You wouldn't need the TTL connector if you put a T32 on the shoe. You plug
the Cord into the socket on the T32 instead! This goes against your off -
axis requirement, however.
I carry mini tripods in my flash bag specifically to put T20 connectors and
T32s on. Works well if there is something to put them on, and is probably
less problematic than trying to get so many pieces onto the camera.
For the guide number calculation, if the separation of the flashes is
significant at the subject distance, the calculation becomes impossible for
my limited abilities, so it's TTL or meter for me! If you go TTL the
question of accuracy / consistency of the aperture markings becomes
irrelevant.
Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fernando Gonzalez Gentile" <fgnzalez@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005 4:57 PM
Subject: [OM] Re: Simple questions about T45
> on 22/01/2005 11:56, Julian Davies wrote:
>
>> I was assuming that Fernando wants all the light from
>> off-axis.
> Your assumption is correct, but there is another one: I have 2 and 2n.
> Either case, I'd need a TTL Conn (3 or 4) -> TTL cable -> to the PBG2, in
> place of the shoe.
>
> I've considered the disadvantages you mentioned, Julian.
> They're so true I've not yet tried this setup.
> T20 adapter is so fragile that it would get marks on its underside if
> attached to a tripod firmly enough - I thought to overcome this by means
> of
> using a shorter-than-fully-needed length of threaded bar, and a rubber
> washer in between so as to add a little compliance.
> Another way to avoid stressing a T20 adapter is using one of my three Rowi
> accessories instead of the adapter: a cold shoe mounted on an articulated
> arm, just like a ball headed tripod, but it measures about two inches high
> (my God - me doing measures in inches :^)
> Of course, this would not only add height but won't allow daisy chaining
> of
> a third T-32 and will need a longer cable. But OTOH it will allow a
> compliant medium between the PBG2 and the T-32.
>
> These are certainly half solutions, I mean ad-hoc setups. For instance,
> when
> you need two off-axis 32s and situation requires to set up things as
> quickly
> as possible. It is not meant to be a T45 substitute.
>
> As for two T32s making a GN of 45 *in this setup*, I was left wondering.
> If both flashes were very close to one another, that is if fixed to a C
> bracket and one of them upside down so as light would come out virtually
> from a single source, then I wouldn't doubt it. But this project is
> intended, as you quickly understood, to get off axis flash light.
> If I understood properly, I would get a correctly exposed MANUAL flash
> picture when making the calcs to find out the f-stop, using 45 as a GN ?
>
> And now -pun intended- what if the resulting f-stop happens to be the
> maximum aperture of the lens I'm using? Please remember the thread I'm
> insisting on: maximum and next f-stops are only a half stop difference, as
> measured by the TTL meter, and it seems the same when measured by a
> Minolta
> Spotmeter F in a carefully designed setup (see 20/01/2005 08:56).
> This issue begs for an explanation, IMHO.
>
> Oh well, I know I live in a world of uncertainties, what am I expecting to
> find ?
>
> :^)
>
> Fernando.
>
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|