Reading mode: Light Dark

FL-40 questions (for outside fill)

Go to last post
R

RCFoto

Member
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
Location
Daytona Beach, FL, US
[I looked around but couldn't find this addressed in the forum]

I currently use a Vivitar 285hv on my E10 - works great, as it should. I typically am shooting outdoors and over the years have found fill flash to be an indespensible tool for softening shadows and bringing out color, details, etc.

Typically I look at and determine my exposure for the background scenery or the dominant background for my subject (grass is very much an issue for automobiles at shows, for example), then use the flash to create a 1:1 fill-exposure (in effect using shutter speed to expose for the background, and changing the aperture to exposure for the flash, my gallery at http://www.aerog.com/foxlake02 has glaring examples, particularly the backlit vehicles).

Obviously this is pretty easy to do with the 285HV, and it's served me well.

Here's the problem, and question: Shooting several hundred images at a show, in various setups (front 1/4 view of a car, interior, straight on, etc) I'm having to do more headwork and in some situations have found the flash to be a bit more harsh than I'd predicted. In closeups and certain other situations I've had to stop and change my setup completely to make it all work. These situations in the past, using Nikon (film) equipment hadn't been a big deal, and largely automated.

Reading the camera manual it's pretty clear I should easily be able to keep the flash's output to a 1:1 fill by leaving it at a neutral "bias" in the camera (or bias it to anything I want).

Question: what have people's experiences been with the TTL capabilities in this situation? My hope is TTL will do a better job than just the thyristor on the 285HV and will not only give better results, but will let me pop over to "P" for quick thoughtless snapshots without worrying about the flash settings - I know I can make the 285 do what I want, will the FL40 (or the Metz for that matter, since it seems the TTL capabilities are more a function of the camera than the flash) be as good or better while proving automation? Or, are the advantages not worth the extra money.

Thanks for your comment!

--
-- S.Keating, Daytona Beach FL
 
First, I am a HUGE opponent to fill flash. I hate it.

That said, since you are fill flashing CARS and not humans, I can accept it.

I am very tired and been awake a long time, so forgive me if I missed something in your question. Here is what I would do, and as I dont fill flash I'm not 100% sure it would work, but the logic seems to make sense to me.

Set it to M. Stay away from that damn P setting. Ignore it. It doesnt exist. It will only do you harm. If you want a P setting, get a Canon Elph.

Spot meter for your background. If you want nothing blown, meter for your brightest area of background. Set the appropraite shutter and app for the background. Now, keep the meter on spot and when you shoot and fire the TTL flash it will TTL (that's my new verb) the car into proper exposureland. (I tell you I'm tired and you dont believe me.)

Make sense? Let me try a test....hold on... look what you make me done.

Yep. That worked. Give it a try.

GageFX
 
gagefx:

Thanks for the comments... you ARE tired (grin) - I do exactly what you described, as I said.

My question, restated, is not one of technique but about the capabilities of the TTL system in the E10. It boils down to whether or not using a dedicated flash (I'm zeroing in on the FL40, the Metz would be applicable also) and TTL metering for the flash will be better than the '285 and worth the expense in the situation I outlined. In theory TTL surely should be better, but if not (or if it's just not that good) then I'm merely buying a few more features with any better metering accuracy. I'm hoping those with experience comparing the two systems under the conditions I cited can comment.

Incidentally, I tend to agree with your comments on "P"rogram modes. Although I'm still suffering withdrawl from not having my spotmeter-V hanging around my neck I have to admit there are times when having a mindless snapshot mode comes in handy.
gagefx said:
First, I am a HUGE opponent to fill flash. I hate it.

That said, since you are fill flashing CARS and not humans, I can
accept it.
Click to expand...
 
Fill light can be as effective and pleasing when used outside as it is in the studio. Just like in the studio, you set the camera for the main (in this case, the ambient environment) and underexpose the fill by a stop or two. Outside with the FL40 in TTL mode it is necessary to use Flash Compensation to get the fill effect. Just go to the camera menu and knock the flash back by the desired amount. You can do it in 1/3 f-stop increments. This allows very subtle adjustments in the effect.

