I received a copy of the SB 900 today which was ordered from B&H two days ago. I spent most of the day reviewing the User's Manual and testing out the features. I have come to the conclusion that I like this flash very much. So while everyone is drueling over their new D700 which I just cannot afford at this time I am going to druel over my SB 900. ( I imaging there is some NAS release here somewhere)
First of all if you own or ever owned the SB 26 it is almost the same size just a hair bit bigger. Since I do own an SB26, Sb28, SB50DX and four SB 800 I am very familiar with the controls. I was very disappointed when Nikon decided to drop the user friendly SB 26 for the sleek and complicated SB28. Since then they have been rolling out these flash units with menu's and sub menu's which have made setting them increasingly difficult. The SB 800 was not an exception to this however after owning a SB 600 for a couple of days I returned it to B&H and picked up another SB 800. The SB 900 like the SB 26 eliminates the mystery and returns the unit to what it should be, User friendly. I figure the SB 900 will appeal to all photojournalist and wedding photographers because it just so much easier to handle when situation change on the fly.
Now that I have said that, I want to comment on the thermal cut off feature, If you have burned out a SB 800 as I have with a quantum Battery you know how scarry it becomes to use anything other then the Nikon battery pack, even though Nikon does not endorse using third party equipment, I am willing to gamble that it may be safer to use a Quantum with this puppy however I will wait for some one else to burn theirs out before I try it.
The zoom feature works great with my 70-200mm AFS-F 2.8 and I was surprise at the images produced by the flash at that setting. It seems to fill the frame with flash at distances with very little trace of light falling off on the sides.
I also like the feature called the illumination pattern and will mainly keep it on wide when shooting Weddings. I think the doom diffuser and the included filter holder was icing on the cake. The larger doom seems to immulate the need to spread light something like the Lightsphere.

I also found the recycle time refreshing however may need to try it on a job before I make a conclusion on how much better it is.
Is it the flash of all flashes, I can not say that, I have a lot of professional friends who shoot Nikon but use Sunpaks and Metz however It seem to give me the versatility I need to do what I want to do so I'm going to stick with it. For example: Setting up slave using a Pocket Wizards and/or CLS and being able to switch between the the two and use the flash on its own when needed. The controls just make this much easier. Now if they could just come up with a Flash that responds to voice commands. Would I buy another one, my answer is yes dispite the price tag it just seems to work for me. Unlike the SB 800 you don't really have to read the manual to learn how to work the flash, however if you want to understand it a little better by all means read the manual.

About the only drawback I find with the SB-900 is it's lack of D-TTL and regular TTL (for film bodies) support. Limited to bodies using i-TTL it looks like nobody could ask for more.

>About the only drawback I find with the SB-900 is it's lack
>of D-TTL and regular TTL (for film bodies) support. Limited to
>bodies using i-TTL it looks like nobody could ask for more.

I don't see this as a real draw back and my reasoning is as follows. There are two things that are dying as we move forward with technology. A) Using Cords are a thing of the past, everything now is wireless. For practical purposes on the job wires are just to much of a problem. There are two many new options, Pocket Wizards, RadioPoppers and the CLS.Almost everywhere you turn there is a new wireless system popping up. I find the $27 wireless camera trigger on ebay remarkable for the very cheap price B) Film is just about dead, Ok I realize you and a lot of old timers do not want to hear this, But where is it going now that Nikon has decided to pull the plug after the F6. We have a generation coming up who will never know what using a color correction filter means, or sending film away to be processed? Let's face it, 10 years from now very few photographers will be using film at all. If nothing else someone will come up with the idea that the chemical are enviormentaly unfriendly or something as such and anyone remotely using film will be consider an outcast. Now that you can either use white balance in the camera or correct it with software and download their images to a disk and have them printed from the disk so who wants to be bothered with film/filters unless of course you are using large format. In about a year Nikon will have a 18mg or greater FX camera, at that point there will just be no need for the most demanding professionals to use film. Basicly the way I look at it, Nikon made the move of the future, they decided to do away with the old and concentrate on what's happening in the industry today. However if you still want to use Regular TTL with cords there are cords you can buy that will work with the SB 900 in this manner. It's just not a priority with the new technology. Ok I admit that film still have a few advantages like latitude of exposure but is that enough to keep it afloat?

>>>Film is just about dead<<<

They said the same about vinyl records, heck they said they were dead but they are making a come back.

I think it will be a long while before film is actually dead and even then it may make a come back.

