Would you pay extra for built-in radio transmitter?

Canon ST-E3-RT Speedlite Transmitter looks and feels very awkward on modern small mirrorless cameras because of its size. I wish it was built-in into the camera body as a standard feature. I guess the price increase shouldn't be more than $100, maybe less.

Would you pay this extra amount for this extra feature?

I said no for a few reasons.

First, I don't use Canon flashes so I am not interested in a feature that is proprietary.

Second, as it is built in, if it breaks I would be SOL.

Third, other than FW updates , upgradability to newer, more capable tech is unavailable to me.

Photomonkey wrote:

I said no for a few reasons.

First, I don't use Canon flashes so I am not interested in a feature that is proprietary.

Second, as it is built in, if it breaks I would be SOL.

Third, other than FW updates , upgradability to newer, more capable tech is unavailable to me.

If it breaks just put an ST transmitter in the hot shoe. But it’s not likely to break.  It would be like your WiFi radio breaking; they rarely fail.  Screens crack, shutters fail, but the solid state portions rarely fail

MarshallG wrote:

Photomonkey wrote:

I said no for a few reasons.

First, I don't use Canon flashes so I am not interested in a feature that is proprietary.

Second, as it is built in, if it breaks I would be SOL.

Third, other than FW updates , upgradability to newer, more capable tech is unavailable to me.

If it breaks just put an ST transmitter in the hot shoe. But it’s not likely to break.It would be like your WiFi radio breaking; they rarely fail. Screens crack, shutters fail, but the solid state portions rarely fail

If it breaks you are then back to the solution we actually use well today which is an external transmitter. Plus an external transmitter will have the ability to trigger any number of non-Canon triggers.

Even if it never breaks we are still stuck with Canon protocols and the lack of upgradability.

So we have the issue of increased expense with functionality limited to the more expensive and lower powered Canon flash system. However, knowing Canon, this is likely to be a feature of future models.

Nope!

The only peoples I saw using native brand flashes are tourists, with their 1dxII, D850, etc , trying to illuminate Louvre's Pyramid or the Eiffel tower from 100meters away (quite fun and painful to watch).

Last 3-4 years, many cheaper and much better options are available. I don't want to lose those in profit of native flashes (see 2000D, 3000D, 4000D lost flash communication pin)

I'd rather smash my toes on the cofee table than going in the camera menu to adjust my flahes, it'll be less painful.

N-VB wrote:

Nope!

The only peoples I saw using native brand flashes are tourists, with their 1dxII, D850, etc , trying to illuminate Louvre's Pyramid or the Eiffel tower from 100meters away (quite fun and painful to watch).

Last 3-4 years, many cheaper and much better options are available. I don't want to lose those in profit of native flashes (see 2000D, 3000D, 4000D lost flash communication pin)

I'd rather smash my toes on the cofee table than going in the camera menu to adjust my flahes, it'll be less painful.

Interesting.

I just said no, because I rarely use flash.   Occasionally I will use it for a portrait, but the last time I had a real client for portraits, not my specialty, it was a female singing group, and the leader, who knew a lot about light and photography, insisted that I not use flash.

I bought the 580EX2 with my 60D in 2011.   I just wanted the most powerful flash I could get for pictures of people in low light.   Even with that old crop camera, I was impressed with what I could get without flash at all.   Had I bought the camera first, I might not have bought a flash at all.

I read the manual and tried most things, as is my habit (unmanly, I know).   I was amazed at how the camera could balance off camera flash, the built in flash, and the ambient exposure.   You can then exposure compensate each for any added effect you want.  That enabled me to take portraits with interesting lighting without actually knowing anything about flash photography.

Are the third party flash systems as smart, or do you just understand flash well enough that you don't care if they are smart or not?

N-VB wrote:

Nope!

The only peoples I saw using native brand flashes are tourists, with their 1dxII, D850, etc , trying to illuminate Louvre's Pyramid or the Eiffel tower from 100meters away (quite fun and painful to watch).

