of photography but be aware
the on-board flash is not very "flash" and if you decide on a dedicated
flash unit then the SB-800 is the way to go, the SB-600 just doesn't cut it.
Also, be aware that not all the SB-800/600 features work, notably the zoom
variation of the flash intensity.
Your acess to the 10 day trial sounds the way to go. We don't have anything
like that here or I would probably have returned the camera. As it is it
looks like I'm gearing up to have an argument with Mr. Nikon.

I'm still hoping some other CP8800 owners will come back to me with their
high speed shutter experiences.

Kind regards,
Leo
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 10:35:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Leo R. commented courteously ...

> Yes, I think the 8800 could work for your style of
> photography but be aware the on-board flash is not
> very "flash" and if you decide on a dedicated flash
> unit then the SB-800 is the way to go, the SB-600
> just doesn't cut it.
[snip]

Hi, Leo.

Yes, I agree that the built-in Speedlight can't cut it for
anything other than a quickie snap shot shot in my house.
It's got a GN down around 30 or less.

I have a reasonable knowledge of strobe technology and
power, but no real knowledge of modern TTL metering. So, I
would ask if you could amplify why you think I should buy
the 800.

Being that I am a "documentary"-style car photog, I
recognize and accept the many limitations of a single
strobe on top of the camera, regardless of whose it is.

My relatively new Sunpak 433D, that won't work on the 8800
because of it's iTTL, has a GN of 120, which gives me a
theoretical shooting range of around 34 feet at an average
wide-open aperture of f/3.5. That is more than adequate
for car museums and will probably satisfy me even in large
places like the Smithsonian.

I could look this stuff up on Nikon's web site, but I'm
much more interested in your experience, and not their
specs.

So, is it that the SB-600's GN is too low? Or, is it that
it doesn't perform well at some focal lengths (you
commented on its zoom faults)? Or, maybe it doesn't do
nearly as good a job at "talking" to iTTL as the SB-800?

I've *clearly* learned my lesson with my bad 5700
experience! I'm gonna test drive this time, and not scrimp
on the bucks for the flash. So, while I'd be amenible to
the approximately $300 for an SB-800, I don't mind getting
down to $195 after rebate on the 600 if I can.

And, I'm interested in keeping the weight of the flash as
low as possible.

So, please respond within the context of my admitedly
peculiar shooting technique, rather than what a pro or
"serious amateur" would do.

I appreciate you help.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 10:48:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Thanks for the data.

Please say firmware version so I don't bother downloading/updating
until this is resolved.

Tks
BobSam
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 11:03:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Thanks very much for that Cooter. Tt's exactly what I was looking, for tho
hoping that it was only my camera as it would have been easier to "fix".
Will let you know how I get on with Nikon. Their agent here will not yet
admit there is a problem with the camera but for the past two weeks has been
unable to demonstrate how to take a properly exposed photo at these higher
shutter speeds.
Thanks for your help.
Kind regards
Leo

"Cooter" <cooter@msn.com> wrote in message
news:FarPd.2289$VI1.387852@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> Seems there really is a problem. Today was clear and sunny so I took my
8800
> outside to check out the question of 1/1500 and 1/3000 second expoures.
The
> first shot was at ISO 50 in program mode to establish a "Base" exposure.
The
> result was 1/224 second at f:5.6 - almost exactly what would be expected.
I
> then put the camera on shutter priority mode and made 1/1500 ans 1/3000
> second exposures at ISO 50, 100, 200 and 400. Keep in mind that at 1/3000
> the widest aperature is f:5.0. Since the base exposure (1/224 at f:5.6)
was
> visually correct and had a normal histogram I compared all the other
> exposures to it. Following are the results including the f:stop reported
in
> the EXIF data:
>
> ISO 50
> 1/1500 @ f:2.8 - about one stop underexposed
> 1/3000 @ f:5.0 - barely visible
>
> ISO 100
> 1/1500 @ f:3.2 - 1/3 to 1/2 stop darker than "Base"
> 1/3000 @ f:5.0 - very dark
>
> ISO 200
> 1/1500 @ f:5.0 - 1/3 to 1/2 stop darker than "Base"
> 1/3000 # f:5.0 - very dark
>
> ISO 400
> 1/1500 @ f:8.0 - 1/3 to 1/2 stop darker than "Base"
> 1/3000 @ f:5.6 - one to two stops darker than "Base"
>
> Conclusions: The three 1/1500 second exposures at ISO 100, 200 and 400
> should have matched the "Base" exposure, but they were all darker by 1/3
to
> 1/2 f:stop. The 1/3000 second exposure at ISO 400 should also have matched
> the "Base" exposure. It was still too dark to be used. Either there is a
> problem with short exposure times on all the 8800s, or there are at least
> two cameras with the problem.
>
>
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 6:32:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

"All Things Mopar" <usenetMAPS123@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95FB73F5C2026ReplyToken@216.196.97.131...
> Yes, I agree that the built-in Speedlight can't cut it for
> anything other than a quickie snap shot shot in my house.
> It's got a GN down around 30 or less.
>
> I have a reasonable knowledge of strobe technology and
> power, but no real knowledge of modern TTL metering. So, I
> would ask if you could amplify why you think I should buy
> the 800.
>
> Being that I am a "documentary"-style car photog, I
> recognize and accept the many limitations of a single
> strobe on top of the camera, regardless of whose it is.
>
> My relatively new Sunpak 433D, that won't work on the 8800
> because of it's iTTL, has a GN of 120, which gives me a
> theoretical shooting range of around 34 feet at an average
> wide-open aperture of f/3.5. That is more than adequate
> for car museums and will probably satisfy me even in large
> places like the Smithsonian.
>
> I could look this stuff up on Nikon's web site, but I'm
> much more interested in your experience, and not their
> specs.
>
> So, is it that the SB-600's GN is too low? Or, is it that
> it doesn't perform well at some focal lengths (you
> commented on its zoom faults)? Or, maybe it doesn't do
> nearly as good a job at "talking" to iTTL as the SB-800?
>
> I've *clearly* learned my lesson with my bad 5700
> experience! I'm gonna test drive this time, and not scrimp
> on the bucks for the flash. So, while I'd be amenible to
> the approximately $300 for an SB-800, I don't mind getting
> down to $195 after rebate on the 600 if I can.
>
> And, I'm interested in keeping the weight of the flash as
> low as possible.
>
> So, please respond within the context of my admitedly
> peculiar shooting technique, rather than what a pro or
> "serious amateur" would do.
>
> I appreciate you help.
>
> --
> ATM, aka Jerry

Hello again Jerry,
I probably don't know enough about your lighting requirements to give you
really meaningful advice, however the 800 will give you more bang for your
buck and in the overall context that is not many more dollars. The CP 8800
manual refers to the external speedlights.
The following is from the 8800 Manual (page 106):

"SB-800 and SB-600 Speedlights
Set the optional Speedlight to TTL mode. In this mode, SB-800 and SB-600
Speedlights
will use monitor preflashes for i-TTL flash control (Standard i-TTL
fill-flash for Digital
SLR). NOTE, however, that the camera does not support Advanced Wireless
Lighting,
auto FP high-speed sync, FV lock, or AF-assist for multi-area AF. See the
Speedlight
manual for more information."

Good luck with whatever you decide.
Leo
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 6:32:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Leo R. commented courteously ...

[snipped in its entirety for brevity]

As before, Leo, thank your for your observations and
advice. You're providing exactly the info I need.

I was busy all day today and was yesterday, so I still
haven't gotten to fully reading about the 8800 or flashes
on NikonUSA or dpreview.com so I'm still very ignorant as
to the specs and relative merits of the camera itself or
the two flash choices.

Other than test driving, I'll make as best an informed
decision as I can based on " must have" vs. "nice to
have" features, price, power, weight, etc. As I commented
on earlier, I've learned my lesson not to ignore my
Momma's advice "don't be penny wise and dollar foolish!".

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 7:23:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

My tests were done using firmware version 1.4
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 10:55:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

"Cooter" <cooter@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Ff4Qd.3598$VI1.1048626@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> My tests were done using firmware version 1.4
>
>
Hello again Cooter. Good to hear from you.
Mine also has Ver 1.4. I upgraded it just after 1.4 was released.
The Nikon agents here still have my 8800, for nearly four weeks now and
still unable to demonstrate how to take a properly exposed pic at those high
shutter speeds. If the 8800 is unable to do that then it is not the camera I
bought. I am going to see them today and sort the mess out. Will give you a
progress report in a day or so.
Kind regards,
Leo.
!