Vinyl records are dead. They have made a "comeback" as collectibles and a curiosity for a few young 'uns, but the sales of vinyl is still about as dead as film.

Thanks. After reading Joe McNally's blog (http://joemcnally.com/blog/) on the SB-900, I'm a little more excited about the SB-900 than I was originally.

It's definitely on my wish list...!

--------------------------
Rick Paul
The Photo Professors

Saguaro Shadows Photography
Tucson, Arizona

My Nikonians Gallery

My Nikonians Blog

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Come on Rick! Is there anything NOT on your wish list?

>Come on Rick! Is there anything NOT on your wish list?

Frankly? No!

But I do need another speedlight, so the next one will be an SB-900.

--------------------------
Rick Paul
The Photo Professors

Saguaro Shadows Photography
Tucson, Arizona

My Nikonians Gallery

My Nikonians Blog

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Well I guess I am just jealous since I really have no excuse to buy one. I already have 2 800s and 2 600s along with an SU800 so I just can't justify yet another.

You know you need one because you have DX bodies.

Scott Chapin
Powder Springs, GA, USA
Nikonians Team Member

Just the D70. I sold the D200 and D2Xs to finance the D3. I don't use the D70, it's mostly for the wife and she CERTAINLY doesn't need an SB900.

Thanks for the idea though.

Not so easy, my friend. You know you need one, or else you must sell that 70-200mm f/2.8 VR. NAS will consume you. There is no escape.

Scott Chapin
Powder Springs, GA, USA
Nikonians Team Member

Since when do we have to justify???? Just blame it on NAS

>Well I guess I am just jealous since I really have no excuse
>to buy one. I already have 2 800s and 2 600s along with an
>SU800 so I just can't justify yet another.

You could just sell the SU800 and use the difference to buy the SB 900, funny thing is I almost brought a SU 800 because from what I read it was a More reliable commander then the on board flash on my D200 and D300, however I am glad I waited because the $250 was absorb in the cost of the new unit. I also have four SB 800's so this gives me the versatility I need and want for my system. For months I have been debating weither to buy the Quantum 5DR, however after noting the cost of another Quantum wireless system, Nikon adapter and of course the unit and battery I decided to buy two more SB800 this was a little before the SB 900 was officially announced, and now I have added a SB 900. That along with the 4 Pocket wizards I own(good thing about PW's I can use them with the "Big Guns" Monolights or Nikon strobes) seem to give me a lot more possibilites for the money.

I didn't see the review. I'm wondering if I should repair my old sb800, or buy the new sb900.

Mine showed up yesterday and so far seems to be a step up from the SB800. It recycles faster and is spot on. I am using it at a wedding this weekend, so it will get the official test.

>Mine showed up yesterday and so far seems to be a step up
>from the SB800. It recycles faster and is spot on. I am using
>it at a wedding this weekend, so it will get the official
>test.

I would like to know the out come at the wedding? As I don't have another scheduled Job until three weeks from now.

> The zoom feature works great with my 70-200mm AFS-F 2.8 and I
>was surprise at the images produced by the flash at that
>setting. It seems to fill the frame with flash at distances
>with very little trace of light falling off on the sides.

I currently have an SB-600 with a Better Beamer that I use to photograph High School Marching bands from the stands (typical focal length of 200mm). It works pretty well, but the BB is a pain to use. I'm curious how well the zoom feature of the SB-900 will work in this situation.

Thanks,

Jay

Does the manual provide more detailed guide numbers? That is curiously lacking from the specs on the NikonUSA site. In particular, the GN for 200mm?

Neil

_________________________________
Neil
Nikonians Team
My Gallery

>Does the manual provide more detailed guide numbers? That is
>curiously lacking from the specs on the NikonUSA site. In
>particular, the GN for 200mm?
>
>Neil

The answer to your question is yes. The manual has 9 tables in the specification section, they are as follows:

1)Flash shooting distant range
2)Angle of coverage in FX format
3)Angle of coverage in DX format
4)Guide number table (with a brake down of all Zoom ranges)
5)Guide number table (FX format)
6)Guide number table (DX format)
7)Guide number table (with Auto FP High-sync)FX format, For SB 900 mounted to D3 at 1/500 at Standard illumination pattern
8)Guild number Table for above (#7) in DX format, For SB 900 mounted to D3 at 1/500 at Standard illumination pattern
9) min # of flashes for various battery types

All of the tables are broken down to show the spec's for each zoom level. In addition it show the range on some of the table for when the " Diffusion doom" is attached or the "wide flash adapter". Hope this answers your question?