Last 3-4 years, many cheaper and much better options are available. I don't want to lose those in profit of native flashes (see 2000D, 3000D, 4000D lost flash communication pin)

I'd rather smash my toes on the cofee table than going in the camera menu to adjust my flahes, it'll be less painful.

I don't agree... if the camera has a good flash control layout via its touchscreen, that would be very nice. I love the setup Canon has that lets me control my wireless strobes from the camera menu.

No, I wouldn't want to pay any extra money for what I already have in my ST-E3-RT. And, no, I don't find it particularly big or heavy, especially compared with a shoe mounted flash of any kind, which I do quite often use for fast moving event work, and often with the further weight of a modifier on the flash. Also, keep in mind that many people actually use a flash atop their cameras to do what the much smaller ST-E3-RT does. Finally, KISS is an important concept; the more complicated a device is, the less likely it is that it will perform its one most important function flawlessly. That sometimes requires we use more than one device at a time, unless it is obvious to do otherwise.

I do use my Canon branded 600 RT flashes for many very professional uses, mostly for run and gun portraits and events, not to mention that I also use larger studio-type portable battery operated flash sets, with or without 600 RT's, with the ST-E3-RT or an alternative transmitter from the maker of the larger strobes.

By the way, if your are a pro, if a client asks for specific lighting, even after you politely explain your reasons for not doing so, you should, of course, go with your client's request, but 9 times out of 10, flash works best for most people shots, outdoors or in; you just have to be good enough at lighting for it to always look relatively "natural" when you do so.

I am not a pro, but I love external flashes. They make a huge difference in many situations. I love natural light even more, but good natural light is not always available.

Since cameras already have many extra electronic functions like wi-fi, gps, etc., why not to add one more. Since cell phones will create bokeh like cameras with expensive lenses, there will less and less incentive to use DSLRs for non-pros. External flash is almost the only thing that makes me take DSLR these days.

Maybe I overestimated the extra price $100 for the addition. There is very little to add to the camera. You don't need batteries, screen, case, buttons, mount. Just add one tiny microchip or add functionality to the existing chip. It will be only like $5-10 extra in the manufacturing cost.

o_23 wrote:

Canon ST-E3-RT Speedlite Transmitter looks and feels very awkward on modern small mirrorless cameras because of its size. I wish it was built-in into the camera body as a standard feature. I guess the price increase shouldn't be more than $100, maybe less.

Would you pay this extra amount for this extra feature?

What is this about? I think I paid for an inbody transmitter in the R. I know it doesn't seem to run my old infarred controlled 430 Speedlight remotely. Maybe that is what the lightning bolt icon is for.

if I understand you correctly, you have been thinking that the R has a non-WiFi radio transmitter in it, to configure and fire remote Canon RT flashes. If that is what you do mean, sorry, the R doesn't have that function built in to it. The internal flash control in the camera is only an alternative to the controls on the flash units themselves that only work when the flash you are using sits in the shoe of the R camera itself.

I hope this helps.

the BEST thing about DSLRs (and any cameras with removal lenses) is that you can add/remove whatever you need for the purpose at hand, and your add-on options are many, from the vendor and many 3rd party options!

lawny13 wrote:

Mike_13 wrote:

the BEST thing about DSLRs (and any cameras with removal lenses) is that you can add/remove whatever you need for the purpose at hand, and your add-on options are many, from the vendor and many 3rd party options!

True. But a GPS unit is actually not expensive. And one can disable it, and it is universal, as in it doesn’t interface with anything else. However, a wireless trigger for flashes would be encoded to only work with canon and there is where I see the problem. If it worked with any of the lighting brands out there then I would actually be up for it. Especially if it only added some $30-$50 to the price tag. But we all know it would probably cost an extra 300 or so to it in which case.. no thank you.

GPS is a radio

WiFi is a radio

Flash Trigger is a radio

Why do you think flash trigger will cost $300 more?  An external trigger doesn’t even cost that much

Any time of the day