Low light lens or flash it up?

Roguey said:

I am wondering if I wanted to fire the flash, off camera then with a 580exII
could I do this via PC sync port? (I have a 40D)

Click to expand...

Yes, but see commentary below.

Roguey said:

Are PC sync ports better or worse than using an off camera leads/or
the same? (ie. connecting via a PC cable does it allow the flash to
work just manual mode?)

Click to expand...

You loose all smart features triggering with the PC Sync connector. See commentary below.

Roguey said:

By the looks, the PC cables are cheaper than 'off camera' leads.

Click to expand...

Much cheaper, but limit what the flash can do, as there is no communication with the camera.

The PC Sync output is a simple 2-wire trigger that has been around for decades; all it can do is fire the flash. It does not allow the camera and flash to communicate exposure/distance information as would happen with the Canon off-camera extension cable. It is intended for flashes that have manual power setting or for those that auto-meter (auto-meter flashes were popular before smart TTL flashes came along).

If you hook up the flash with a PC cable, you will loose all of the smart features (ETTL metering, high speed sync, auto-zoom). If all you will do is use the flash off camera in a light modifier (umbrella, Softliter, softbox, etc.), then consider saving a lot of money and just get a flash that allows manual power settings.

If you want to use the smart flash features off camera, then you need to get the Canon off camera shoe OC-E3 (extension cable) or the (infrared) wireless ST-E2 transmitter. Do be aware that the infrared system is basically line of site. The receiver must be able to see the infrared light from the transmitter. Reportedly it works well indoors where the infrared light can bounce off of walls and things, but reliability gets a bit spotty when outdoors. The off camera shoe is just a short cable intended for mounting the camera on a flip bracket.

-Gene L.
http://ttl-biz.com

thanks for explaining Gene L! that's a big help!

I thought because the 580exII had the pc sync slot - it offered a 'standard' way to talk to flashes (another reason for 580exII) but it seams something ill never use.

Would you say the 430exII/580exII are 'smarter' flashes than the on-board? or the same just less power?... for example:

for macro, I had to diffuse (put some material in-front) the on-board flash because it was either too harsh or over-bright. Would an external flash do the same thing or would it know to exposed the picture correctly?

many thanks,
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/roguey/ (My pics)

Roguey said:

thanks for explaining Gene L! that's a big help!

Click to expand...

It takes quite a bit of time and research to understand all this stuff. Google is your friend in this regard.

Roguey said:

I thought because the 580exII had the pc sync slot - it offered a
'standard' way to talk to flashes (another reason for 580exII) but it
seams something ill never use.

Click to expand...

Don't write it off completely. You may not use it much or for a long time, but it can come in handy for certain types of lighting setups, though I wouldn't shell out a lot of extra money for that one feature.

Roguey said:

Would you say the 430exII/580exII are 'smarter' flashes than the
on-board? or the same just less power?... for example:

Click to expand...

I can't help you here. I have only ever borrowed a Sigma 500DG Super and just couldn't justify the cost of even that considering how seldom I use a camera mounted external flash. Normally if I have a flash it is mounted in an umbrella. A couple of weeks ago I shot a family event and ended up using camera mounted flash with the flip frame flash bracket because the room was much too small for the number of people involved. The Vivitar 285HV auto-meters and it does a decent job for most situations. Considering how many people have problems with consistency when using TTL, E-TTL, and E-TTL II, I wonder if my dinosaur is really disadvantaged by all that much.

Roguey said:

for macro, I had to diffuse (put some material in-front) the on-board
flash because it was either too harsh or over-bright. Would an
external flash do the same thing or would it know to exposed the
picture correctly?

Click to expand...

If you use an external flash that is connected via the OC-E3 extension cable or the ST-E2 infrared transmitter, then the camera should be able to meter properly. You of course need to be aware of how the camera meters to get it set up correctly. For example, if shooting something mostly dark, the camera will likely overexpose. If shooting a small black bug surrounded by lots of white, it will underexpose. It is similar to metering in ambient light, the camera wants things to be exposed for 18% gray, but with some smarts to look for highlights and shadows provided they fall in a metering zone.

It gets a bit complicated and you would do well to read up on it from multiple sources until you gain a conceptual understanding. Once you understand the concepts used by the camera, the proper metering mode will be an informed decision rather than trial and error.

For static shots I prefer to just use a light meter and set the flash power manually. This is why I said early on that the type of photography you do will affect which equipment to select. Sometimes its easier and better to have an external flash free to move exactly where you want it and with power set predictably.

Roguey said:

many thanks,

Click to expand...

You're welcome. Learning all this stuff can be overwhelming if not downright painful at times, but the addict learns to enjoy the process.

-Gene L.
http://ttl-biz.com

Roguey said:

thanks for explaining Gene L! that's a big help!

I thought because the 580exII had the pc sync slot - it offered a
'standard' way to talk to flashes (another reason for 580exII) but it
seams something ill never use.

Would you say the 430exII/580exII are 'smarter' flashes than the
on-board? or the same just less power?... for example:

Click to expand...

internal is also E-TTL II, so should be the same, just less power,
and fixed in position.