Well, actually, I just wanted to know what GN they used for 200mm, or a representative sample (feet/iso/aperture at 200mm) where we can back into the GN . You'd probably get that from #4.

Neil

_________________________________
Neil
Nikonians Team
My Gallery

>Well, actually, I just wanted to know what GN they used for
>200mm, or a representative sample (feet/iso/aperture at 200mm)
>where we can back into the GN . You'd probably get that
>from #4.
>
>Neil
this is taken from table 4
At ISO 100m

Ok,at 200mm in FX ("Standard Illumination" it reads 56 and at "Even illumination" 52.

In DX 200mm ("Standard illumination" is 57 and "Even Illumination" is 54.

There are no figures for the "center weight Illumination" settings for 200mm

From Table 5 in FX the following at 200mm:
meters/feet
Flash out put level
1/1 56/183.7
1/2 39.5/129.6
1/4 28/91.9
1/8 19.7/64.6
1/16 14/45.9
1/32 9.8/32.1
1/64 7/23
1/128 4.9/16.1
Table 6 Dx at 200mm:

1/1 57/187
1/2 40.3/132.2
1/4 28.5/93.5
1/8 20.1/65.9
1/16 14.2/46.6
1/32 10/32.8
1/64 7.1/23.3
1/128 5/16.4

There is also a table with the apeture flash distance break down but I'm just not ready to try to type that one in.

Is "56", "52", etc., feet or a GN? Sounds like feet at some given aperture. What aperture?

Thanks,
Neil

_________________________________
Neil
Nikonians Team
My Gallery

>Is "56", "52", etc., feet or a GN? Sounds
>like feet at some given aperture. What aperture?
>
>Thanks,
>Neil

on that table I'm almost sure it means the guide number at ISO 100, it does not say anything about feet/meters etc.

The GN is 131 at ISO 100 35mm, so that doesn't make sense. The GN should be up around 500 or so at 200mm. The tables in the SB800 manual indicate aperture, ISO and distance in the tables. When Nikon gets around to posting the pdf versions of the manual it will hopefully help clarify these things.

If the display is anything like the SB800, you can set it up in manual mode, set it to full power, and get a distance range for whatever aperture and ISO you have set, which should be confirmed on the LCD. That would also give us the GN, at least indirectly.

Neil

_________________________________
Neil
Nikonians Team
My Gallery

>The GN is 131 at ISO 100 35mm, so that doesn't make sense.
>The GN should be up around 500 or so at 200mm. The tables in
>the SB800 manual indicate aperture, ISO and distance in the
>tables. When Nikon gets around to posting the pdf versions of
>the manual it will hopefully help clarify these things.
>
>If the display is anything like the SB800, you can set it up
>in manual mode, set it to full power, and get a distance range
>for whatever aperture and ISO you have set, which should be
>confirmed on the LCD. That would also give us the GN, at
>least indirectly.
>
>Neil

I understand what you are saying but the Table is labeled Guide Number Table and those are the figures that are in the box for the 200 zoom position. I am not that on the technical terms so it is section F-18 for someone who may know more about spec charts.

In the pages marked specifications it says the guide number at 35 mm zoom position is 34/111.5 (ISO 100) and 48/157.5 at (ISO 200) THIS IS ON Page F-14 if anyone want to jump in and explain. Could the manual be off?

Neil I look through the manual and the figures you are indicating for the Guild Numbers are not post?

Thanks for the attempt, Gary.

Neil

_________________________________
Neil
Nikonians Team
My Gallery

>Thanks for the attempt, Gary.
>
>Neil
Sorry I could not be of more help but I thing the manual may have a misprint or something, anyway I'm going to dig up one of my SB 800 manuals and see how the guild numbers are listed in it.

I sit here at work all frustrated, because I don't have the manual with me....LOL. The SB800 has a GN of 184 at ISO 100 and 105mm. I would expect that 200mm would pick up about 2 stops and yield a GN of about 368. It would be somewhat less, maybe, as the SB900 is 1/3 stop weaker at 35mm.

I'll check when I get home, so long as someone else cannot decipher it sooner.

Scott Chapin
Powder Springs, GA, USA
Nikonians Team Member

I thought the Sb900 was a hair more powerful at 35mm, with a GN of 131 verses 125 for the Sb800?

The 200mm GN is an important number for people like me that shoot flash extenders like the Better Beamer. There is another thread here (as yet not replied to) that is more or less asking the same thing, or at least the answer to my question will go some way to answering that question. It's unclear to me that there is any huge benefit to the extra $$$ in the SB900 verses SB800 + BB but it would certainly be more streamlined and convenient.

