PDA

View Full Version : Nikon ML-3 wireless remote review



Rooz
01-21-2008, 03:40 PM
a cautionary note for anyone looking at this remote. i don;t recommend it. its $250AUD and i borrowed it off a friend yesterday to test it out and it SUCKS.

they made the unit too fat and when you put it on the hotshoe the pop up flash cannot be raised. . if you move the ml3 to the very rear of the hotshoe then you can just raise the pop up but then the flash gets in the way of the IR sensor and it can;t be used anyway. you can swivel it from side to side but that doesn;t really help becasuse then you have to be standing on that side to activate...not very convenient for self portraits or photos you want to be part of. if they had made it tall and slim to be able to mount and clear the top of the popup, then it would have been much better.

the build quality is somewhat suspect. feels quite flimsy and for $250 i expected alot better. if it didn;t have the "nikon" badge on it you'd swear it was an ebay cheapie or a canon.

it is NOT realiable. i found myself clicking my ass off with variable success. i think it would fire maybe 60-70% of the time even when standing directly in front.

the sensor feature where you can set it to take a picture as soon as something enters its field of vision is crap. it takes far too long to fire the shutter. when i say too long, its maybe 1sec at the most but by that time whatever has passed thru its field of vision has long gone. even me walking past it, i was not in the frame when the shot was taken.

all in all a thoroughly dissapointing bit of kit and i strongly urge anyone considering it to rethink. its a piece of shit.

while we're on this topic, can anyone tell me what the logic is in not including an IR sensor on the d300 body. (as per the d80), to allow you to use the ML-L3 wireless remote, ($20 and worked flawlessly), rather than having to plug it in to the camera ?

coldrain
01-21-2008, 06:04 PM
To be able to ask more money? The Canon 20D and 350D were similar I think, in that the 350D could use a cheap wire remote but the 20D needed a more expensive one.
And the same with the battery grip from the D300... with it you can shoot more FPS? What the hell do more frames per second have to do with a grip, or with more batteries?
Just ways to get more money from the D300 owner who obviously often can and will afford it, I guess.

You should see my wire remote, Rooz. It is a "recycled" Canon powershot A20 :D. I will have to make an adjustment on it for bulb mode still, though.

K1W1
01-21-2008, 06:08 PM
I knew it, I knew it.
D300's are rubbish cameras.
Boy am I glad I didn't get conned into the marketing hype and buy one.

:D:D:D:D:D

(It made me feel better anyway)

TNB
01-21-2008, 06:20 PM
And the same with the battery grip from the D300... with it you can shoot more FPS? What the hell do more frames per second have to do with a grip, or with more batteries?
Could it simply have to do with more "volts" and/or power to push the camera at a higher frame rate? I used to do the same thing with electric motors--another reason that LiPos (Lithium Polymer) helped and/or became popular in some applications since they are lighter in weight and put out slightly more volts than a standard battery. And yes, I mean LiPo (Lithium Polymer) batteries, not Li-ions (Lithium-ion batteries), NiMH, NiCDs, nor Alkaline batteries.

K1W1
01-21-2008, 06:50 PM
I'm guessing the frame rate without the battery grip is crippled in firmware to balance battery life against speed.
If you have the camera firing at maximum speed with just the internal battery it will probably drain at an unacceptably fast rate.
The battery grip will not provide any more voltage it will simply provide increased capacity.
Of course this argument is also ignoring the "fries with that?" approach Nikon seem to have taken with this camera. They have loaded it with features but subtly left out certain things that many potential buyers will want. Those buyers will now pay for those features as accessories at a higher margin to Nikon. Maybe Nikon have quietly been taken over by BMW or one of the auto manufacturers who are masters of this sort of thing.

Rooz
01-21-2008, 07:03 PM
coldy you're probably right, its a money spinner. now i don;t necesarily have a problem with that IF, and i stress, IF, the product works as expected. where i really get pissed off is if the product generates the money they want but does NOT perform up to the standard one should expect from both the fact that it is a genuine product AND its outrageously expensive.

i firmly believe in the saying, "you get what you pay for". in this case i was prepared to pay, but certianly not for something that works so poorly and is so badly designed.