Using your 285, you can do the same thing, but you simply set the f-stop color on your settings dial to match the color that represents an f-stop one or two less than your camera setting. That will tone down the flash enough to provide fill. Only full f-stop increments can be made, thus, the imcremental changes to the fill effect are more coarse, and you may not be able to get the exact end result that you want.

Another difference is that with the TTL/FL40, once you setup for flash compensation, all subsequent aperture changes will be automatically compensated as per your original flash compensation settings. With the 285, you need to keep making corresponding color/fstop adjustment everytime the environment dictates a change in the camera f-stop. And, of course, an advantage of the 285 is that, besides being 1/3 the cost, you can get it farther away from the camera (like on a lightstand) much easier. The FL40 is tethered to the camera (even with the Olympus cables.) The FL40 is basically "fire and forget," and makes a great PJ strobe.

I have found that the power of the two strobes are nearly identical.

Bottom line is that they both will work to provide fill. It just depends on how your strobe is going to fit in to your whole photography experience.

Regards,
Bob
aerog said:
Thanks for the comments... you ARE tired (grin) - I do exactly what
you described, as I said.

My question, restated, is not one of technique but about the
capabilities of the TTL system in the E10. It boils down to
whether or not using a dedicated flash (I'm zeroing in on the FL40,
the Metz would be applicable also) and TTL metering for the flash
will be better than the '285 and worth the expense in the situation
I outlined. In theory TTL surely should be better, but if not (or
if it's just not that good) then I'm merely buying a few more
features with any better metering accuracy. I'm hoping those with
experience comparing the two systems under the conditions I cited
can comment.

Incidentally, I tend to agree with your comments on "P"rogram
modes. Although I'm still suffering withdrawl from not having my
spotmeter-V hanging around my neck I have to admit there are times
when having a mindless snapshot mode comes in handy.
gagefx said:
First, I am a HUGE opponent to fill flash. I hate it.

That said, since you are fill flashing CARS and not humans, I can
accept it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/sayhibob
[email protected]

E-10 & E-20 w/Lipo's, TCON 300, 14B, WCON, FL40, Digi-slave Pro (Vivitar 285), Promaster mini-strobe, Hensel Studio lights, Minolta IV-F Flashmeter
 
Fill can, as pointed out, be done with any flash. It just depends
on how much work you want to do. Since the answer for
me is "as little as possible", I rely on the TTL capabilities
of the E-xx and the FL-40 to automatically handle fill flash.

I do, on occasion, get some over or underexposed shots (more under,
since the FL-40 has so little power), but for the most part,
they are spot on exposures and I don't have to fiddle with
settings each time the main lighting is a little different.

Take a look at the people pictures at:

http://www.bnspictures.com/BNS/2002/dover/index.htm

There's a few that the fill was inadequate, but otherwise, the
fill was spot on.

-T
 
I haven't found any great advantage to TTL for fill. The occasional blown exposures have always been more headache to figure out than it was worth. I'm back to a 285, I know what it's gonna do, and know who to blame if I get lazy or stupid. With the FL-40 it just seemed to occasionally change what it was doing - especially in transitional moments.

I probably could have learned to master the FL-40's TTL better, but I decided I'd rather not. The results I got were no better than a regular light and using my head (calculating exposures). It WAS easier though.
aerog said:
[I looked around but couldn't find this addressed in the forum]

I currently use a Vivitar 285hv on my E10 - works great, as it
should. I typically am shooting outdoors and over the years have
found fill flash to be an indespensible tool for softening shadows
and bringing out color, details, etc.

Typically I look at and determine my exposure for the background
scenery or the dominant background for my subject (grass is very
much an issue for automobiles at shows, for example), then use the
flash to create a 1:1 fill-exposure (in effect using shutter speed
to expose for the background, and changing the aperture to exposure
for the flash, my gallery at http://www.aerog.com/foxlake02 has
glaring examples, particularly the backlit vehicles).

