Reading mode: Light Dark

Canon 580EX II speedlite: correct exposure

Go to last post
Nadine Ohara said:
Re the focus point bias workaround--this was widely distributed when people discovered the problem right after ETTL (original) was released. I believe it came from Chuck Westfall himself (Canon marketing rep). It works--I've used it. However, I don't recall that it did anything to mitigate the overesensitivity to whites (underexposure).
Click to expand...
Whoever invented it, no matter; you're still a star for remembering it and passing it on. Thank you. I am gonna give it a go. (was it ever distributed in one of them official Canon tips pdf publications?)

By the way, I have just started going through another one of Chuck Westfall's works. A 35 page Canon USA pdf publication entitled: " Getting the Most from your EOS-1 Class Digital SLR; Tips and Techniques: Camera Handling & Maximum Image Quality". It's very informative and full of useful tips re setting up the AF for various shooting genres e.g. wedding, sports etc.
Nadine Ohara said:
Re the ETTL emulation sensor--on my Metz 54, it appears, as described, in the lower left corner of the flash head reflector, as you are looking at the front of the flash. If you look closely, there is a black dot (partially seen) behind the reflector front surface. Since my Metz is in for repair, I can't take a picture of it.
Click to expand...
Just to make sure we are singing from the same hymn sheet, your are talking about the "54 MZ-4i digitial" flashgun (not plain MZ-4), right?

Looking at one of mine now. I can see something there in the lower left, but it seems like nothing more dodgy than the plastic moudling. Certainly I can cover mine with no ill-effects.
Nadine Ohara said:
As for your Omnibounce use--perhaps the reason you seemed to get better, not underexposed images is because the Omnibounce caused the flash to overexpose. Perhaps you were using an EV which placed your flash at it's full power anyway, and didn't see the overexposure (?).
Click to expand...
 
As far as I recall, it wasn't ever published in any technical article. It was just widely talked about in forums and Chuck Westfall finally came out with the way to get around the focus point bias.

Yes, I have and use a Metz 54MZ4-i. I use mine with the M4 module. If you cover up the sensor, it will overexpose. If not in ETTL mode, it does nothing so I don't see any point in covering it up.

As I said, if you get ahold of a 3102 M (1 or no number) module, you can use auto thyristor in every camera mode, including TV and Program--AV without the penalty of it being stuck at max flash sync. However, you have no ETTL. And I don't know of any other models that will work this way. I have other Metz shoemounts and it doesn't work with them this way. The other big penalty is that you can't use high ISO very easily, due to automatic flash range limits, as explained in the Metz rep answers.

I have both the M4 and M modules, as well as the standard module. I also have a Hasselblad module but don't use the 54 with it at all.
 
Nadine Ohara said:
As far as I recall, it wasn't ever published in any technical article. It was just widely talked about in forums and Chuck Westfall finally came out with the way to get around the focus point bias.
Click to expand...
Well, thanks again for passing on the tip because ........................

YIPPEE it works !!!!!!!!

Only problems though are: (1) the trick doesn't work in Continous AF (AI-Servo) i.e. the AE is still linked to where the focus point happens to be in the scene you're shooting and (2) using this Westfall trick means that you don't get a playback image showing you a red square marker for where in the scene you had focused.

Further, working in Aperture Priority Mode, with or without flash, still results in AE being linked to the focus point. Westfalls trick only works in Manual Exposure Mode in Single AF (Single Shot) mode.

But I am EXTREMELY grateful to you for getting me at least one way of escaping Canon's silly algorithm.

Do you happen to know of a workaround for Aperture Priority Mode?
Nadine Ohara said:
Yes, I have and use a Metz 54MZ4-i. I use mine with the M4 module. If you cover up the sensor, it will overexpose. If not in ETTL mode, it does nothing so I don't see any point in covering it up.

As I said, if you get ahold of a 3102 M (1 or no number) module, you can use auto thyristor in every camera mode, including TV and Program--AV without the penalty of it being stuck at max flash sync. However, you have no ETTL. And I don't know of any other models that will work this way. I have other Metz shoemounts and it doesn't work with them this way. The other big penalty is that you can't use high ISO very easily, due to automatic flash range limits, as explained in the Metz rep answers.

I have both the M4 and M modules, as well as the standard module. I also have a Hasselblad module but don't use the 54 with it at all.
Click to expand...
As I said earlier I am very surprised about this "left corner sensor" issue. I have two 54 MZ-4i guns and neither of them have this issue, or that sensor as far as I can tell. Like you suggested earlier, maybe in a later production run they got rid of the sensor you mention.