Roguey said:

for macro, I had to diffuse (put some material in-front) the on-board
flash because it was either too harsh or over-bright. Would an
external flash do the same thing or would it know to exposed the
picture correctly?

Click to expand...

probably similar problem, due to very short distances.
the external flash you can of course put further away.

Roguey said:

many thanks,
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/roguey/ (My pics)

Click to expand...

ah, I think I know why ive been having problems with the on-board - no high speed sync. I guess the on-board lacks this feature and both the 430exII and 580exII have it?

Found this out on google - the reason why my picture where getting overexposed with the on-board flash... this discussions:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/40d/discuss/72157606726881342/
and
http://www.rpphoto.com/howto/view.asp?articleID=1026

thanks for explaining about the camera's metering system - ill try to bare that in-mind.

if high-speed-sync is on the 430exII, then this flash could do me well

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/roguey/ (My pics)

hmm.. well not sure which flash to go for.. the 430exII (smaller, lighter, less power/features, cheaper, easier to get) or the 580exII (bigger, heavier, more power, sealed, higher price, send away only etc.)

I guess both flashes have high-speed sync? The flash range of both sound good for me (I am not lighting up things from 10+ meters - my biggest lens is the 70-200mm - I would like a 100-400 later). Both flashes sounds like a big increase over the on-board flash!

To me size and weight are important (40D is already heavy enough) - I wouldn't mind the extra size/weight if I knew I was getting something that much better. So far what I have read, the 430exII would probably do everything I want just in a lighter/smaller/cheaper 'box'. Both are near silent when charging? and have support for menu's on the 40D?

many thanks for your comments above/below, they helped loads!

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/roguey/ (My pics)

Roguey said:

The flash range of both
sound good for me (I am not lighting up things from 10+ meters ...

Click to expand...

When you bounce a flash, the distance which matters isn't the distance between the camera and the subject -- rather, it's the total distance the light must travel from the flash, to the bouncing surface (i.e., ceiling or walls), to the subject.

Example: If you're shooting a subject 5 meters in front of you, and bouncing off a wall 3 meters behind you, your effective flash-to-subject distance is over 11 meters.

Also, you'll lose light when you bounce because walls and ceilings aren't perfect reflectors. Some light will be absorbed, and some will be reflected in directions which don't contribute towards lighting your subject.

So for bouncing, you want as powerful a flash as you can manage.

Here's just such a case, where the flash was bounced off a relatively small reflecting surface (an archway, not a complete wall) several meters behind and to the left of the camera:

This shot is a perfect example of why one would want to use flash as opposed to available light.

Adding light to a scene is about emphasizing your subject.

With the in vogue "available light" shooting, all of the focus would be on the light over on the wall as it would be the brightest thing in the scene.

It is not easy, but imho, looks more professional

Thanks!

Bassman2003 said:

With the in vogue "available light" shooting, all of the focus would
be on the light over on the wall as it would be the brightest thing
in the scene.

Click to expand...

I agree completely -- when shooting available light, you have no control over compositional contrast when shooting.

Nonetheless, I often shoot events where available light is the only option -- and end up with problematic lighting as you describe, where the focus isn't on the subject.

For such circumstances, I'm delighted with Lightroom version 2, which introduces local corrections into its toolbox of non-destructive RAW image adjustments. Using LR2, one can make dodge/burn corrections to an image very quickly and easily, with a great degree of control -- and without ever needing to open Photoshop.

Of course, such post-processing won't give results as good as well-chosen controlled lighting during exposure -- but it can make big improvements, and turn weak images into pleasing ones.

very nice picture! I like how 'natural' the lighting looks. Was the flash on-top of the camera?

So you're saying I should go for the 580exII? the extra power for more bounce? would the 430exII struggle bouncing?

thanks,
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/roguey/ (My pics)

Roguey said:

very nice picture! I like how 'natural' the lighting looks. Was the
flash on-top of the camera?

So you're saying I should go for the 580exII? the extra power for
more bounce? would the 430exII struggle bouncing?

Click to expand...

It's really impossible to say, depends on the room you want to shoot in.
the 430 would do fine with bouncing as well, just in a somewhat smaller room.
Depends on where you have surfaces, preferably white, to bounce light off.
Low white ceiling: not much problem. Big church, even the 580 wouldn't
do it. In the later case, you put a diffuser on the flash and shoot straight,
or hold it to the side, with an umbrella reflector. Basically walls/ceilings
replace the study reflectors for you.

The dance hall shown above is rather big, even the 580 would be pushed to it's limits.

But, you can always increase the ISO in the camera to increase the reach of the flash. So basically you could say you need to use ~ one higher step ISO with the 430 to get the same effect as the 580.
with the 430 at 800 ISO and f2.8, you can shoot straight 46meters with the flash
zoomed to a 100mm lens.

have look at this site, seems like quite nice intros:
http://www.shortcourses.com/guide/guide2-28.html

probably the 430 will do fine for you in most settings.

Roguey said:

thanks,
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/roguey/ (My pics)

Click to expand...

hmmm.... after a lot of thinking, Ill gonna order a 580exII. It doesn't seam that much bigger/heavier (40g 'ish) and I will only ever (as I know) buy one flash - might as well pay the bit extra.

many thanks!
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/roguey/ (My pics)