Edit: don't get frustrated on my acccount, Scott. I'm patient

Neil

_________________________________
Neil
Nikonians Team
My Gallery

>I thought the Sb900 was a hair more powerful at 35mm, with a
>GN of 131 verses 125 for the Sb800?
>
>The 200mm GN is an important number for people like me that
>shoot flash extenders like the Better Beamer. There is
>another thread here (as yet not replied to) that is more or
>less asking the same thing, or at least the answer to my
>question will go some way to answering that question. It's
>unclear to me that there is any huge benefit to the extra $$$
>in the SB900 verses SB800 + BB but it would certainly be more
>streamlined and convenient.
>
>Edit: don't get frustrated on my acccount, Scott. I'm
>patient
>
>Neil
>
>
Ok, bare with me on this one, I have the SB 800 and SB 900 manual with me. On the GN chart in the
SB 800 at ISO 100 35mm it reads as follows: 38/125 m/ft at 105mm zoom it reads 56/184
SB 900 at ISO 100 35mm reads as follows: 40/131.2 m/ft at 200mm zoom 57/187
now i see where you got the 131.2 that is the measurement in feet so the answer to your question is at 200 zoom the number would be 187

note the equation for guide numbers is fstop(aperture)=Guide number (guide number at 100:m/ft)X ISO sensitivity factor which in this case is (1)
this of course makes the SB 900 a little more powerful then the SB 800 because at the SB 800 it is only 105

Now to answer the first question from the chart #4 those have to be the numbers for meters. Hope this helps.

"SB 800 at ISO 100 35mm it reads as follows: 32/105 m/ft "

You are a wee bit crosseyed there. My manual says that is the 28mm position. The 35mm position is 38/125 m/ft.

Scott Chapin
Powder Springs, GA, USA
Nikonians Team Member

>"SB 800 at ISO 100 35mm it reads as follows: 32/105 m/ft
>"
>
>You are a wee bit crosseyed there. My manual says that is the
>28mm position. The 35mm position is 38/125 m/ft.

you are right I will edit the post, thanks

>I thought the Sb900 was a hair more powerful at 35mm, with a
>GN of 131 verses 125 for the Sb800?


No, that's DX (a 1/7 stop gain). The Nikon brochure at Nikon USA states that as an FX rating, but the manual has that rating in the DX chart. The FX setting at 35mm states a 1/3 stop loss over the SB800.

I was a little dissapointed when I took delivery and saw that discrepancy. Still, it's a wonderful flash.

I have not studied the 17mm and 200mm extremes, but Thomm's review says there are increases in GN at the extremes, so overall loss in FX is a wash.

>The 200mm GN is an important number for people like me that
>shoot flash extenders like the Better Beamer. There is
>another thread here (as yet not replied to) that is more or
>less asking the same thing, or at least the answer to my
>question will go some way to answering that question. It's
>unclear to me that there is any huge benefit to the extra $$$
>in the SB900 verses SB800 + BB but it would certainly be more
>streamlined and convenient.

The real benefit is the thermal overload protection, illunination patterns, power between 105mm and 200mm, DX zooming (questionable benefit at 1/7 stop), and really nice non-menu accessed controls.

You may benefit from the increased zoom range. Other than that, I wouldn't rush right out to replace an SB800. It certainly is a better option for your on camera unit. Therefore it made sense to me to get one to complement my SB800 and the next one I buy will be an SB800 for another remote flash.

>Edit: don't get frustrated on my acccount, Scott. I'm
>patient


I won't.

Scott Chapin
Powder Springs, GA, USA
Nikonians Team Member

>I sit here at work all frustrated, because I don't have the
>manual with me....LOL. The SB800 has a GN of 184 at ISO 100
>and 105mm. I would expect that 200mm would pick up about 2
>stops and yield a GN of about 368. It would be somewhat less,
>maybe, as the SB900 is 1/3 stop weaker at 35mm.
>
>I'll check when I get home, so long as someone else cannot
>decipher it sooner.

According to the manual at ISO 100 200mm you only gain 3 feet if the flash is in DX and you loose .3 in FX as comparing to the SB 800 at 105. Not very impressive for a power burst?

>According to the manual at ISO 100 200mm you only gain 3 feet
>if the flash is in DX and you loose .3 in FX as comparing to
>the SB 800 at 105. Not very impressive for a power bust?