I am pretty much in love them Metez guns. I regard them, along with the Quantum guns, as the most versatile guns ever made. It's a pity Metz dropped the SCA system.

Warm regards,
 
plevyadophy said:
Zee Char said:
plevyadophy said:
Metz Technical Support

A tip.

My advice to you is to only deal with Metz HQ in Germany.

The three guys there (I am not sure they are all still there) are absolutely brilliant. They usualy reply within seven days and have an in-depth knowledge of their flash systems. I recall that one of them was exceptionally knowledgeable and helpful. One of them though is a bit anal if you ask something he deems too techie/nerdy; he gets all precious and defensive, as if he fears you are gonna steal some trade secret (I had to tell him off once because of that attitude when I asked a simple question; but other than that one time I have found Metz Tech Support in Germany to be a joy to deal with). I get the distinct impression that these guys are nerds who love Metz; I am not convinced that the other tech support departments around the world are as knowledgeable or passionate.

I can't remember their names, as I am bad with names, but I think I can find out and probably have somewhere their individual Metz email addresses. If you want that info please remind me by way of a Private Message.

Warm regards,

plevyadophy
Click to expand...
This was my question

I purchased this flash about one month ago. Everything I read about Auto mode is true. Consistent and accurate exposures. I was having one problem. When using high ISO (3200), a wide open aperture and slow shutter speed I get the warning beep telling me that the camera parameters are outside the flash range. This is fine unless I adjusted the the flash EV from 0 (zero) to a + or - setting. The flash EV setting and my camera Flash Exposure Compensation via on camera (Canon 5D2) flash menu would lock up. I could not adjust them until I turned down the cameras ISO, etc.

After a few weeks I contacted Metz support in the USA. They told me that the flashes EV was never designed to work when the flash was on Auto. On page 124 the manual (English) it talks about EV adjustments and the illustration shows it in A mode. On page 136 (10.5) it talks about how Auto works and if you need to adjust it can be done manually. Does this mean to put the flash in Manual and not use EV when in Auto?

I'm OK with ETTL and EV adjustments. That works fine and is just like my Canon flash.

This was the reply

Many thanks for your e-mail as of 18. Jan. 2012.

Basically the automatic-flash-mode of our flash units such as mecablitz 58 AF-2 digital has a specific operating range. This depends on the hardware of flash units. This operating range is limited by the maximum and the minimum light output. The minimum light output is the light which will be emitted when the flash unit is triggered and the light output is immediately stopped. Nevertheless the flash unit emits light.

If a flash exposure correction is used the afore-mentioned limits can't be overstepped or undershot. If you use a high ISO value and a small f-stop such as 2.0 normally the light output is on the minimum limit. In this case you can't set a flash exposure correction of minus EV because the flash unit can't emit less light in this case.

In automatic-flash-mode you can't set a bigger flash exposure correction in this case. The microprocessor knows that this isn't possible. In TTL-flash-mode you can set a bigger flash exposure correction but normally it doesn't operate in this case.

If you will use a bigger flash exposure correction at high ISO the f-stop of the flash unit has to be set to a value with which the automatic-flash-mode can work in the operating range.

Since the afore-mentioned operating range depends on the hardware it can't be changed by a firmware update.

Best regards

i.A. Roland Laemmermann

--

Weaseling out of things is important to learn! It's what separates us from the animals. Except the weasel

Homer Simpson
Click to expand...
Firstly, I gotta say wow, that was a quick response.

Secondly, are you satisfied with the answer given? It seems to me that the answer you got was a lot more informative than that given to you by the North American reps.

Finally, what he is saying, coupled with your comlaints about high ISO over-exposure, seems to tie in with what the Metz 54 MZ-4i manual says (by the way, the info given in the 54 manual is pretty much the same as that in the 58 (I have the 58 pdf)). Essentially, the manual says that your subject should not be within the first 10% of the indicated flash distance range readout otherwise you run the risk of over-exposure; and high ISO will give you a much much greater working range. I temted to say that the way Metz guns behave with regard to high ISO is "correct" whilst the others (Canon, Nikon et al) are wrong but because the others are in the majority we tend to assume that they must have it right (the old Christoher Columbus scenario).

I should also say that, having spoken with one or two flash "gurus" here on DPReview, coupled with my own reading, I would much MUCH MUCH rather trust what Metz have to say about flash than Canon and Nikon combined (for a start DO NOT believe what Canon and Nikon say about their flashgun's flash duration (it's bull), but you can safely rely on what Metz say about theirs; basically it's down to the old t0.5 -v- t0.1 debate which I won't go into here).