TNB
01-21-2008, 07:13 PM
K1W1,

Perhaps, a certain member will just purchase a D300 and the battery grip, take them apart, and post photos of the circuit board and their components. Then we will know if the third battery and/or the battery grip (hardware) engages or triggers another option via the software and/or how the voltage is regulated. :)


i firmly believe in the saying, "you get what you pay for". in this case i was prepared to pay, but certianly not for something that works so poorly and is so badly designed.
Are you still writing of the wireless remote or of that battery grip that a certain member made ill comments about?

__

PS: Notice that I added "canon printer" to my signature? I have a couple of other printers as well, but decided just to add the Canon printer. ;)

K1W1
01-21-2008, 07:48 PM
I have been doing some research and it looks like it might be a voltage related change after all.
The standard EN-ENL3e is rated at 7.1v 1500mAH
The optional EN-EL4a is rated at 11.1v 2500mAH
Now the fun part.
It seems from what I have read that you have to manually tell the camera in the menu system which battery to use. By default it will use the internal battery and just ignore the grip battery. I guess that this is logical when you think about the difference in voltages but I wonder how many users have the grip installed with the EN-EL4a in it and not realise that the camera will not automatically use that battery as required.

Rooz
01-21-2008, 08:04 PM
Are you still writing of the wireless remote or of that battery grip that a certain member made ill comments about?

i'm still obsessing about the remote. lol :p

haven;t tried the grip. i don;t personally need one so have never had occasion to put one on or try it. i have a spare battery and have never had occasion to run out of one battery in a days shooting, let alone 2 batteries.

ssil2000
01-21-2008, 08:12 PM
I have been doing some research and it looks like it might be a voltage related change after all.
The standard EN-ENL3e is rated at 7.1v 1500mAH
The optional EN-EL4a is rated at 11.1v 2500mAH
Now the fun part.
It seems from what I have read that you have to manually tell the camera in the menu system which battery to use. By default it will use the internal battery and just ignore the grip battery. I guess that this is logical when you think about the difference in voltages but I wonder how many users have the grip installed with the EN-EL4a in it and not realise that the camera will not automatically use that battery as required.

i agree KIWI... the d300 is an overpriced paper weight... all these suckers that ran out and bought one are regretting it now! haha
D80 4 life!

Sergio

TNB
01-21-2008, 08:20 PM
The optional EN-EL4a is rated at 11.1v 2500mAH
The different mAH may also help explain and/or be another reason that the D300 can get more photos than a D200.



I wonder how many users have the grip installed with the EN-EL4a in it and not realise that the camera will not automatically use that battery as required.
Probably, the same number who fail to read the instruction manual and head to the forums asking questions about it. :rolleyes:


i'm still obsessing about the remote. lol :p
haven;t tried the grip. i don;t personally need one so have never had occasion to put one on or try it. i have a spare battery and have never had occasion to run out of one battery in a days shooting, let alone 2 batteries.
You need to go out and take a lot more photos with the VR turned on. Another option would be to send me that camera so I can test it out for you this Saturday when I shoot college basketball. ;)

This other post may also be for you too. :p


i agree KIWI... the d300 is an overpriced paper weight... all these suckers that ran out and bought one are regretting it now! haha
D80 4 life!

Sergio

XaiLo
01-21-2008, 08:58 PM
So Rooz, tell me, does the remote really suck :confused: Seriously tell us what you really think and don't hold anything back... lmao.

I feel your pain man, it's a shame Nikon does not take this aspect of their business seriously. Thanks for the heads up... Let me solve your problem now :)

Link:ZigView (http://www.zigview.co.uk/lst98.htm)

coldrain
01-22-2008, 05:09 AM
A camera is just a computer, nothing more. It will not all of a sudden start to spin faster with a different voltage, the data transfer rates and the processing speed of the processor remain the same.

And if you wonder why the D300 has a better battery life, think hard about what is the biggest change with the D300 over the D200?

Yes, the D200 used a CCD, the D300 has CMOS. Canon DSLRs always used less than half of what KM/Nikon DSLRs used in energy. And the big reason is just that... CMOS. CCDs just use a lot of energy... and the newest generations of CMOS sensors even allow us to use those huge sensors to give live view, the big CCDs could not do that because they would produce too much heat in such prolonged use.

erichlund
01-22-2008, 08:18 AM
OTOH, the shutter and focus motor are mechanical, and more voltage could make them faster. A camera is not just a computer. It is an electro-mechanical device. The focus motor is probably the key. It probably needs substantially more power to achieve the full focus speed that the camera is capable of.

coldrain
01-22-2008, 08:57 AM
OTOH, the shutter and focus motor are mechanical, and more voltage could make them faster. A camera is not just a computer. It is an electro-mechanical device. The focus motor is probably the key. It probably needs substantially more power to achieve the full focus speed that the camera is capable of.
That is a weird proposition. An AF-S/USM/HSM motor does not work faster with more batteries. Would be weird too, to see AF slow down as the batteries would slowly empty.