Obviously this is pretty easy to do with the 285HV, and it's served
me well.

Here's the problem, and question: Shooting several hundred images
at a show, in various setups (front 1/4 view of a car, interior,
straight on, etc) I'm having to do more headwork and in some
situations have found the flash to be a bit more harsh than I'd
predicted. In closeups and certain other situations I've had to
stop and change my setup completely to make it all work. These
situations in the past, using Nikon (film) equipment hadn't been a
big deal, and largely automated.

Reading the camera manual it's pretty clear I should easily be able
to keep the flash's output to a 1:1 fill by leaving it at a neutral
"bias" in the camera (or bias it to anything I want).

Question: what have people's experiences been with the TTL
capabilities in this situation? My hope is TTL will do a better
job than just the thyristor on the 285HV and will not only give
better results, but will let me pop over to "P" for quick
thoughtless snapshots without worrying about the flash settings - I
know I can make the 285 do what I want, will the FL40 (or the Metz
for that matter, since it seems the TTL capabilities are more a
function of the camera than the flash) be as good or better while
proving automation? Or, are the advantages not worth the extra
money.

Thanks for your comment!

--
-- S.Keating, Daytona Beach FL
Click to expand...
 
Sayhibob said:
Another difference is that with the TTL/FL40, once you setup for
flash compensation, all subsequent aperture changes will be
automatically compensated as per your original flash compensation
settings.
Click to expand...
I'd assumed that, thanks for confirming my thoughts. My Nikon setup did precisely that, and made it pretty convenient. As I recall it was nearly the same - just set up the flash compensation (on the SB25 it was on the flash and not in the camera, but the layout was similar to what I'm reading in the Olympus book) and go.

Thanks for the info -- Scott
 
Tom Gallo said:
Fill can, as pointed out, be done with any flash. It just depends
on how much work you want to do. Since the answer for
me is "as little as possible", I rely on the TTL capabilities
of the E-xx and the FL-40 to automatically handle fill flash.
Click to expand...
Tom:

Thanks for the input. That again shows a perfect situation that "mindless" automation can certainly help. I can generally get away with setting things up on the 285 to give really decent results almost all the time, sometimes it does take some effort to think about what you're doing. Ideally that's the way it should be, but jumping in out and of garage areas and in and out of different lighting conditions - you simply don't always have time to worry about checking the front of the flash, then the camera, then shoot.

Thanks again - Scott
 
Walt:

Still more good comments - thanks.

-- Scott
Walt Palmer said:
I haven't found any great advantage to TTL for fill. The
occasional blown exposures have always been more headache to figure
out than it was worth. I'm back to a 285, I know what it's gonna
do, and know who to blame if I get lazy or stupid. With the FL-40
it just seemed to occasionally change what it was doing -
especially in transitional moments.

I probably could have learned to master the FL-40's TTL better, but
I decided I'd rather not. The results I got were no better than a
regular light and using my head (calculating exposures). It WAS
easier though.
FL
Click to expand...
 
Please get your facts straight.
Ripper103348 said:
I do, on occasion, get some over or underexposed shots (more under,
since the FL-40 has so little power),
Click to expand...
This just isnt true. The FL-40 has a GN of 30 or 131 ft. The Metz is more powerful with a GN of 54 meters or 177 ft. The Viv285 has a GN of 36 or 120 ft. It is not the MOST powerful, but it certainly does not have "so little power".

Next is the cost. You didnt say this (that I remember) but it's brought up all the time. Yes, you can get the Vivitar for $80. It seems to be a fine flash, but you do not get TTL and you only get bounce, no swivel. The FL-40 goes for $290 and you get a full featured TTL flash that is made for the camera. You could then spend $312 on the Metz and STILL have to buy an adapter for it for Oly TTL.

It is PLENTY powerful and is not all that expensive. Compare it to something much less qualified and it's $200 more. Compare it to something slightly more qualified and it's cheaper. What do you want?

If money's an issue, get the Vivitar. If money isnt an issue, get the FL-40. If more power is an issue, get the Metz.