Warm regards,
Click to expand...
Maybe I missed it but they never really told me if FEC was designed to be used when in Auto mode.

--

Weaseling out of things is important to learn! It's what separates us from the animals. Except the weasel.

Homer Simpson
 
plevyadophy said:
As I said earlier I am very surprised about this "left corner sensor" issue. I have two 54 MZ-4i guns and neither of them have this issue, or that sensor as far as I can tell. Like you suggested earlier, maybe in a later production run they got rid of the sensor you mention.
Click to expand...
Or they may have just moved it off the flash head. Putting it on the flash head was the worst possible place to put the sensor. Any kind of diffuser that threw light back into the flash head threw the exposure off.

The Metz 54 I bought around 2003 definitely had the white sensor as shown in the photo and it always blew the exposure if you covered it when it was in "ETTL" mode just like what would happen with a much cheaper varistor flash. I was shocked that the company was fraudulently selling the flash as supporting Canon's ETTL metering system, going so far as describing how the flash system works in the manual when their flash was doing done of it.
 
Scott Larson said:
plevyadophy said:
As I said earlier I am very surprised about this "left corner sensor" issue. I have two 54 MZ-4i guns and neither of them have this issue, or that sensor as far as I can tell. Like you suggested earlier, maybe in a later production run they got rid of the sensor you mention.
Click to expand...
Or they may have just moved it off the flash head. Putting it on the flash head was the worst possible place to put the sensor. Any kind of diffuser that threw light back into the flash head threw the exposure off.

The Metz 54 I bought around 2003 definitely had the white sensor as shown in the photo and it always blew the exposure if you covered it when it was in "ETTL" mode just like what would happen with a much cheaper varistor flash. I was shocked that the company was fraudulently selling the flash as supporting Canon's ETTL metering system, going so far as describing how the flash system works in the manual when their flash was doing done of it.
Click to expand...
Shown in which photo? What in this thread? I must have missed it, can you please point me to it.

It's good to have this info so if I buy a second-hand/used one I know exactly what to look out for.

Regards,
 
plevyadophy said:
plevyadophy said:
I purchased a Canon 580EX II Speedlite on Saturday, and to be honest I ain't too pleased with it given its high price. I really don't think Canon know how to do flash.

Anyway, the thing that really worries/surprises/irritates me the most is the apparant 1-stop under-exposure across all exposure modes.

I am wondering, do I have a dud copy of the flashgun or is this how the gun is supposed to work by design?

I set my camera up in Manual exposure mode at settings of 1/125, f5.6, ISO200 and was testing indoors during the evening. When I compared shots with my Metz flashgun, I found that the Metz shots were nice and bright/well exposed but the Canon Speedlite always seemed to render an image at around middle grey i.e. around 126 on a histogram. The difference between the Metz shots and those of Canon was around 1 to 1.3 EV. I also have access to other brand's guns (Olympus, Sony) and they too render a brigter image.

So is this new fangled Canon E-TTL/E-TTL II supposed to work that way? Or am I in need of a firmware update or new gun?

Advise and experiences appreciated.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
Thanks everyone for your input.

I went off again in search for an answer, and this time used a different search query and I think i came up trumps; with the difinitive answers.

I once read somewhere where someone said that the difference between Nikkon and Canon is that Nikokn gear is designed by photo enthusiasts whilst Canon stuff is designed by engineers. Well, if this flash is any thing to go by it certainly seems true that, at least as far as flash is concerned, far too many engineers and far too few photographers have a say.

The flashgun and it's E-TTL seem over fiddly and counter-intuitive. Of all the on-camera flash systems I have used/owned (and I have Sony, Olympus, Metz and Canon beside my now as I type) the Canon one is by far the worst (fiddly, poor menu, counter-intiuitive). Never before have I had to go off in search of techie info so as to become a nerd simply to use a flashgun. All the other systems were easy: I simply took them out of the box, briefly read the instruction manual, plonked them on their respective cameras, aimed, fired and the results and behaviour I got back were as a I expected.

Looking at the nerdie info I have just found (which I will share with you all in a moment) it seems to me that the E-TTL system is daft over engineering and an example of someone trying to be too clever by half.

It does turn out, according to one of the nerdie bits of info that I found, that the +1-stop FEC requirement is a standard setting required for these flashguns (a woeful waste in my opinion; you have just 3 stops of adjustment, and you have to waste 1 stop just to get correct exposure whilst with other flashguns you can use all your FEC for creative purposes solely)

And don't get me started on Canon's dumb implementation of Auto/Thyristor flash mode on the 580EX II!!! Grrrrrr!!!

