My D40 Pictures are all Blurry

[vIZnquest]

rjseeney wrote:

Valleyjim wrote:

The problem with the SB400 is it is relatively underpowered and is only slightly cheaper than the SB600.

I use the SB400 on my D40 and D200 and don't find that claim of being underpowered to be true in my case. Also, there is about a $100 difference between the SB400 and SB600. It starts up faster and recycles faster and uses only two batteries. The compactness of it and the ease of use makes it a very good flash for me.

[mtclimber]

For what it might be worth, I too find the Nikon SB-400 to be VERY underpowered!

You would be much better served by using either the SB-600 or the SB-600. Small is nice, but it does not always get the photo that you really want.

Sarah Joyce

[deadshot]

vIZnquest wrote:

rjseeney wrote:

I use the SB400 on my D40 and D200 and don't find that claim of being underpowered to be true in my case. Also, there is about a $100 difference between the SB400 and SB600. It starts up faster and recycles faster and uses only two batteries. The compactness of it and the ease of use makes it a very good flash for me.

I agree entirely,the specs tell you the power,the inbuilt flash on my D40x = 39ft @iso 100 the sb400 =69ft @iso100, the sb600=98ft @iso100, there is a high st camera shop over here selling the sb600 for £10/$20 cheaper than the sb400( Digital Depot)I believe the reason is that the sb400 is more popular due to its portability and that the sb600 is harder to sell.So I guess it comes down to your priorities.I went for the sb400 because 1 .I can hike up the iso if need be ,to get more distance 2.Also gives me the bounce I want. 3. The flash fits perfectly into the side pocket on my bag and is very very light. I have posted this for anyone trying to decide what to buy.

[rjseeney]

My main reason for citing lack of power for the SB400 is related to bouncing. Bouncing significantly reduces your output...you need to throw a lot of light to bounce effectively. Unless you're very close to the subject, your bouncing with the sb400 will be inconsistent at best. Now for general use, such as fill flash, the sb400 should work real well. I still think it's worth spending the extra $50 to $60 for the SB600.

[JimC]

deadshot wrote:

the sb400 =69ft @iso100

Keep in mind that you're looking at the Guide Number, not the range you're going to get with a given aperture setting (unless you happen to have an f/1.0 lens). ;-)

To determine flash range, divide the GN by the aperture.

For example, if you're shooting at f/5.6, your flash range would be approximately 12.3 feet at ISO 100 with an SB400:

GN of 69 feet / aperture of 5.6 ~= 12.3 feet at ISO 100 (40% further at ISO 200).

But, if you're using a diffuser, you will reduce flash range. Ditto if you're bouncing the flash, because you've got to account for travel to and from the ceiling, as well as the diffusion of light you're going to have from bouncing (because it's spread out over a wider angle). It's best to use a more powerful flash for this purpose.

You can increase range via ISO speed if needed, to a point. Each time you double the ISO speed, flash range increases by approximately 1.4x.