GageFX

GageFX
 
gagefx said:
Rembvrijn said:
I do, on occasion, get some over or underexposed shots (more under,
since the FL-40 has so little power),
Click to expand...
This just isnt true. The FL-40 has a GN of 30 or 131 ft. The Metz
is more powerful with a GN of 54 meters or 177 ft. The Viv285 has a
GN of 36 or 120 ft. It is not the MOST powerful, but it certainly
does not have "so little power".

Next is the cost. You didnt say this (that I remember) but it's
brought up all the time. Yes, you can get the Vivitar for $80. It
seems to be a fine flash, but you do not get TTL and you only get
bounce, no swivel. The FL-40 goes for $290 and you get a full
featured TTL flash that is made for the camera. You could then
spend $312 on the Metz and STILL have to buy an adapter for it for
Oly TTL.

It is PLENTY powerful and is not all that expensive. Compare it to
something much less qualified and it's $200 more. Compare it to
something slightly more qualified and it's cheaper. What do you
want?

If money's an issue, get the Vivitar. If money isnt an issue, get
the FL-40. If more power is an issue, get the Metz.

GageFX

GageFX
Click to expand...
You make good points, everything is relative. I hang my hat on the Qflash because I used it with film ( still do), like the parabolic feature of the light and fairly hefty GN@160ft. The cost though ? Get the Metz, the Q with pack now goes for over $700, was around $650 when I bought it and Quantum still hasn't come up with a module for the E cameras.

So either the Metz or the FL- 40 look reasonable to me. By the same token I also use Vivitars which should look reasonable to anyone in the group !!!

It's not the cost of the flash , it's what you can do with it that counts. And while I use the Q for parabolic effect and diffuser panels, it is also almost infinite control, even though not TTL and this is important in any light. This is where I find the Vivitars lacking, they are good lights, but with digital it's even more important to have good control over your lighting and the Vivitars leave gaps between stops that should really be covered. TTL might cover this better, I can only speak for myself and the situation I work in.

You also make a good point about the swivel head, any flash with a swivel head and reasonable power to utilize the head with is worth about any nominal price they put on it. The gains are remarkable over a fixed head or just straight up bounce head.Then again though how about ISO, can you really use the bounce/swivel feature of a moderately powered head ? I don't consider 130ft. all that powerful, much better the 177 of the Metz IMO.

David
 
I agree.

The only thing is that I have found the 285 no more powerful than the FL40 in spite of the literature. Maybe it's my batteries, I don't know. But then again, I use them each in different environments. My 285, is actually a Digislave Pro, which is a 285 modified with a built-in slave. More importantly, it also has a switch that allows it to avoid firing on the pre-flash. So, I can use the FL40 to fire it as a slave. Therefore, I have no need to put the 285 on camera, nor do I have any need to get the FL40 far off camera. For portable use inside, I often use them together with the 285 on a lightstand shot through or into an umbrella, and use the FL40 on a bracket with a STO-FEN two-way card diffuser. Again, in spite of what some say, they don't seem to get in each other's way, unless I put them both on auto, and then the shot is a little hot. Better to put one on auto and the other back a stop or two. The choice of which is main and which is fill is an aesthetic choice. It works both ways.

Outside, when I have a helper, I tend to prefer reflectors, but it is nice to have an option.

If I could only have one or the other, I would agree with gagefx's assessment of the decision process. His analysis is right on the mark. For me, absolute power would be my last criteria, since I believe that both the Vivitar and the FL40 have sufficient power.

Regards,
Bob
gagefx said:
Rembvrijn said:
I do, on occasion, get some over or underexposed shots (more under,
since the FL-40 has so little power),
Click to expand...
This just isnt true. The FL-40 has a GN of 30 or 131 ft. The Metz
is more powerful with a GN of 54 meters or 177 ft. The Viv285 has a
GN of 36 or 120 ft. It is not the MOST powerful, but it certainly
does not have "so little power".