Anyway, enough griping and let me share some info with you all; after all that's what this site should be all about, right? :o)

Here you are:

http://dpanswers.com/content/canon_flash.php#modes

and

http://www.dlcphotography.net/ETTL/ETTL.htm

and

http://super.nova.org/DPR/Canon/TTL/

and the reference book length info at

http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/

Warm regards,

And a Happy New Year to you all.

.
Click to expand...
Here's a qoute from one of the links above:

Whether the system optimizes for main flash or fill may depend upon on the type of Canon camera, the setting of the camera's mode wheel, and the ambient light.

With the camera's mode wheel set to program mode (P), auto mode (Auto, and/or green rectangle) and most of the “scene” modes (i.e. the modes identified by small icons), something like the following algorithm is appearently used to decide whether to optimize for main flash or for fill flash: If the ambient light level is suitable for handheld shots (i.e. EV 11 or higher, typically open shade or heavy overcast daylight), the system optimizes for fill flash. If the scene is darker, the system optimizes for main flash. In both cases, the program will try to use the fastest shutter speed/widest aperture possible within the other constraints. The lowest shutter speed the camera will select in these modes is 1/60th of a second.

Some say that the third rule of E-TTL is that you should never use auto mode, program mode (P), or any of the “scene” modes. To many users, the camera's behaviour when using these modes in combination with E-TTL flash is just too counter-intuitive to be helpful. YMMV, but you should be aware that these modes may not be the simplest to master with E-TTL flash. Many users of Canon DSLRs (as opposed to a compacts), recommend putting the camera in manual mode when using E-TTL indoors, and aperture priority (Av) for fill flash outdoors in daylight.

Only God in heavan, and the nutters who invented it, know why the Canon flash system has to be so damn silly. ETTL ( version 1), especially in association with the Canon 1D series Mark 1's, is so absurd in it's exposure that I have to shake my head in disbelief. ETTL II is hardly much better, and would never have been needed if the original ETTL wasn't so damn absurd.
 
plevyadophy said:
Shown in which photo? What in this thread? I must have missed it, can you please point me to it.
Click to expand...
Here it is again (from just a few posts ago):



Note the white circle on the lower left of the flash head. When you covered that, the flash would always fire at maximum power in "ETTL mode". Needless to say, any kind of diffuser that threw light back into the flash head would cause inaccurate exposures.

If Metz is still pretending to do ETTL, the sensor is probably now someplace else on their newer flashes.
plevyadophy said:
It's good to have this info so if I buy a second-hand/used one I know exactly what to look out for.
Click to expand...
This model was the Metz 54 AF1. It looks like Metz have released lots of 54's out there with different features.
 
plevyadophy said:
Only God in heavan, and the nutters who invented it, know why the Canon flash system has to be so damn silly. ETTL ( version 1), especially in association with the Canon 1D series Mark 1's, is so absurd in it's exposure that I have to shake my head in disbelief. ETTL II is hardly much better, and would never have been needed if the original ETTL wasn't so damn absurd.
Click to expand...
Incredibly almost all photographers are able to get this "silly" and "absurd" system to work. It sounds like you're choosing not to be one of them.
 
I can't see why the * button trick won't work in AV mode. Perhaps check your testing method? There is nothing about AV mode that would prevent it from working. AI Servo--yes. Just the way that AI Servo works would preclude the trick from working. As for seeing the red box later--I don't even use that.
 
Scott Larson said:
plevyadophy said:
Only God in heavan, and the nutters who invented it, know why the Canon flash system has to be so damn silly. ETTL ( version 1), especially in association with the Canon 1D series Mark 1's, is so absurd in it's exposure that I have to shake my head in disbelief. ETTL II is hardly much better, and would never have been needed if the original ETTL wasn't so damn absurd.
Click to expand...
Incredibly almost all photographers are able to get this "silly" and "absurd" system to work. It sounds like you're choosing not to be one of them.
Click to expand...
Well, in the 21st century I wouldn't wanna drive a Model T Ford, but I am sure I could "get the system to work"!!
 
Scott Larson said:
plevyadophy said:
Shown in which photo? What in this thread? I must have missed it, can you please point me to it.
Click to expand...
Here it is again (from just a few posts ago):



Note the white circle on the lower left of the flash head. When you covered that, the flash would always fire at maximum power in "ETTL mode". Needless to say, any kind of diffuser that threw light back into the flash head would cause inaccurate exposures.

If Metz is still pretending to do ETTL, the sensor is probably now someplace else on their newer flashes.
Scott Larson said:
It's good to have this info so if I buy a second-hand/used one I know exactly what to look out for.
Click to expand...
This model was the Metz 54 AF1. It looks like Metz have released lots of 54's out there with different features.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's an entirely different flash to the one some of us have been talking about. Thanks for the clarification.
 
