What would be the point in buying a SU-800 when another SB-900 would do the same job in master mode? Then I would have two sb-900's (I shoot the d3 by the way)
SU-800 or another SB-900
(9 posts) (5 voices)-
Posted 4 years ago #
-
Joe McNalley in his new book, The Hot Shoe Diaries, claims that the SU-800 gives him better flexibility in how he uses CLS. Apparently, the signal is stronger than a regular hot shoe flash, and it can be attached to a cord to aim at things where you don't have line-of-site from your camera. So If you have problems with mis-fires etc, the SU-800 might be a better way to go.
Personally, I think the SB-900 is a much better value. If you shoot a D3, then the $150 differnce in price isn't going to make or break you, and with the 900 you get two flashes which is going to improve your lighting much better than more wireless range (You can have a key light and a fill light). The SU-900 also looks easier to set (I don't own either the 900 or the SU-800, so my opinion is based only on photos I've seen of each.
If ultimate range\flexibility is your goal, forget the SU-800 and grab some pocket wizards, which don't need line of sight at all. You will have to use your flash in manual mode, but misfires will become a thing of the past.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I disagree with pocket wizards not misfiring. Thats why I went to cls. Weight is a huge issue with me. I use an 800 and 2 600s. Since I got my D3 Ive had to use my 800 on camera since I lost my pop up from me 300. I sometimes use an extended ttl cable, but I want wireless. I am getting an Su 800 just for the weight difference. I also like the control the su 800 has.
Posted 4 years ago # -
dasingemt, I totally agree with You, if You use flash in remote locations (not in studio, at least) than SB-900 is really not an option, it's simply much bigger than any other combination which uses SU-800 for communication.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I have no experience with the 900, except to briefly play with one - the UI is much easier to deal with than the 800, but once you get to know the 800, most of the settings are just second nature (but still slower to set than 900). I've heard that the 900 can do a better job of lighting a wide scene with less light falloff. But JEESH, the 900 is big. I'll stick to 800s for now.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Point taken dash. Like I said, I've never actually seen an SB-900 in person. Is it really that much bigger than the 800?
When I'm doing CLS my kit consists of a D90, one SB-600, and one SB-800. I position the lights using some cheapo $10 tripods I got when I first got started. They are flimsy to use for my camera, but work great with the flashes (of course I wish they were slightly taller) I've also got a couple Justin Clamps on order.
In fact, if I'm just tooling around, I leave the D90 at home and instead grab my D40 with the SB-800 hotshoed for on axis fill and the SB600 as my key light.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Yeah, I dont know the exact weight. I s'pose I could look it up, but Im being lazy. The 900 is imo HUGE compared to the already large 800.
Heres a pic of the 2
http://www.bythom.com/Images/sb900%20sb800%20back.jpgPosted 4 years ago # -
I suppose that's pretty big. Anyone out there have any experience with the lumaquest softbox III? I've been kicking arou d purchasing one.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Thom's photo is only on the back - and if You used SB-800 You can see the difference. SB-900 is also much longer than SB-800, and little bit thicker.
Posted 4 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