And an AF-S/USM/HSM lens doe snt work a lot slower on a D50 than it does on a D2Xs, or slower on a Canon 350D than on a Canon 1D MK IIN. The difference you do see in focusing speed has to do with the AF sensors and AF module of the camera, not the speed the motor works in.

And as you may know, with shutter priority the camera does not wait on AF lock, it just snaps the next photo when it is ready with getting the last one out the door (and this is the setting that ones uses for fast FPS shooting). Not much to do with focus motor speed (just try it with your slowest AF-ing lens).

So no, the motor does not need higher voltage (which would probably fry these ring type motors) to work "faster".
And the shutter is as fast as the highest shutter speed you can do with your camera.
What is that? 1/4000th or 1/8000th with or without battery grip?

8 frames per second still only is 1/8th of a second.

The real natural limiter of FPS is not the (number of) battery(s), but the processing speed of the camera's computer and the speed of the AF module (meaning, for tracking the subject, the AF module needs to still get some reading to predict the movement of the subject between each shot. So, the mirror needs to come down and up again, and the Af module need to be fast enough for a reading in the available time).

With the D3 you can see this, in DX mode it offers 11 frames per second, but without AF. The first shot gets focussed, the rest do not... because the camera can not do the mirror down/up + predictive AF measurement fast enough.

So... the only thing you could say is that maybe the mirror up mechanism works faster with more batteries. But I find that unlikely (but you never know).

DonSchap
01-22-2008, 09:28 AM
Aw shucks, guys ... just get an α700 with its accompanying wireless remote. All those silly hot shoe issues go away and ...

32689

;) Life's good!

You all just have the lil' ol' best day you can, now, ya hear? :D

TNB
01-22-2008, 10:14 AM
coldrain,

DID YOU LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT BATTERIES BEFORE YOU HIT THE KEYBOARD KEYS, AGAIN? In very simple terms, more voltage generates more power and a higher mAH rating translates into longer run time--this applies whether it is a battery for a camera, a computer, an R/C or whatever. If you don't believe me or want to admit it, I'd love to see you drive a freaking R/C car running on 7v while I run one on 11v. I know others who run transmitters the same way as well as other electronics though the voltage may need to be stepped down--that's more of a weight issue then. In both applications most prefer batteries with a higher mAH simply because a charge is held longer.


Ohm's law states that, in an electrical circuit, the current passing through a conductor between two points is directly proportional to the potential difference (i.e. voltage drop or voltage) across the two points, and inversely proportional to the resistance between them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohm%27s_law

It's not much simplier than that though I'm not asserting that other factors may not necessarily involved, but go ahead and argue some more. By the way, are you attending PMA? We can both meet up there and ask the Nikon reps in person. I will be there on Saturday, February 2, 2008.

coldrain
01-22-2008, 10:23 AM
You are the one not thinking here, TNB.

What does higher voltage have to do with a computer being able to process faster? Nothing.

Very good!

A higher voltage would mean a fried electronics. Nothing more. So no, the voltage from the batteries is NOT the voltages used by the electronics. Just like the 110 or 220V ~ current from your wall socket is not actually the voltage and type of current used by your desk top computer.

The only thing the extra batteries do is to give power for a longer duration. And the different voltage requirements for the electronics are being regulated by some ICs on the camera's boards, not by the batteries themselevs. Just like with your desktop computer, your microwave, your TV, your alarm clock, laptop and stereo.

No, a radio controlled car's motors have nothing what so ever to do with how an USM/AF-S/HSM works in a lens. And no, FPS has no link with the AF speed of a lens in the first place. And no, the higher voltage does not make a DSLR race faster over dirt.

coldrain
01-22-2008, 10:26 AM
Aw shucks, guys ... just get an α700 with its accompanying wireless remote. All those silly hot shoe issues go away and ...


;) Life's good!

