Buying an add on Flash for the M3?

DaveyBailey

Well-known member
Messages
146
Reaction score
12
Location
UK
Any thoughts on if it's worth it?

Also just ordered an 11-22 lens but already own the 22- after reading all the threads wondering now if that was worth it too.
 
Any thoughts on if it's worth it?

Also just ordered an 11-22 lens but already own the 22- after reading all the threads wondering now if that was worth it too.
Do you have experience with off-camera flash? I hardly ever use on-camera flash unless it's just for fill in backlit lighting conditions. I think if I was only using on-camera flash for fill light, I'd probably just roll with the existing flash on the M3.

Off-camera flash can be good for a lot of situations, but it requires more fiddling around.
 
DaveyBailey said:
Any thoughts on if it's worth it?

Also just ordered an 11-22 lens but already own the 22- after reading all the threads wondering now if that was worth it too.
Are you asking about the flash because the built-in one is not working for you? If you're satisfied with the built-in, great, you save money, size, and weight. If not, nnowak would say "you're not using it right" :-) I'm not a pro like him, apparently he rarely bounces and claims the built-in direct flashes are more than adequate most of the time, my results are completely opposite. I've tried different things with the built-in flash, including flash compensation, tilting it, and adjusting distance, and the results for me have been subpar to poor. For outdoor fill-flash, it is too weak unless someone is within a few feet, and for indoor bounce flash it is too weak and underexposes, even with 10ft white ceilings. I also recently did a group shot of people trying various settings, and the front faces would be washed out, and anyone behind the front would be underexposed.

I have the low profile 270 EX II attached to the M3, and despite its relatively small size, the flash results have been night and day compared to the built-in. Not only do daylight fills actually work past a few feet, indoor bounces are properly exposed or sometimes overexposed, which can be dialed in. Direct flash shots are impressive, even in group settings. I wish I kept the built-in flash group shot to show the difference (where the front is washed out and the back is underexposed), below is the same group shot after I attached the 270, direct, no adjustments, automatic:


This was a tough shot with sunlight pouring in from the window behind, and no indoor lighting from the other side, so the front subjects were very dark

If you can get the built-in flash working in the above circumstances, great. I couldn't, the results were actually horrific. With the 270, first shot, this is what you get. Here's one example of indoor bouncing with the 270:


This was taken at night, low ambient lighting

Again, if you can get the built-in working in low ambient lighting, great. Really - I rather not have to attach the 270 if I don't have to. But when I can get easy results like the above, I always have it with me.
 
Last edited:
Any thoughts on if it's worth it?

Also just ordered an 11-22 lens but already own the 22- after reading all the threads wondering now if that was worth it too.
The 270EX II will give you a lot of flash options that you do not currently have, at a fairly modest price. It is very much more powerful than the rather limited built-in flash of the M3, and, because of the peculiar way Canon label their flash units, much closer in power to its bigger brethren than the numbers suggest.
 
Any thoughts on if it's worth it?

Also just ordered an 11-22 lens but already own the 22- after reading all the threads wondering now if that was worth it too.
the ability to bounce the light from an external ETTL flash is very useful

original Canon M and 430exII flash

original Canon M and 430exII flash

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless
 
Last edited:
Any thoughts on if it's worth it?

Also just ordered an 11-22 lens but already own the 22- after reading all the threads wondering now if that was worth it too.
Are you asking about the flash because the built-in one is not working for you? If you're satisfied with the built-in, great, you save money, size, and weight. If not, nnowak would say "you're not using it right" :-) I'm not a pro like him, apparently he rarely bounces and claims the built-in direct flashes are more than adequate most of the time, my results are completely opposite.
You better reread what I had wrote to you. I never made any claims about built-in flash vs external flash. I was trying to teach you why you didn't need to use bounce flash and that bounce flash was typically used as a crutch to compensate for improper camera settings.
I've tried different things with the built-in flash, including flash compensation, tilting it, and adjusting distance, and the results for me have been subpar to poor. For outdoor fill-flash, it is too weak unless someone is within a few feet, and for indoor bounce flash it is too weak and underexposes, even with 10ft white ceilings. I also recently did a group shot of people trying various settings, and the front faces would be washed out, and anyone behind the front would be underexposed.