Next is the cost. You didnt say this (that I remember) but it's
brought up all the time. Yes, you can get the Vivitar for $80. It
seems to be a fine flash, but you do not get TTL and you only get
bounce, no swivel. The FL-40 goes for $290 and you get a full
featured TTL flash that is made for the camera. You could then
spend $312 on the Metz and STILL have to buy an adapter for it for
Oly TTL.

It is PLENTY powerful and is not all that expensive. Compare it to
something much less qualified and it's $200 more. Compare it to
something slightly more qualified and it's cheaper. What do you
want?

If money's an issue, get the Vivitar. If money isnt an issue, get
the FL-40. If more power is an issue, get the Metz.

GageFX

GageFX
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/sayhibob
[email protected]

E-10 & E-20 w/Lipo's, TCON 300, 14B, WCON, FL40, Digi-slave Pro (Vivitar 285), Promaster mini-strobe, Hensel Studio lights, Minolta IV-F Flashmeter
 
Rembvrijn said:
Rembvrijn said:
I do, on occasion, get some over or underexposed shots (more under,
since the FL-40 has so little power),
Click to expand...
This just isnt true. The FL-40 has a GN of 30 or 131 ft. The Metz
is more powerful with a GN of 54 meters or 177 ft. The Viv285 has a
GN of 36 or 120 ft. It is not the MOST powerful, but it certainly
does not have "so little power".
Click to expand...
Ok, My bad. The FL-40 is GN 40 (not 30, btw) but that's in METERS,
not feet. However, most manufacturers list GNs in FEET, so I'm
off the hook. ;-)
Rembvrijn said:
Next is the cost. You didnt say this (that I remember) but it's
brought up all the time. Yes, you can get the Vivitar for $80. It
seems to be a fine flash, but you do not get TTL and you only get
bounce, no swivel. The FL-40 goes for $290 and you get a full
featured TTL flash that is made for the camera. You could then
spend $312 on the Metz and STILL have to buy an adapter for it for
Oly TTL.
Click to expand...
The only consideration is that the FL-40 becomes a door stop, TTL wise if

you move from the Oly to another system. You pay more for the Metz, but end up with something that can move with you.

-T
 
Don't forget that the 3202 module for the Metz includes a built in slave trigger that triggers only on the second (main) burst of your other flash. Besides using it wireless in tandem w/my FL40/E10, I also use it, on occasion, with my E100RS as a cordless main or bounce while mounted on my Stroboframe w/no wires in the way. Regards, Jim N'AZ
aerog said:
Still more good comments - thanks.

-- Scott
Walt Palmer said:
I haven't found any great advantage to TTL for fill. The
occasional blown exposures have always been more headache to figure
out than it was worth. I'm back to a 285, I know what it's gonna
do, and know who to blame if I get lazy or stupid. With the FL-40
it just seemed to occasionally change what it was doing -
especially in transitional moments.

I probably could have learned to master the FL-40's TTL better, but
I decided I'd rather not. The results I got were no better than a
regular light and using my head (calculating exposures). It WAS
easier though.
FL
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Jim N'AZ
 
I would like to get a Qflash. I'd probably rarely use it, but I like the parabolic reflector and I like options. And although it's " not the cost of the flash, but what you do with it," some of us use flash so little that TTL is really what we need. In that case, cost is a factor.

Anyhoo, I agree with your post.

GageFX
David Grabowski said:
You make good points, everything is relative. I hang my hat on the
Qflash because I used it with film ( still do), like the parabolic
feature of the light and fairly hefty GN@160ft. The cost though ?
Get the Metz, the Q with pack now goes for over $700, was around
$650 when I bought it and Quantum still hasn't come up with a
module for the E cameras.

So either the Metz or the FL- 40 look reasonable to me. By the same
token I also use Vivitars which should look reasonable to anyone in
the group !!!

It's not the cost of the flash , it's what you can do with it that
counts. And while I use the Q for parabolic effect and diffuser
panels, it is also almost infinite control, even though not TTL and
this is important in any light. This is where I find the Vivitars
lacking, they are good lights, but with digital it's even more
important to have good control over your lighting and the Vivitars
leave gaps between stops that should really be covered. TTL might
cover this better, I can only speak for myself and the situation I
work in.

You also make a good point about the swivel head, any flash with a
swivel head and reasonable power to utilize the head with is worth
about any nominal price they put on it. The gains are remarkable
over a fixed head or just straight up bounce head.Then again though
how about ISO, can you really use the bounce/swivel feature of a
moderately powered head ? I don't consider 130ft. all that
powerful, much better the 177 of the Metz IMO.

David
Click to expand...
 
TomGallo (AKA RacerX) said:
The only consideration is that the FL-40 becomes a door stop, TTL
wise if
you move from the Oly to another system. You pay more for the
Metz, but end up with something that can move with you.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and as I will be seriously looking at a Canon upgrade from the E-10, I'm going to have a few pricy doorstops. I'll probably give it all to a friend.

Anyway, that's a few months off.

GageFX
 
Jim N'AZ said:
Don't forget that the 3202 module for the Metz includes a built in
slave trigger that triggers only on the second (main) burst of your
other flash. Besides using it wireless in tandem w/my FL40/E10, I
also use it, on occasion, with my E100RS as a cordless main or
bounce while mounted on my Stroboframe w/no wires in the way.
Click to expand...
That's pretty cool. I dont find the cord to get in the way, but that is certainly a cool option.

GageFX
 
gagefx said:
Rembvrijn said:
Don't forget that the 3202 module for the Metz includes a built in
slave trigger that triggers only on the second (main) burst of your
other flash. Besides using it wireless in tandem w/my FL40/E10, I
also use it, on occasion, with my E100RS as a cordless main or
bounce while mounted on my Stroboframe w/no wires in the way.
Click to expand...
That's pretty cool. I dont find the cord to get in the way, but
that is certainly a cool option.

GageFX
Click to expand...
My cords are always in the way, have gone to mounting my pack on the bracket and wrapping cords around the bracket handle a couple of times to keep them out of the way. But then if a quick change of equipment is needed it isn't so quick anymore. Cords are rediculous, I should go the Pocket Wizard route, but then you have transmitters an receivers. Back to reflectors !!!

David
 
aerog said:
[- I
know I can make the 285 do what I want, will the FL40 (or the Metz
for that matter, since it seems the TTL capabilities are more a
function of the camera than the flash) be as good or better while
proving automation? Or, are the advantages not worth the extra
money.

Thanks for your comment!

--
-- S.Keating, Daytona Beach FL
Click to expand...
I have used the Vivitar 285 for more years than I like to think about. I also have an FL40 and a Nikon Dedicated Flash. The Nikon flash will work on the E-10 if you set it to internal control. I use the 285 because I can power it with a simple external power pack that lets me shoot thousands of images. I power the E-10 with an external pack also.

I always use fill flash as I sell pictures to people as opposed to Art photography. I like the E-10 because of the leaf shutter like my blad. I have had mixed results in fill flash with A or P. I shot an event on A and let the camera set the background exposure. This tends to burn up the background. I do not like the FL-40 because of the double flash slows the camera down and people shut their eyes. I may need to cover an event with 1000 people and try to get everyone in at least one shot. I do not have the luxury to make a second shot. I know I am a commercial guy and I love Ansel Adams I just need properly exposed images.

I have tried P and find the camera sets the F stop so wide you get a lot of OTF shots. I have decided the best quality is on M with having to guess at the back ground or use the spot like meter of the E-10 to expose for the back ground.

Many cheaper DSLR have a limited ability to synch at high shutter speeds. I would look into that before jumping to another camera. The D100 has that problem. I think the new Fugi has the same problem.

I realy miss shooting everything with my Hasselblad and 220 film on VPS. That is no longer affordable in today's world. I think the Kodak 14mp camera will work if it synchs at high speed. That coupled with the new full size back for 120 camera's is the the final blow to total conversion to Digital.
If they coud just figure out time exposures. Charles L. Mims
--
charleslmims
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top