Reading mode: Light Dark

A55 & wireless flash with HSS : UNusable

Go to last post
OldClicker said:
There is no reason to assume that HSS and non-HSS would both expose the same. The symptom is a difference between on camera HSS and WL HSS.
Click to expand...
Not exactly the same, but there shouldn't be a correct image at 1/160 and a severely underexposed image at 1/250 either.

And there's no reason to assume that with the flash on-camera, i.e straight light, vs angled from having the flash off-camera would result in the exact same exposure either ;)

--
http://kilrah.dynalias.net/gallery
http://www.rc-tech.ch/aviation
 
Kilrah said:
OldClicker said:
There is no reason to assume that HSS and non-HSS would both expose the same. The symptom is a difference between on camera HSS and WL HSS.
Click to expand...
Not exactly the same, but there shouldn't be a correct image at 1/160 and a severely underexposed image at 1/250 either.

And there's no reason to assume that with the flash on-camera, i.e straight light, vs angled from having the flash off-camera would result in the exact same exposure either ;)
Click to expand...
At 1/160 the flash duration is somethng like 1/3000 sec. At 1/250, it is pulsing for about 1/200 sec. and has much, much less power. I don't think your angle theory is going to have nearly this kind of difference. - TF
 
...hence the need to reproduce the OP's "flash at 1m of the subject" and ISO200 scenario, as there IS enough flash power to provide correct exposure in that situation, and subsequently checking by forcing the flash at 1/1 to check for that in case of negative result.

--
http://kilrah.dynalias.net/gallery
http://www.rc-tech.ch/aviation
 
Kilrah, thanks for explaining more of what the OP was looking for. :-) I did do a test after taking some shots. I thought at first the OP had stated that the A-55 was not working in hss wireless.

Thanks for the clarification. :-) I'm not going to trouble him again until he takes his planned trip with his new cam. The EVF's are O.K. I did get to see, but I'm still not interested in having one yet.
--
Glenn

I'm kinda partial to video, but I'm hangin!
 
Mine works fine with F/2.8 1/4000 ISO 100 HSS
 
PidSoran said:
Mine works fine with F/2.8 1/4000 ISO 100 HSS
Click to expand...
Thanks Pid. I was hoping for some categorical statement like that.

To OP, can you take some pictures in wireless HSS mode of the flash itself?

Cheers,

N
 
Kilrah said:
...hence the need to reproduce the OP's "flash at 1m of the subject" and ISO200 scenario, as there IS enough flash power to provide correct exposure in that situation,
Click to expand...
Probably, but still confuses the matter when the problem he is looking for is with/without WL, not HSS.

and subsequently checking by forcing the flash at 1/1 to check for that in case of negative result.

1/1 in HSS would have no more power than Auto. More confusion.

TF
 
There is no issue if I shoot HSS with the flash mounted on the camera. I have enough power in WL HSS by setting the power manually to 1/1.

As of now :

Nobody complained about this WL HSS issue on the A33

4 users (including me) encounter issues with the WL HSS mode on the A55. As I have tested 2 A55, this makes 5 cameras with the issue.

1. me (2 A55)

2.
GeoffM007 said:
Hi,

I have just purchased a a55v and have a HVL-F58AM FLASH, I also have the Sony 50mm 1.4 lens.

I still have my a550, sot I tried the HSS test.

With the a55v on wireless, (removed from the camera and HSS on) the image was about 4 stops darker than with the flash mounted on the a55. (iso 200, F1.4, 1/4000 sec). I had to reduce the shutter speed to 1000 to get a reasonable
Click to expand...
3.
From another thread (the user has the A55) :
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=36600478
3sgilbert said:
exposes correctly up to 160 with my hvl56 then it doesnt....at all haha...
Click to expand...
4.

The third user issue is listed on a french discussion board http://www.alphadxd.fr/viewtopic.php?p=769710#p769710

Now it is quite surprising if PidSoran has no issue on the A55 - if this is the model he has, to be confirmed - in WL HSS. Would like to see a picture with the EXIF ideally.
--
http://www.photo-production.net/vincentpham
 
OldClicker said:
Kilrah said:
...hence the need to reproduce the OP's "flash at 1m of the subject" and ISO200 scenario, as there IS enough flash power to provide correct exposure in that situation,
Click to expand...
Probably, but still confuses the matter when the problem he is looking for is with/without WL, not HSS.
Click to expand...
No the problem is not WL but WL HSS only.
OldClicker said:
and subsequently checking by forcing the flash at 1/1 to check for that in case of negative result.

1/1 in HSS would have no more power than Auto. More confusion.

TF
Click to expand...
Auto underexposes the image in WL HSS set up. Shooting 1/1 proves that the flash limit power doesn't explain the underexposed image.

--
http://www.photo-production.net/vincentpham
 
oddjobb57 said:
There is no issue if I shoot HSS with the flash mounted on the camera. I have enough power in WL HSS by setting the power manually to 1/1.
Click to expand...
Then it gets even more strange since I cannot see how there would be any more power available in HHS at 1/1 than there would be in TTL. So WL TTL may be the problem??? (Is that what you have been saying and I just wasn't catching it?) - TF
 
oddjobb57 said:
OldClicker said:
Kilrah said:
...hence the need to reproduce the OP's "flash at 1m of the subject" and ISO200 scenario, as there IS enough flash power to provide correct exposure in that situation,
Click to expand...
Probably, but still confuses the matter when the problem he is looking for is with/without WL, not HSS.
Click to expand...
No the problem is not WL but WL HSS only.
oddjobb57 said:
and subsequently checking by forcing the flash at 1/1 to check for that in case of negative result.

