-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
More flash concerns.
- Thread starter mike70811
- Start date
pelletip1
Forum Enthusiast
Until Canon gets their flash right - try this. Works like a champ.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=7215362
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=7215362
The Stofen is a great device, but you'll still need good flash
technique to get consistant results.
So use the FEL * button as above, with the Stofen Omni Bounce, and
you'll have great flash pictures time after time.
Pitty about the hair though!
Chris.
--
http://www.1D-images.com
[email protected]
Mac G4/iMac/iBook/iPod
JThomasLambert
Leading Member
Make sure you call first. A buddy of mine went to their downtown store yesterday and all they had left was a 420 EZ omnibounce (didn't fit at all). They did tell him that they get them in all the time, though.
http://www.pbase.com/jthomaslambert
--
http://www.pbase.com/jthomaslambert
C
Chris Dodkin
Guest
You just need to understand how it works to get the best out of it.
The Canon solution can provide faultless flash and even better, daylight fill flash, when used correctly.
Using the Sunpack, you throw most of this in the trash and go back ten years to using basic flash with minimal flash to camera communication.
Feel free, but personally I'd advise learning how to maximise your investment in the camera system.
That way you can use the creative tool you've paid good money for, to it's full potential.
Chris.
--
http://www.1D-images.com
[email protected]
Mac G4/iMac/iBook/iPod
The Canon solution can provide faultless flash and even better, daylight fill flash, when used correctly.
Using the Sunpack, you throw most of this in the trash and go back ten years to using basic flash with minimal flash to camera communication.
Feel free, but personally I'd advise learning how to maximise your investment in the camera system.
That way you can use the creative tool you've paid good money for, to it's full potential.
Chris.
--
http://www.1D-images.com
[email protected]
Mac G4/iMac/iBook/iPod
mike70811
Well-known member
Thanks, so much Thomas. Got one at Ginn Photo -last one. I does make a difference
MIke
MIke
Mike Kobb
Active member
It's interesting that the Canon folks at CES acknowledged that the flash exposure was too sensitive to what was under the focus area, and that they're working on fixing it, and yet some folks here still insist that it's just the bees' knees.
Personally, I think many people's idea of "learning to use it properly" is a nice way of saying "learn to live with its limitations and work around them". That's certainly one way to approach the problems, but the other way is for the manufacturer to deliver a properly-working system, which I hope they will do.
VERY nice pics, by the way.
Personally, I think many people's idea of "learning to use it properly" is a nice way of saying "learn to live with its limitations and work around them". That's certainly one way to approach the problems, but the other way is for the manufacturer to deliver a properly-working system, which I hope they will do.
VERY nice pics, by the way.
C
Chris Dodkin
Guest
In other words, since Canon went from measuring light bounced off of film, to ETTL light measured within digital cameras (D30 onwards)
So they've had the D30, D60, 10D, 1D, 1Ds and 300D to 'fix' it, and yet it's been exactly the same for each model, no mater how much $$ you spend.
It's simply a different system to the old film TTL metering, and it takes some getting used to in order to achieve consistent results.
I'm sure they are looking at easier point & shoot flash metering, but their ETTL is one exteremly sophisticated flash system, and designed for maximum flexibility in the pro/pro-am market.
Chris.
--
http://www.1D-images.com
[email protected]
Mac G4/iMac/iBook/iPod
So they've had the D30, D60, 10D, 1D, 1Ds and 300D to 'fix' it, and yet it's been exactly the same for each model, no mater how much $$ you spend.
It's simply a different system to the old film TTL metering, and it takes some getting used to in order to achieve consistent results.
I'm sure they are looking at easier point & shoot flash metering, but their ETTL is one exteremly sophisticated flash system, and designed for maximum flexibility in the pro/pro-am market.
Chris.
--
http://www.1D-images.com
[email protected]
Mac G4/iMac/iBook/iPod
Travis Feisthamel
Senior Member
Now if they would have kept regular TTL or ATTL along with the ETTL on the digitals it would be nicer. Have the ATTL for regular users, ETTL for the more advanced shooting. Like you can with a film camera.
Travis
http://www.pbase.com/fototravis
Steve Farley
Well-known member
I also bought a 420EX with the camera and was very disappointed. Both internal and 420 shots were all badly underexposed. FEC +2/3 to + 1 seemed to fix it most of the time however the range of results was still large with some still under and some with blown highlights. I gave up and bought a 550Ex so that I could at least change the FEC as needed. Now even in P most are usable shots even without FEC. I'm not sure why the Flash would have fixed this but it seems much better now. BTW the 420EX makes a great wireless slave.
Steve
Steve
David J B.
Leading Member
What's the model number on that Lumedyne battery pack?
--
http://www.pbase.com/djblauer/winter_20034
--
http://www.pbase.com/djblauer/winter_20034
WillyP
Well-known member
Hello Steve,
What happens when you use your 420EX again as the main flash? Are the shots usable without FEC? Perhaps it wasn't necessary to buy the 550EX. I ask these questions because I am still undecided between the 420EX and the 550EX.
What happens when you use your 420EX again as the main flash? Are the shots usable without FEC? Perhaps it wasn't necessary to buy the 550EX. I ask these questions because I am still undecided between the 420EX and the 550EX.