Nadine Ohara said:
I can't see why the * button trick won't work in AV mode. Perhaps check your testing method? There is nothing about AV mode that would prevent it from working. AI Servo--yes. Just the way that AI Servo works would preclude the trick from working. As for seeing the red box later--I don't even use that.
Click to expand...
That's probably because I am testing with the Canon 1D (Mark I). In AV mode, the exposure is still insistent on being determined by where in the frame the focus is supposed to be.

But I will double check to make sure, and report back.

Thanks for your patience, assistance and tips.

Regards,
 
As far as I know, flash and ambient exposure metering have always been separate on Canons--not so for Nikons. So even though the flash metering is using the same metering patterns (NOT method), any ambient metering method used by the 1D Mk I for AV is not affecting flash metering. I believe this is true of ETTL, the original.
 
plevyadophy said:
Well, in the 21st century I wouldn't wanna drive a Model T Ford, but I am sure I could "get the system to work"!!
Click to expand...
This is becoming tiresome...

Taken during a Xmas session with my family, in my in-laws garden, in between the portrait shots.





Just aimed the camera, dialed in the settings and, while using the " silly " and " absurd " Canon Speelite system, got this on first attempt ...and with a "crappy" Canon lens model, no less...the 24-105 !

...Must be because I am a "nerdie"...

(Sheeesh...)

PK

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
 
PhotoKhan said:
plevyadophy said:
Well, in the 21st century I wouldn't wanna drive a Model T Ford, but I am sure I could "get the system to work"!!
Click to expand...
This is becoming tiresome...

Taken during a Xmas session with my family, in my in-laws garden, in between the portrait shots.





Just aimed the camera, dialed in the settings and, while using the " silly " and " absurd " Canon Speelite system, got this on first attempt ...and with a "crappy" Canon lens model, no less...the 24-105 !

...Must be because I am a "nerdie"...

(Sheeesh...)

PK

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
-------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...
Well, firstly it was shot with a ID Mark IV, and as has been aluded to in this thread, and specifically stated in one of the links I provided, the way the E-TTL works is not only dependant upon your exposure mode, focus mode, and focus position but also upon the camera model to which the flashgun is attached. That makes it pretty daft in my view. And even Canon themselves realised the daftness of their ETTL system given that, with the inttoduction of the 1D Mark II bodies, they the removed the silly nonsense of the flash exposure being determined by what you happen to be focused on (two peeps side-by-side, one in black the other in white; take two shots, one focused on black clothed individual and the other on the white clothed individual and the result will be two different flash exposures. Plainly absurd)

Also what exposure modes where you using?
 
PhotoKhan said:
What really boggles me is the fact that educated users that know better than using a Canon camera in the "dumb green square" or "P" modes and actually know and apply the advantages of using Av, Tv or M, while fully dominating their camera's operating intricacies, suddenly want to revert to auto-mode when flash is added to the equation.

PK
Click to expand...
The word boggles is never used for the whole person, at least not till now, but for the mind, for some reason or other. Perhaps this is the first of many extensions of this unusual verb and boggling will soon extend to families, parishes and perhaps the entire human race. Boggling could replace blogging as an activity and if confusion is to affect bloggers they could be blogglers. In fact, now that I think of it, most are!

;> ))
 
Gearóid Ó Laoi said:
Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee said:
What really boggles me is the fact that educated users that know better than using a Canon camera in the "dumb green square" or "P" modes and actually know and apply the advantages of using Av, Tv or M, while fully dominating their camera's operating intricacies, suddenly want to revert to auto-mode when flash is added to the equation.

PK
Click to expand...
The word boggles is never used for the whole person, at least not till now, but for the mind, for some reason or other. Perhaps this is the first of many extensions of this unusual verb and boggling will soon extend to families, parishes and perhaps the entire human race. Boggling could replace blogging as an activity and if confusion is to affect bloggers they could be blogglers. In fact, now that I think of it, most are!

;> ))
Click to expand...
lol...Good one...Thank you !

So, the correct expression should read " What really boggles my mind is the fact that educated users "...unless I was an aspiring "bloggler", which I am certainly not.

PK

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
 
I bought a 580 EX II, used it on my 1D4 & had such inconsistent exposures. Drove me mad. Returned it & got another Metz. A 58 AF-2.
Now back to perfect exposures & great colour.
Then needed more power so got a Metz 45CL-4 digital - brilliant.
You can't beat Metz for colour, exposure & reliability.
--
Ross Becker
New Zealand
 
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