Your flash can damage your camera!

"Bob Monaghan" wrote in message
...

from a warning article in Pop Photo magazine almost a decade ago (see
my pages at http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/flash.html for related postings)

pentax 600 volts
nikon 250 volts
minolta 225 volts
canon 6 volts

FYI cost of providing such protection in volume production is well under a
quarter ($.25) per camera - and that's for a dual polarity protection
setup ;-) A single polarity SCR setup is more like a dime ($.10) a pop...

IMHO the cameras (like canon) which lack such protection put the user at
risk of damaging their cameras from a known and highly likely risk factor.

Surprise! Some mfgers reject making in-warranty repairs for brand new
cameras whose electronics were fried by inadvertently connecting a high
voltage strobe, claiming "user abuse", putting these very high cost
repairs entirely on the new owner.

And as noted at above URL, some popular strobes that look identical can
have either low voltage (5 to 12+ volts) or high voltage (200+ volts) on
the contacts, so you can't tell without testing which version of the
identical models you have. (e.g., vivitar 28x series).

So it seems rather clear that some mfgers (like Pentax, nikon, etc.) are
doing a much better job of protecting their users from known risks of high
cost damage to their cameras, and others aren't.

Suggesting that we have to change and update millions of strobes so a few
mfgers don't have to invest a dime (literally) in protecting their
customers from such problems seems idiotic, given their competitors are
doing so routinely, yes? ;-)

grins bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

Hi Bob,
In this post I thank Chris for
tweaking my curiosity about this subject. I did some research and then
created this thread. I'm amazed that this has been known about for 10
years. Prior to my investigation of this subject I was totally unaware of
this problem. Many other people seemed not to know about it either. I
guess knowledge has to be rediscovered from time to time.

Bob Monaghan wrote:


Suggesting that we have to change and update millions of strobes so a few
mfgers don't have to invest a dime (literally) in protecting their
customers from such problems seems idiotic, given their competitors are
doing so routinely, yes? ;-)


But that wouldn't have sold any new flashes.

Nick

Bob Monaghan wrote:


Suggesting that we have to change and update millions of strobes so a few
mfgers don't have to invest a dime (literally) in protecting their
customers from such problems seems idiotic, given their competitors are
doing so routinely, yes? ;-)


But that wouldn't have sold any new flashes.

Nick

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 06:57:19 -0500, Nick Zentena
wrote:

Bob Monaghan wrote:


Suggesting that we have to change and update millions of strobes so a few
mfgers don't have to invest a dime (literally) in protecting their
customers from such problems seems idiotic, given their competitors are
doing so routinely, yes? ;-)


But that wouldn't have sold any new flashes.

Nick

So, its a big conspiracy. Lets move this to alt.conspiracy and we can
involve the 'Pentalawn 2000' and 'Man as old as coal' conspirawackos.

--
Owamanga!

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 06:57:19 -0500, Nick Zentena
wrote:

Bob Monaghan wrote:


Suggesting that we have to change and update millions of strobes so a few
mfgers don't have to invest a dime (literally) in protecting their
customers from such problems seems idiotic, given their competitors are
doing so routinely, yes? ;-)


But that wouldn't have sold any new flashes.

Nick

So, its a big conspiracy. Lets move this to alt.conspiracy and we can
involve the 'Pentalawn 2000' and 'Man as old as coal' conspirawackos.

--
Owamanga!

Suggesting that we have to change and update millions of strobes so a
few
mfgers don't have to invest a dime (literally) in protecting their
customers from such problems seems idiotic, given their competitors are
doing so routinely, yes? ;-)

But that wouldn't have sold any new flashes.

They would have had an easier time selling new flashes if they had made them
visibly different, so you could *tell* you needed a new flash.

Suggesting that we have to change and update millions of strobes so a
few
mfgers don't have to invest a dime (literally) in protecting their
customers from such problems seems idiotic, given their competitors are
doing so routinely, yes? ;-)

But that wouldn't have sold any new flashes.

They would have had an easier time selling new flashes if they had made them
visibly different, so you could *tell* you needed a new flash.

"me" wrote in message
...
"Patrick L." wrote in message
...

"me" wrote in message
...
When I found out that some flash units use very high trigger voltages,
several hundred volts in some cases, I was very displeased. Not that
this
presents any problem for me right now but it might in the future. I
purchased my camera and flash in 1978 and both look and work like new.
But
if I buy a new camera body I might not be able to use my flash with
it.
The
reason for this is that many newer camera bodies have flash trigger
circuits
that can tolerate no more than a few volts without burning out. Six
volts
seems to be the maximum average flash trigger voltage that most
current
camera bodies can tolerate.
You can blame either the flash manufacturers or the camera body
manufacturers for this sorry state of affairs, flip a coin and make
your
choice but in either case you should visit this site:
http://www.botzilla.com/photo/strobeVolts.html for a list of flash
trigger
voltages before you use your flash with a new camera. If you don't
find
your flash's trigger voltage listed then look he
http://www.botzilla.com/photo/g1strobe.html for an explanation of how
to
measure it yourself.
If you are using (or want to use) any flash that has not been
recommended
by
the camera body manufacturer as compatible then you should contact
them
and
confirm that the flash you're using (or want to use) will not damage
your
camera. They should be able to tell you the maximum flash trigger
voltage
your camera can tolerate.





that's good info, but you lifted it from somewhere, I"ve seen it
before.

I beg your pardon! Your accusation is totally scurrilous! I wrote every
word of that post myself I'll have you know! The affrontry of some people
is truly astonishing. Harumph Harumph

My Olympus E1 has a 250 volt limit. My Vivitar 283 has a trigger
voltage
of 93 volts, and I use it all the time, without a problem. I wouldn't
use
it on m Canon Elan, though.


Patrick







Perhaps it was your site I viewed a couple of years ago which you have
since redesigned, and I assumed it was another, if so, my apologies for the
accusation.



Patrick