No, and Thomm has said that the loss is more than made up towards the extreme. I really would expect somethiong higher than 300 in FX mode.

I cannot fathom having the GN on the SB800 at 105mm being virtually the same as the SB900 at 200mm. That definitely does not make sense.

Scott Chapin
Powder Springs, GA, USA
Nikonians Team Member

>
>>According to the manual at ISO 100 200mm you only gain 3
>feet
>>if the flash is in DX and you loose .3 in FX as comparing
>to
>>the SB 800 at 105. Not very impressive for a power bust?
>
>No, and Thomm has said that the loss is more than made up
>towards the extreme. I really would expect somethiong higher
>than 300 in FX mode.
>
>I cannot fathom having the GN on the SB800 at 105mm being
>virtually the same as the SB900 at 200mm. That definitely does
>not make sense.

You could be right but these are the figures that are listed. I have rechecked and that is what is given. I do not know anything about speed light design and as you can see not much about the techical issues, so I'm not able to argue for or against. However could it be that the 200 zoom was designed to work in a given range only?

I just wonder are there any flash gun's capable of pushing light over 200 feet, I think the highest I have seen is the New Metz 76 model which cost about $1000. It would be my guest that the SB 900 just controls light a lot better within the range of 66ft at 200mm

>> I cannot fathom having the GN on the SB800 at 105mm being virtually the same as the SB900 at 200mm. That definitely does not make sense.

I agree. Someone needs to get out there with that speedlight, a gray card and a long tape measure

Neil

_________________________________
Neil
Nikonians Team
My Gallery

Sad but true, I guess. The manual does say that the GN for FX at ISO 100 and 200mm is 56m/183.7ft.

I turned my flash on in disbelief and set the mode to manual full power, f/5 and zoomed to 200mm. The distance reads 31 feet! That's a GN of 155. At f/8 it reads 19 feet, a GN of 152. At f/16 it reads 9.8 feet, a GN of 157. That's in my D300 at ISO L1 (100).

When I take a shot at about 10 feet in manual mode, full power, f/16, and 200mm it is clearly way overexposed. In TTL it comes out real nice. I'm beginning to doubt the charts.

Edited to add: I'm glad this flash has firmware? I have to adjust the manual power down to 1/8 to get the same histogram as I do in TTL. IOW the published charts are close to the flash's scales and the scales say at f/16 and 9.8 feet, I should be at full power, but I had to reduce power to 1/8 to get a good exposure, and one that agrees with TTL results. So the scales and manual really do appear to be wrong, by about 3 stops maybe.

Scott Chapin
Powder Springs, GA, USA
Nikonians Team Member

>
>>According to the manual at ISO 100 200mm you only gain 3
>feet
>>if the flash is in DX and you loose .3 in FX as comparing
>to
>>the SB 800 at 105. Not very impressive for a power bust?
>
>No, and Thomm has said that the loss is more than made up
>towards the extreme. I really would expect somethiong higher
>than 300 in FX mode.
>
>I cannot fathom having the GN on the SB800 at 105mm being
>virtually the same as the SB900 at 200mm. That definitely does
>not make sense.

These is his quote:
"In terms of Guide Numbers, things haven't changed a lot. For FX cameras, the GNs tend to be very slightly lower for the SB-900 than for the SB-800 for equivalent settings, though the ability to focus the flash head and the 200mm head position can give you a boost if you're not trying to light really wide areas and prefer to limit the flash coverage. Also, there's a bit more power at the very widest setting, probably due to changes in the diffuser. From a practical, functional level, I'd rate this all as a wash. The ability to shape the beam is actually more beneficial in actual shooting than a bit more power would be, in my opinion. Bottom line: don't expect a light level boost over an SB-800."

Colleagues:

One way to test all of this is with a flash meter at the various zoom positions, power levels,, FX/DX setttings and distances.

I cannot get to this for a couple weeks at least.

Anybody else with a meter and an evening to spare?

Regards,

HBB in Phoenix, Arizona
Nikonian Team Member

Photography is a journey with no conceivable destination.

Join Nikonians at Photokina: Cologne, Germany
September 23 - 28, 2008: Hall 2.1, Booth E014

I have an old, but quite accurate Gossen Luna Pro F flash meter, a few SB-800s, and the time, but I don't have an SB-900. If anyone around Sacramento, CA with an SB-900 wants to spend an evening testing the SB-900 and SB-800, side by side for real world GNs, send me an email.

"... you see, but you do not observe."
- Sherlock Holmes