1/1 in HSS would have no more power than Auto. More confusion.

TF
Click to expand...
Auto underexposes the image in WL HSS set up. Shooting 1/1 proves that the flash limit power doesn't explain the underexposed image.
Click to expand...
EDIT: HSS TTL on camera proves it has enough power.

OK, it doesn't use all the power it has available in WL TTL. I would think WL comunication rather than exposure metering, yes?

TF
 
OldClicker said:
oddjobb57 said:
There is no issue if I shoot HSS with the flash mounted on the camera. I have enough power in WL HSS by setting the power manually to 1/1.
Click to expand...
Then it gets even more strange since I cannot see how there would be any more power available in HHS at 1/1 than there would be in TTL. So WL TTL may be the problem??? (Is that what you have been saying and I just wasn't catching it?) - TF
Click to expand...
WL TTL works fine. But there is something not working properly with WL HSS - I insist HSS - on the A55.

--
http://www.photo-production.net/vincentpham
 
OldClicker said:
oddjobb57 said:
OldClicker said:
Kilrah said:
...hence the need to reproduce the OP's "flash at 1m of the subject" and ISO200 scenario, as there IS enough flash power to provide correct exposure in that situation,
Click to expand...
Probably, but still confuses the matter when the problem he is looking for is with/without WL, not HSS.
Click to expand...
No the problem is not WL but WL HSS only.
OldClicker said:
and subsequently checking by forcing the flash at 1/1 to check for that in case of negative result.

1/1 in HSS would have no more power than Auto. More confusion.

TF
Click to expand...
Auto underexposes the image in WL HSS set up. Shooting 1/1 proves that the flash limit power doesn't explain the underexposed image.
Click to expand...
EDIT: HSS TTL on camera proves it has enough power.

OK, it doesn't use all the power it has available in WL TTL. I would think WL comunication rather than exposure metering, yes?

TF
Click to expand...
No idea what is the real root cause of the issue. At least as it seems to work on the A33, there is no SLT technology limitation and a fix by firmware is possible.
--
http://www.photo-production.net/vincentpham
 
OldClicker said:
oddjobb57 said:
OldClicker said:
Kilrah said:
...hence the need to reproduce the OP's "flash at 1m of the subject" and ISO200 scenario, as there IS enough flash power to provide correct exposure in that situation,
Click to expand...
Probably, but still confuses the matter when the problem he is looking for is with/without WL, not HSS.
Click to expand...
No the problem is not WL but WL HSS only.
OldClicker said:
and subsequently checking by forcing the flash at 1/1 to check for that in case of negative result.

1/1 in HSS would have no more power than Auto. More confusion.

TF
Click to expand...
Auto underexposes the image in WL HSS set up. Shooting 1/1 proves that the flash limit power doesn't explain the underexposed image.
Click to expand...
EDIT: HSS TTL on camera proves it has enough power.

OK, it doesn't use all the power it has available in WL TTL. I would think WL comunication rather than exposure metering, yes?

TF
Click to expand...
I'm getting dizzy going back and forth here :)

Sorry, I meant HSS on camera proves it has enough power, and

It doesn't use all the power it has available in WL HSS.

TF
 
oddjobb57 said:
OldClicker said:
oddjobb57 said:
OldClicker said:
Kilrah said:
...hence the need to reproduce the OP's "flash at 1m of the subject" and ISO200 scenario, as there IS enough flash power to provide correct exposure in that situation,
Click to expand...
Probably, but still confuses the matter when the problem he is looking for is with/without WL, not HSS.
Click to expand...
No the problem is not WL but WL HSS only.
oddjobb57 said:
and subsequently checking by forcing the flash at 1/1 to check for that in case of negative result.

1/1 in HSS would have no more power than Auto. More confusion.

TF
Click to expand...
Auto underexposes the image in WL HSS set up. Shooting 1/1 proves that the flash limit power doesn't explain the underexposed image.
Click to expand...
EDIT: HSS TTL on camera proves it has enough power.

OK, it doesn't use all the power it has available in WL TTL. I would think WL comunication rather than exposure metering, yes?

TF
Click to expand...
No idea what is the real root cause of the issue. At least as it seems to work on the A33, there is no SLT technology limitation and a fix by firmware is possible.
--
Click to expand...
Have you notified Sony? Could be that only some are defective and it would be a warrantee issue. – TF
 
Yes I sent a note to the Sony support last week explaining the issue with a link to this thread, no response for the moment...

Someone else suggested to contact Gary Friedman, I could not find a direct email or contact link (had a quick look however).

If anyone has a useful contact for escalating this issue, it would be greatly appreciated.

--
http://www.photo-production.net/vincentpham
 
Oddjob,

Here is HOW you do It.





a55 with pop-up flash used to trigger HVL-F58AM (IN PHOTO)

a55 Settings:
1/4000th F2.8 ISO 200
Exposure mode: S (shutter priority)
FN Flash Mode WL
Record Menu 2 Flash Control ADI Flash

HVL-F58AM Settings: Mode WL HSS TTL

--
Brian Smith
Sony Artisan of Imagery
http://www.briansmith.com
http://www.briansmith.com/blog
 
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