Steve Farley
Well-known member
Willy,
Without the 550 (ie 420 or internal) almost all point & shoot type shots in any mode were badly underexposed (Virtually no content in the upper half of the histogram). FEC helped, also using FEL which is supposed to switch to centerwiegted also helped. (This has the unfortunate side effect of sometimes dismissing the subject though) None of these workarounds seem to be as good as the 550 though.
I have only had the 550 for 1 day so it hasn't been used too heavily. Wireless is great though.
Without the 550 (ie 420 or internal) almost all point & shoot type shots in any mode were badly underexposed (Virtually no content in the upper half of the histogram). FEC helped, also using FEL which is supposed to switch to centerwiegted also helped. (This has the unfortunate side effect of sometimes dismissing the subject though) None of these workarounds seem to be as good as the 550 though.
I have only had the 550 for 1 day so it hasn't been used too heavily. Wireless is great though.
DoctorG1
Senior Member
Yes , espcially if you get into wireless flash etc , a mini studio in a box.
However the big problem is marrying a sophisitcated system to an entry level DSLR aimed at a no pro market who use the flash as a light rather than control of the light and dont want to jump thru hoops to get the Nth degree of perfection. A simple averaging system as a default would have done (which you can get by turning your lens to MF) and then letting "full" e-ttl be settable. Easy enough as the MF setting is just that , averaged metering over the 35 sensors.
Rodney Gold
The nicest thing about smacking your head against the the wall is.......The feeling you get when you stop
WillyP
Well-known member
Thanks Steve,
There is something I don't understand I am afraid so please forgive me for asking you some more questions. Why does the 550EX out of the box (without FEC or FEL) a better job than the 420EX? Of course it has a higher GN, but I would expect that if a shot with the 420EX is underexposed the same shot, this time with a 550EX, would also be underexposed. The camera controls the flash and how would it know if a 420EX or 550EX was attached to the flash shoe?
There is something I don't understand I am afraid so please forgive me for asking you some more questions. Why does the 550EX out of the box (without FEC or FEL) a better job than the 420EX? Of course it has a higher GN, but I would expect that if a shot with the 420EX is underexposed the same shot, this time with a 550EX, would also be underexposed. The camera controls the flash and how would it know if a 420EX or 550EX was attached to the flash shoe?
Steve Farley
Well-known member
Willy,
I wish I knew. I was equally suprised. Expected the same as 420 except for the ability to use FEC on the camera. ETTL should null out any differences in the flash units. The only thing that I can think of would be that there is a diffence in the slope of the proportional flash output control and the camera's firmware is calibrated for the 550. Seems a little strange though.
Again this was a fairly quick and unscientfic check. With each configuration I just took some snapsots of people sitting on a moderately dark couch. With the 420 I also did a bunch of "real" shots.
420EX & flip up flash 90% of shots were at least 2 stops under 5% were perhaps 1/1/2 stops over and 5% about right.
520EX All shots in the experiment seemed within 1 stop of correct.
Steve
I wish I knew. I was equally suprised. Expected the same as 420 except for the ability to use FEC on the camera. ETTL should null out any differences in the flash units. The only thing that I can think of would be that there is a diffence in the slope of the proportional flash output control and the camera's firmware is calibrated for the 550. Seems a little strange though.
Again this was a fairly quick and unscientfic check. With each configuration I just took some snapsots of people sitting on a moderately dark couch. With the 420 I also did a bunch of "real" shots.
420EX & flip up flash 90% of shots were at least 2 stops under 5% were perhaps 1/1/2 stops over and 5% about right.
520EX All shots in the experiment seemed within 1 stop of correct.
Steve
WillyP
Well-known member
Steve, thanks a lot. Although I don't understand all the details, the message is clear: the 550EX is a far better flash for the DR than the 420EX. If it only wasn't that big.
Steve Farley
Well-known member
At the very least they have the wrong metering mode for P & auto!
These modes should take usable shots with only the capacity to point it at something and press the button.
These modes should take usable shots with only the capacity to point it at something and press the button.
Andry187794
Leading Member
If you don't know which to get, whatever you do, don't get the 420ex. I had it for 3 months and didn't know what to do. Any picture in Auto or P mode were underexposed unless it was pure sun and daylight outside. It drove me crazy. I just got the Sigma Super and the world has changed for me. Almost every picture is a great picture except for some that are overexposed a little. 
Don't even have to use FEC. I'm a very happy camper now.
Don't even have to use FEC. I'm a very happy camper now.
C
Chris Dodkin
Guest
I've used it since '97 on a range of Canon flash heads.
Excellent pack, built to last!
Fast charge, and very fast recycle times, goes all day long between charges.
It uses the high voltage input on the 550 EX, not the low voltage battery input, giving better recycle times.
http://www.lumedyne.com
VHMC $390.00 HV MINICYCLER - DELUXE FAST - CLASSIC DESIGN #052C
Chris.
--
http://www.1D-images.com
[email protected]
Mac G4/iMac/iBook/iPod
Excellent pack, built to last!
Fast charge, and very fast recycle times, goes all day long between charges.
It uses the high voltage input on the 550 EX, not the low voltage battery input, giving better recycle times.
http://www.lumedyne.com
VHMC $390.00 HV MINICYCLER - DELUXE FAST - CLASSIC DESIGN #052C
Chris.
--
http://www.1D-images.com
[email protected]
Mac G4/iMac/iBook/iPod
Another birder
Veteran Member
I dont want to have to FEL for every shot. Sometimes that cant be done.
--
http://www.pbase.com/timothyo
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum