A somewhat MISLEADING article link because he never mentions the GN "halves" with each subsequent SS increase above "native" flash-sync SS.
What do you mean by "misleading"? Its normal meaning is that it leads someone to believe something that's untrue, but there's nothing in the article to lead anyone to any conclusion about Guide Number (this is a beginners forum so just using initials without explanation isn't much use).
Misleading when he never "cautions" that HSS drastically reduces GN, (ok Guide Number), and that it required GN-300 @ f/1.4 to do his example images, (and only to a max distance of 8').
He says "It works well, but it comes at the expense of power, and heat. HSS works the flash really hard."
If you were buying a car w/ 300HP engine, and some told you of a really neat "trick" you could do "but at the expense of power", would you really expect an "expense" down to (an almost unusable) only "11"-HP ???
I would appreciate a little more "warning" than that.
Now, if you are really bothered about beginners (and not, as I suspect, just beating a drum) then you'll realise that a beginner won't know what Guide Number means (whether abbreviated or not) but can easily understand the message "... at the expense of power".
In other words, a sufficient caution is given so your argument is false.
How many beginners have GN-300 and f/1.4 and the SKILL to properly use it when limited to 8' ???
Straw man argument. By this standard no one should ever tell a beginner anything because they won't have the requisite equipment. Narrow DOF - don't tell them because they don't have f/1.4 lenses.
Notice that the quote I sent indeed did say it was very problematic with very limited applications, (f/2.8 in sunlight @ only very short-range).
What is wrong with a "beginner" being told that a leaf-shutter will allow f/2.8 at MUCH longer range and also the ability to darken-backgrounds for CREATIVE effect ???
What is wrong with it is that it's not relevant to most beginners because they don't have that sort of camera.
But we advise beginners all the time to buy a camera for what they want/need to do.
I suggest (effective) fill-flash in sunlight may indeed be something they might want, (and indeed NEED judging by the number of sun-light back-lit/shadowed questions of how to properly expose "face" w/out saturating the background. Longer-range effective fill-flash is obviously the quickest/easiest method and therefore they may (highly) consider a leaf-shutter.
What is wrong with simply informing a beginner of that option if they are (probably) not aware of it ???
On the specific camera you know I am referring to, ALL one needs to do is select flash and the camera auto selects appropriate SS, (normally above typical FP sync speeds), and TTL's the flash, (out to 17').
No "manual" calculations of reduced FP/HSS GN and max effective power/range, (which is most often beyond limits of his GN or f/stop -- unless he has a GN-300 w/ f1/4).
There are hundreds, probably thousands, of things that one could tell a beginner: put them all in every post and they'll be swamped. Pick just one and it gets unwarranted notice.
You don't think sun-light fill-flash could/should be an important consideration ???
You don't think a "creative" ability to darken/isolate a (closer) subject could/should be a consideration ???
Is only a "larger" sensor important enough to put ABOVE ALL ELSE ??? (when there have been many threads where no-one could tell the difference between FF & 1/2.3")
Now absolutely I agree with the necessity of larger sensor if their intended use is low-light or largest poster prints.
But I suggest the advantages of leaf-shutters w/ 1/4000 flash-sync, (and speed/convenience of), continuous zoom, are still worth KNOWING about before making a decision to buy or return a camera. (again considering many "family" shots are done in "shadows" while back-lit)
I take MANY photos of people with their cell-phone, and I ALWAYS turn on their flash first, (they are often amazed when their faces are no-longer dark/black -- albeit cell-phone flash is also VERY limited)
Notice his best images are VERY close, and one of his images with (2-stop robbing) soft-modifier shows almost no-flash effect at all. The only distance shot was under overcast so he could shoot @ 1/1000, (instead of 1/4000s).
The article is about a particular type of picture and the illustrations are that type of picture. Nothing misleading there.
It is when posted in the "beginners" forum when most "beginners" won't have the equipment or skill to duplicate.
Nonsense. Surely even you can see the difference between reading about something and being able to do it.
Now who is demeaning the intelligence of beginners ???
And as mentioned above -- ALL you really have to do is "raise" flash and the camera can be "auto" (TTL) so I suggest it is not as complicated as you indicate above.
HSS is indeed very complicated when you have to re-calculate GN & f/stop with change in SS or (usually too far) distance.
The technique, of course, like every other technique is limited in its application. But including a list of every possible limitation is more likely to confuse than illuminate ...
So it is not confusing if they try, (but FAIL), to duplicate it w/ LESS than GN-300 or distance greater than 8' ???
Read Ted's posts.
I suggest the article was WORTHLESS to such a beginner.
You keep banging on about beginners. The article isn't aimed at beginners. It includes a statement about how HSS works that answers the question posed by the OP (a beginner). I copied that statement to show the attribution of the quotation.
But I suggest that every beginner should be told about HSS limitations, especially when so-many "experts" here suggests that HSS is "equal" to a high native sync-SS, (literally every time I mention leaf-shutters).
I have found I can use the built-in (GN-48) strobe on FZ-1000 & 2000/2500 to a SUN-light effective range 15+'.
... for example, small-sensor cameras have limitations that include restricted ability to give shallow depth of field
Which can also sometimes, (and maybe MORE OFTEN), be an ADVANTAGE.
Utterly irrelevant. Whatever the benefit in one direction it's a drawback in the other direction. You say that beginners should be cautioned about drawbacks but consistently fail to do so.
Absolutely not.
I always suggest that FF is "best" if they want/need low-light and/or largest-posters and/or narrow DOF.
And I suggest 1/2.3" if smaller/lighter/cheaper zoom-tele is their priority.
And I always admit that the 1"-type sensor is a "compromise", just like smaller and larger sensors/cameras/lenses are also.
and restricted ability to capture low light;
Absolutely I will AGREE with that ... I can't think of any disadvantage to the low-light high-ISO ability of larger sensors.
But you never mention that your favoured camera lacks it.
(see above) I always allow that it is a compromise and sometimes suggest either FF or 1/2.3" if best for them.
But you should know that "Hand-Held NIGHT-shot" works well, albeit with static subjects. (but if lower-light requires a longer SS, they may still have a problem w/ moving subjects)