You all just have the lil' ol' best day you can, now, ya hear? :D
Ok that is too funny, Don. It is already a little silly to have a print button on your camera, even though when you try really hard you can think of a situation that might actually come in handy sometime, somewhere.

But... a print button on a camera remote? How cool, you can uhmm.... make a print with your camera without touching it? What an awesome...ly useless idea.

TNB
01-22-2008, 10:36 AM
A higher voltage would mean a fried electronics. Nothing more. So no, the voltage from the batteries is NOT the voltages used by the electronics. Just like the 110 or 220V ~ current from your wall socket is not actually the voltage and type of current used by your desk top computer.
Think, if that were true that higher voltage batteries couldn't be used to begin with. It also depends on how much voltage the electronics can withstand to begin with not only how much is passed through. Duh.

Here's a link to take up some of your free time regarding batteries: http://batteryuniversity.com/index.htm

DonSchap
01-22-2008, 10:38 AM
What are you talking about ... who doesn't carry a printer with them when they are using their camera remotely? This is a very common practice among α700-users and the SONY system, when plugged into AC power. A remote for all-seasons! :eek:

I really think you missed the intent of the suggestion ... but, hey, who didn't? :confused:

coldrain
01-22-2008, 10:41 AM
Think, if that were true that higher voltage batteries couldn't be used to begin with. It also depends on how much voltage the electronics can withstand to begin with not only how much is passed through. Duh.
No, that is just nonsense. You do not know anything about electronics (clearly).
The voltages get processed by specialized ICs which then supply the different components with the different required voltages. That works that way with ANY electronics device, also with your camera.

Save the silly duhs.

tcadwall
01-22-2008, 10:46 AM
First, Rooz thank you for the review.

Want to know though (the question part) more about how this works, Does the remote have batteries that could have been low? I could see how that could have serious adverse effects.

To the ones that have hi-jacked this thread, congratulations. You have taken a thread that many of us would find interesting, and made it almost un-readable. This is mostly to Coldy, but us Nikon posters, shouldn't have fallen for the trap! :o

Sorry for the lot of us Rooz.

TNB
01-22-2008, 10:51 AM
Save the silly duhs.
I am. I am saving them for the trolls.


To the ones that have hi-jacked this thread, congratulations. You have taken a thread that many of us would find interesting, and made it almost un-readable. This is mostly to Coldy, but us Nikon posters, shouldn't have fallen for the trap! :o

Sorry for the lot of us Rooz.
Ditto to the Troll.

VTEC_EATER
01-22-2008, 11:24 AM
To the ones that have hi-jacked this thread, congratulations. You have taken a thread that many of us would find interesting, and made it almost un-readable. This is mostly to Coldy, but us Nikon posters, shouldn't have fallen for the trap! :o

Good point. I think I will start a new thread where we can discuss these electrical "anomalies" and get back to the original topic of how crappy this Nikon product is.

Rooz, sorry to hear of your difficulties with this product. Fortunately there are third party controllers out there that probably perform flawlessly, and could be competitively priced to the Nikon piece. I have done no research on this topic, cut Im pretty sure there are other options out there.

Rooz
01-22-2008, 12:35 PM
First, Rooz thank you for the review.

Want to know though (the question part) more about how this works, Does the remote have batteries that could have been low? I could see how that could have serious adverse effects.

To the ones that have hi-jacked this thread, congratulations. You have taken a thread that many of us would find interesting, and made it almost un-readable. This is mostly to Coldy, but us Nikon posters, shouldn't have fallen for the trap! :o

Sorry for the lot of us Rooz.

no biggie tc. Lord knows i do it all the time. lol

i put eneloops in first, (they were fully charged), and when i got the unreliable results i bought some brand new triple AAA's and had the same problem, so definately not a battery problem. i also tried it with and without flash just to make sure that my strobes weren't interfering with the signal. (i don;t know if that makes sense but i have no idea how this stuff works so i tried anyway lol). it also has 2 channel options and i tried both.

coldrain
01-22-2008, 03:12 PM
Rooz, if you do need your remote to be wireless, you can have a look at this product. Looks a bit daft, but apparently it works very well, and I just can't believe the price!
Way less expensive than the cheapest Nikon wire remote.

http://www.dpnotes.com/phottix-n1-wireless-remote-control-set-nikon-d300-review/

(cut/paste from the other thread):rolleyes:

Rooz
01-22-2008, 07:29 PM
thanks mate. i just ordered that exact same one earlier today for $30. i'll post a review of how it performs in this thread when i get it.:)

K1W1
01-22-2008, 09:31 PM
thanks mate. i just ordered that exact same one earlier today for $30. i'll post a review of how it performs in this thread when i get it.:)

At $30 it's obviously going to be a P.O.S.
My recommendation is that you buy the Nikon ML-3 as will be a product designed to Nikons exacting standards and will perform flawlessly with that expensive camera body of yours.
Remember the old saying, "You get what you pay for!".

ssil2000
01-22-2008, 09:49 PM
At $30 it's obviously going to be a P.O.S.
My recommendation is that you buy the Nikon ML-3 as will be a product designed to Nikons exacting standards and will perform flawlessly with that expensive camera body of yours.
Remember the old saying, "You get what you pay for!".

hehehe

d80 4 life! (ir built in yea yea)

Rooz
01-30-2008, 11:19 PM
got the Phottix remote today and tried it out. perfect. works on RF so there is no line of sight issues at all. i fired it from another room even. fires first time, every time.

screw nikon and their overpriced piece of garbage. :)

a very clever thing about it is that you can also use it as a wired remote. so don;t need the wireless controller to take pics. i thought this was a great touch.

highly recommended.

Cyberwlf
01-31-2008, 05:13 AM
On an Off Topic note... It sounds like there's some jealous old model Nikon camera owners here trolling those who bought the D300. As said elsewhere on this forum, D80 is outdated technology eclipsed by the D300, sure its heavier, but its also about 2 years ahead of the D80 too. I was considering the D80 but it lacked various things the competition has and well by comparison the D300 looks quite awesome in my books and aside from weight I could barely fault it, even if it doesn't have built in IR.

On topic... The remote Rooz got sounds like the goods and probably one i'd be likely to go for if i bought one.

tcadwall
01-31-2008, 08:20 AM
(re d300)...and aside from weight I could barely fault it...

LOL - That is something that I would like.... Most of us are steadier with a bit of weight... Of course, that is relative, but if it is a problem, you should be working out more anyway.

K1W1
01-31-2008, 01:43 PM
On an Off Topic note... It sounds like there's some jealous old model Nikon camera owners here trolling those who bought the D300.

If you read the threads in context you would know that the so called jealous old model Nikon owners are simply having a joke and that is well understood by the D300 owners.
It may seem strange but we cam actually do things like that on this forum and not get all upset about things.

Rooz
01-31-2008, 01:54 PM
On an Off Topic note... It sounds like there's some jealous old model Nikon camera owners here trolling those who bought the D300. As said elsewhere on this forum, D80 is outdated technology eclipsed by the D300, sure its heavier, but its also about 2 years ahead of the D80 too. I was considering the D80 but it lacked various things the competition has and well by comparison the D300 looks quite awesome in my books and aside from weight I could barely fault it, even if it doesn't have built in IR.

On topic... The remote Rooz got sounds like the goods and probably one i'd be likely to go for if i bought one.

its just a running joke cyber. no trolling in here. :)

jcon
01-31-2008, 05:04 PM
Rooz, you realize your D300 sucks, dont you? LOL :D:p

K1W1
01-31-2008, 05:07 PM
Rooz, you realize your D300 sucks, dont you? LOL :D:p

I've heard that they are so heavy that Cunard are thinking of using them as anchors for some of their cruise boats. :D

jcon
01-31-2008, 05:10 PM
:DToo funny, K1W1!:D

Rooz
01-31-2008, 05:12 PM
Rooz, you realize your D300 sucks, dont you? LOL :D:p

well until you pick up your 2 D3's you can kiss my ass. :D:p

K1W1
01-31-2008, 05:13 PM
Aren't D3's even heavier than D300's? :confused:

jcon
01-31-2008, 05:13 PM
Ok, that made me laugh out loud Rooz!!! One D3 yes, two.. no way in hell!


Whew, what a laugh! Nice to know they still exist here on this site!

erichlund
01-31-2008, 05:29 PM
Aren't D3's even heavier than D300's? :confused:

Yeah. But too heavy for an anchor. They'd sink the boat trying to raise it. ;)

Cyberwlf
01-31-2008, 05:44 PM
its just a running joke cyber. no trolling in here. :)
You'll need to excuse me, i'm only a semi-semi-regular here! :)