Has anyone bought an SF40 flash as yet?

[Leica Guy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Apologies for such a basic question. I'm new to Leica with a new Q. I have an SF-40 on order. Is that a Nikon off-camera flash cable? If not, what works? Thanks.

[wlaidlaw]

The Nikon SC-28 (? or 29) works fine as a Leica off camera cable with all functions supported. Don't do like I did and buy a cheap clone at first. They just don't work properly and you have to file a notch to clear the stop screw on the Leica shoe, so you can't return it. I bought a used SC-28 from a Nikon dealer with a warranty for around half list price and that worked perfectly. With the M cameras, it is a much more balanced set up to use over a long period, with the large and heavy SF58 flash alongside rather than on the shoe itself. I use a Manfrotto bottom bar but there are plenty of choices for this. The Nikon cable is very well made. Compare the shoe connectors on an SC-28 with those on Leica flashes and you will see how shoddily made the Leica flashes are. 

 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[elmars]

Just got mine today. I like it a lot because it is small and therefor easy to put in my bag while I'm traveling. That is my setup:

 

Leica M-P with SF 40 Flash by Dirk Raffel, auf Flickr

Can You do me a little favour, Dirk?

 

If Yo set the flash (with Your M) on TTL (not A): Is the under-/overexposure wheel of the flash active or have You to use the flash-under-/overexposure function of the camera? (Sorry for my bad English)

 

Elmar

[DirkR440]

Apologies for such a basic question. I'm new to Leica with a new Q. I have an SF-40 on order. Is that a Nikon off-camera flash cable? If not, what works? Thanks.

It is a Nikon SC-17 cable. I cut it by myself to make it a bit shorter. TTL is working with that setup.

[DirkR440]

Can You do me a little favour, Dirk?

 

If Yo set the flash (with Your M) on TTL (not A): Is the under-/overexposure wheel of the flash active or have You to use the flash-under-/overexposure function of the camera? (Sorry for my bad English)

 

Elmar

Hi Elmar,

 

yes sure, I'll try it later today when I'm back at home.

[DirkR440]

Scheint zu funktionieren.

 

Hier das Bild mit TTL und +/- 0 (Eingestellt am Blitz):

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Dann mit +2:

 

 

Und mit -2:

 

 

Reicht dir das so als Antwort?

[elmars]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Super, vielen Dank, Dirk.

 

Elmar

[DirkR440]

You're welcome.

 

Sorry, I forgot that this thread is in the international part of the forum. 

 

My answer translated to english basically means, it is working with TTL and the change of the exposure on the flash. The first picture is +/- 0, the next one is +2 and the last one is -2.

[Peter Kilmister]

I received an SF40 flash unit today which I ordered yesterday. My previous experiences with flash have been underwhelming.

 

First reactions of the SF40 with my M-P 240 are excellent.

 

Four shots taken in extremely poor natural light; first of a dog - Good balance of light and easily managed in Lightroom, second and third of a painting - one deleted as over lit, one (indirect flash) easily managed in Lightroom. The fourth shot was of a clock and was shot at close range using direct flash - easily managed in Lightroom.

 

I just used A on the camera and A on the flash.

 

The unit is easy to use, easy to fit into a case, and very lightweight.

 

In summary, a good addition to my kit. It is a joy to use a flash that doesn't need 1/125 synch speed. Although GBP 280 seems a large bill for a flashgun it certainly does the job.

 

Happy now!

[DirkR440]

Yesterday I had a chance to use the SF 40 on my Monochrom. I works pretty well, easy to use:

 

Vernissage Saro Stracquadanio by Dirk Raffel, auf Flickr

[Jared]

Jared, I hope I can be critical in a constructive way. The left hand picture has a lot more detail. The right hand picture has burnt out (over exposed) areas that remove the detail.

I appreciate that these are early days with a new piece of kit and I do hope that your trial shots will be a lesson for anyone thinking of buying the SF40.

 

 

I always appreciate constructive criticism.  As it happens, though, the additional detail in the first shot is from the better contrast from the diffuse overhead lighting.  The texture in the wall, in particular, shows up much better since there are little shadows giving contrast.  The second image is lit primarily from the front (flash), so all the shadow texture in the wall is gone.  None of the highlights are clipped, though--it's not technically overexposed.  Obviously, both photos are entirely uninteresting and without any artistic merit.  Just trying to show that the high speed sync worked properly.  I only mention this because I wouldn't want people to think the SF 40 had a tendency to overexpose.  Neither image has clipped highlights.  

 

A better test on my part would have been to dial in a couple -EV of flash exposure compensation on the SF 40 (or on the camera body, actually) so it would have acted as a fill light rather than as a main light.  I didn't do that, so the SF 40 overpowered the daylight, and the flat lighting from the front makes for a very uninteresting picture as you correctly pointed out.

 

- Jared

[Jared]

Jared, 

 

Many thanks for the detailed update. It looks as if the problem is in the SL not the 58. I was aware that on aperture priority the shutter speed control seems to work on Auto ISO but you are limited to 50 ISO, which greatly restricts the range of the flash. A lot of my flash work is on outside festivals, where I would often be using ISO's up to 2400 to get long range illumination (for more flash power I have a Graflash where I can use PF300 bulbs but that is expensive at around £9/bulb). Given what you tell me, I am tempted to cancel my order for an SF64, as it looks as if it will not do any more than the SF58. The only advantage I would get apart from slightly increased power, is auto HSS, which being a series one 58, I have to select manually plus the ability to alter exposure/flash power from the camera rather than the somewhat fiddly procedure of doing it on the flash. 

 

Wilson

 

 

Obviously I haven't tried and do not own an SF 64, but I suspect you are right--the issues appear to reside in the SL not in the flash firmware (since the SF 58 v2 and SF 40 work the exact same), so the SF 64 may not get you anything at this point beyond some additional range.  I expect Leica will resolve this through firmware adjustments.  I certainly hope so, anyway, since the SL is otherwise an extremely good studio camera.

 

- Jared

[wlaidlaw]

Obviously I haven't tried and do not own an SF 64, but I suspect you are right--the issues appear to reside in the SL not in the flash firmware (since the SF 58 v2 and SF 40 work the exact same), so the SF 64 may not get you anything at this point beyond some additional range.  I expect Leica will resolve this through firmware adjustments.  I certainly hope so, anyway, since the SL is otherwise an extremely good studio camera.

 

- Jared

 

Jared, 

 

Thanks for that. After a number of reports from various folk on the SF40 on the SL, I have postponed my purchase of the SF64, as it does not get anything that my 58 does not do at the moment. It is plain now that the problem resides in the SL firmware. Sadly I think Leica give very low priority both to resolving flash issues and to sorting FW problems, which are brought to their attention by outsiders. NIH (Not Invented Here) are the watchwords at Wetzlar.

 

To give you an example, two years ago, Leica brought out an FW update for the M240, which changed the deletion period of the GPS position from 24 hours to 5 minutes. This was obviously not tested at all as it pretty much cripples the GPS, with a position only rarely being added to the EXIF in cities, never inside buildings and only intermittently in mountainous areas. I had a number of discussions with Leica over this. They claimed that the change from 24 hours to 5 minutes greatly increased customer satisfaction with the GPS - what a load of total b*****cks - it cripples it. Eventually it was agreed with Leica just under two years ago, that the 5 minutes might have been an error and to change the 5 minutes to 2 or 3 hours at the next FW update. Two FW updates later has it been done - no! Excuses - yes: Action - no. 

 

My suspicion is that two years from now, the flashes may work exactly the same on the SL. One additional problem for flashes that need EV adjusting on the camera, is that you cannot do this in M mode on the SL, as obviously EV adjustment is not available in M. 

 

Wilson

[chrisfugiel]

Here is what I have found with my testing of the SF 40 (and also with my SF 58--it behaves identically):

 

In program mode, auto slow synch appears to work correctly as long as the ISO is set to auto.  In other words, if I set " Auto Slow Sync" to the default value of "1/f min, 1/60s" it will set the shutter speed to the minimum of either one over the focal ratio or 1/60s, and it will NOT adjust ISO up from the base value of 50. 

 

If I switch to aperture priority (with either the Vario-Elmarit SL lens or an M lens), I get the exact same behavior.  In an effort to balance the ambient light and the flash it will not drop the shutter speed below the value you set in the auto slow sync, and it will not raise the ISO above the base value of 50.  Again, it works as expected.

 

The problem arises if I set the ISO manually rather than selecting Auto ISO.  If, for example, I choose an ISO value of 50 (or 100 or 200 or 400 or any other value), the shutter speed goes to whatever value it feels it needs to for the ambient light and completely ignores the information I set in the "Auto Slow Sync" value.  It seems to forget that the flash is attached and just lets the shutter speed float wherever it needs to for the ambient lighting.

 

Kind of weird behavior, but probably not very difficult to work around it from a practical perspective.  If you want to use the slow synch as expected in the menu, just leave auto ISO turned on.  If you don't want to shoot at base ISO (because of range limitations), then you can switch over to manual rather than aperture priority.  

 

I agree with you that this needs a firmware update, but it isn't anything that would prevent me from getting the shot I want, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.  The workaround is quite practical.

 

The SF 40 is no different in its behavior than the SF 58.  Neat little flash, though.  Doesn't strike me as very durable, but it is extremely compact, reasonably light, takes AA batteries, and actually works consistently in TTL mode.  It also does a fine job in bounce mode.  Unlike the SF 58, it doesn't completely overwhelm my M camera body.  Even looks good on the SL.  

 

One interesting quirk on the SF 40 (beyond the bug you are already concerned about)... The exposure compensation dial on the back of the flash when using TTL mode doesn't have any affect on the exposure.  You MUST use the exposure compensation in the camera body instead.  This is confirmed if you read the manual, but it's not something that would jump out at you, and its different from the expected behavior (or the behavior of the same Nissan i40 on Nikon, Canon, Fuji, and Sony bodies).

 

Overall, I like the SF 40 a lot.  If you want the slow sync issue addressed before you order one, though, you should wait.  Same behavior on the SF 40 as the SF 58 (and presumably the SF 68).  

 

I'm not certain you were aware that the slow sync works properly as long as you leave ISO set to Auto...  See if the same is true with your SF 58.  That might be enough to make you comfortable with this flash or the SF 68.

 

- Jared

Does anybody used Nissan i40 Flash with Leica T?

[mickyates]

Here is what I have found with my testing of the SF 40 (and also with my SF 58--it behaves identically):

 

In program mode, auto slow synch appears to work correctly as long as the ISO is set to auto.  In other words, if I set " Auto Slow Sync" to the default value of "1/f min, 1/60s" it will set the shutter speed to the minimum of either one over the focal ratio or 1/60s, and it will NOT adjust ISO up from the base value of 50. 

 

If I switch to aperture priority (with either the Vario-Elmarit SL lens or an M lens), I get the exact same behavior.  In an effort to balance the ambient light and the flash it will not drop the shutter speed below the value you set in the auto slow sync, and it will not raise the ISO above the base value of 50.  Again, it works as expected.

 

The problem arises if I set the ISO manually rather than selecting Auto ISO.  If, for example, I choose an ISO value of 50 (or 100 or 200 or 400 or any other value), the shutter speed goes to whatever value it feels it needs to for the ambient light and completely ignores the information I set in the "Auto Slow Sync" value.  It seems to forget that the flash is attached and just lets the shutter speed float wherever it needs to for the ambient lighting.

 

Kind of weird behavior, but probably not very difficult to work around it from a practical perspective.  If you want to use the slow synch as expected in the menu, just leave auto ISO turned on.  If you don't want to shoot at base ISO (because of range limitations), then you can switch over to manual rather than aperture priority.  

 

I agree with you that this needs a firmware update, but it isn't anything that would prevent me from getting the shot I want, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.  The workaround is quite practical.

 

The SF 40 is no different in its behavior than the SF 58.  Neat little flash, though.  Doesn't strike me as very durable, but it is extremely compact, reasonably light, takes AA batteries, and actually works consistently in TTL mode.  It also does a fine job in bounce mode.  Unlike the SF 58, it doesn't completely overwhelm my M camera body.  Even looks good on the SL.  

 

One interesting quirk on the SF 40 (beyond the bug you are already concerned about)... The exposure compensation dial on the back of the flash when using TTL mode doesn't have any affect on the exposure.  You MUST use the exposure compensation in the camera body instead.  This is confirmed if you read the manual, but it's not something that would jump out at you, and its different from the expected behavior (or the behavior of the same Nissan i40 on Nikon, Canon, Fuji, and Sony bodies).

 

Overall, I like the SF 40 a lot.  If you want the slow sync issue addressed before you order one, though, you should wait.  Same behavior on the SF 40 as the SF 58 (and presumably the SF 68).  

 

I'm not certain you were aware that the slow sync works properly as long as you leave ISO set to Auto...  See if the same is true with your SF 58.  That might be enough to make you comfortable with this flash or the SF 68.

 

- Jared

 

Jared

 

Thank you for this.

 

I am using the SF 40 on the SL. With the SL in Aperture Priority at fixed ISO, and the SF 40 in TTL, I can confirm that the FEC dial DOES work. It does not hugely compensate exposure, but etc effect is real

 

Mick

[wlaidlaw]

Everything changed with the FW update 2.0 to the SL. All TTL Leica flashes from the SF-24D onwards (don't know about SF-20D) now work as they should always have done. The methodology of EV compensation varies from flash to flash, with some you alter on the flash and with others on the camera. Slow speed sync works on Aperture Priority with fixed ISO, which means the flashes are properly usable now instead of having to use clunky work arounds.

 

The odd thing with my SF-58D series 1 is that High Speed Sync-TTL which always had to be turned on manually at the flash, now works automatically like a series 2 58D. Either the FW update to the SL updated something on the flash (unlikely) or there always was a dormant code in the flash, which was never previously activated from a camera. 

 

Wilson