I have the low profile 270 EX II attached to the M3, and despite its relatively small size, the flash results have been night and day compared to the built-in. Not only do daylight fills actually work past a few feet, indoor bounces are properly exposed or sometimes overexposed, which can be dialed in. Direct flash shots are impressive, even in group settings. I wish I kept the built-in flash group shot to show the difference (where the front is washed out and the back is underexposed), below is the same group shot after I attached the 270, direct, no adjustments, automatic:


This was a tough shot with sunlight pouring in from the window behind, and no indoor lighting from the other side, so the front subjects were very dark

If you can get the built-in flash working in the above circumstances, great. I couldn't, the results were actually horrific. With the 270, first shot, this is what you get. Here's one example of indoor bouncing with the 270:


This was taken at night, low ambient lighting

Again, if you can get the built-in working in low ambient lighting, great. Really - I rather not have to attach the 270 if I don't have to. But when I can get easy results like the above, I always have it with me.
Look closely at the two photos you just posted and you will see why bounce flash isn't such a great idea. Yes, the overall lighting is a bit more even in the second photo, but all three of your subjects have deep shadows around their eyes. The eyes are the most important part of a portrait and you can barely see them in your bounce flash example.
 
Any thoughts on if it's worth it?

Also just ordered an 11-22 lens but already own the 22- after reading all the threads wondering now if that was worth it too.
the ability to bounce the light from an external ETTL flash is very useful

original Canon M and 430exII flash

original Canon M and 430exII flash

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless
Your photo is a perfect example of the downside to bounce flash. Yes, the exposure looks nice and even with no blown highlights. The problem is the deep shadows around the eyes. The most important part of a portrait isn't properly illuminated.
 
nnowark, sorry for the misunderstanding, and I see your point about the bounce flash eye shadow.
 
Any thoughts on if it's worth it?

Also just ordered an 11-22 lens but already own the 22- after reading all the threads wondering now if that was worth it too.
the ability to bounce the light from an external ETTL flash is very useful

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless
Your photo is a perfect example of the downside to bounce flash. Yes, the exposure looks nice and even with no blown highlights. The problem is the deep shadows around the eyes. The most important part of a portrait isn't properly illuminated.
LOL !

sure, get several strobes and umbrellas, off-camera triggers. set it up, maybe add a reflector or two and flash holder ...... it's "properly illuminated" .... Look Ma .... no shadows !

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

23659201329_530abe26e7_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Any thoughts on if it's worth it?

Also just ordered an 11-22 lens but already own the 22- after reading all the threads wondering now if that was worth it too.
the ability to bounce the light from an external ETTL flash is very useful

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless
Your photo is a perfect example of the downside to bounce flash. Yes, the exposure looks nice and even with no blown highlights. The problem is the deep shadows around the eyes. The most important part of a portrait isn't properly illuminated.
LOL !

sure, get several strobes and umbrellas, off-camera triggers. set it up, maybe add a reflector or two and flash holder ...... it's "properly illuminated" .... Look Ma .... no shadows !
Or.... just set a proper exposure and use a single direct flash.
 
Any thoughts on if it's worth it?

Also just ordered an 11-22 lens but already own the 22- after reading all the threads wondering now if that was worth it too.
the ability to bounce the light from an external ETTL flash is very useful

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless
Your photo is a perfect example of the downside to bounce flash. Yes, the exposure looks nice and even with no blown highlights. The problem is the deep shadows around the eyes. The most important part of a portrait isn't properly illuminated.
LOL !

sure, get several strobes and umbrellas, off-camera triggers. set it up, maybe add a reflector or two and flash holder ...... it's "properly illuminated" .... Look Ma .... no shadows !
Or.... just set a proper exposure and use a single direct flash.
just set a "proper illuminated" exposure and use a single "direct" ... or non-direct flash !

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

27517236524_8ac2b309bc_b.jpg


www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top