Why every popup flash doesn't utilize this method as Sony?

[mahidoes]

I Was a Canon APS-C user who went on Fuji. Recently I got to shoot with a Sony a6000 camera without external flash for a friendly indoor function.

I found that a600 flash has a trick in it's sleeve. You can bounce it! Although the power is not great it's make the pop up flash very useful with increased ISO. I would never use popup flash directly as it was on my fuji or previous Canon entry level cameras.

When i checked their latest APS-C cameras. It seem they have incorporated this amazing thing in them as well.

I think this Sony's amazing trick should be incorporated in every other popup flash.

A6000 was released in 2014 now 7 years passed. I'm shocked why no other cameras adopted this amazing feat?

Popped up

Bounced.

May be this design might be not robust yet it's actually make popup flash useful by making it robust.
--
If you like my pictures follow me on Insta
https://www.instagram.com/mahidoes/

 

[alcelc]

My brand (Panasonic) has similar design on most of its cameras from compact to M43 for a very long time.

 

[FrancoD]

Those built in flashguns have a very low guide number , yours is 6.

That means on a direct flash it can reach 6 metres on 100 ISO if using an f/1 lens. So 1.5 m with an f/4 .

With the increase use of high ISO they become more useful but you do lose a lot of distance when you bounce them, of course also depending on the distance of and paint on the ceiling.

 

[mcsk]

Most of the Canon M bodies use that type. Due to the need to actively hold it in place, I've always assumed the bounce capability is more an accident due to the hinge design than an intentional feature. DSLR style pop up flashes do have a height advantage to provide better coverage with larger lenses, and not needing to stow then fully inside the camera can allow them to be slightly larger and more powerful.

 

[sybersitizen]

... I would never use popup flash directly as it was on my fuji or previous Canon entry level cameras.

Never is a long time. Direct flash from a pop-up has often been useful to me for fill flash, catchlights, close-up work with a diffuser, general documentation shots where light is not good, and controlling remote wireless flashes.

But yes, the ability to tilt a pop-up flash is also very welcome.

 

[PhotoTeach2]

The problem w/ tilt-up (bounce) flash is that the distance is now the combined TOTAL distance from camera to ceiling and then back diagonally to the subject -- PLUS another 2-STOPS.

So while the camera is already barely adequate to maybe 10-15', it is much much much less when bouncing w/ a high/dark ceiling.

 

[Chris R-UK]

The problem w/ tilt-up (bounce) flash is that the distance is now the combined TOTAL distance from camera to ceiling and then back diagonally to the subject -- PLUS another 2-STOPS.

So while the camera is already barely adequate to maybe 10-15', it is much much much less when bouncing w/ a high/dark ceiling.

I am pretty sure that this is the reason. I think that on board flashes just don't have enough power for bounced flash.

 

[Smaug01]

I've noticed that DPRs camera reviews of cameras with built-in flashes often comment on whether the built-in flash is bounce-able.

As others have said, to really be useful as a bounce flash, it needs to have much more power. The light needs to get up to the ceiling, where it gets diffused in the reflection process, then back down. It's more of a gimmick for special situations, I think.

I WOULD like to see more powerful built-in flashes in bridge cameras, even if they make the camera bigger, so that a built-in bounce flash could truly be used as such.

One of my first purchases in the past was a good bounce flash for my cameras. There are times when bumping ISO through the moon is not practical (too much noise or subjects in motion). Direct on-camera flash usually has "that look" which is not attractive.

 

[Flavil]

That little flash was dope for "macro"

NEX-6 with a 50 Cron on a close focus adapter, on-board flash aimed by finger tips to give the bee glamorous catch lights in juxtaposition of certain death.

For large glorious viewing only.

--
RAW--- Reconfigurable Architecture Workflowness

 

[mahidoes]

I've noticed that DPRs camera reviews of cameras with built-in flashes often comment on whether the built-in flash is bounce-able.

For me it was great on that day. Yes i had to increase ISO heavily. But pictures for very much better than without flash nor Direct popup flash. Again the ceiling was not high.

 

[JustUs7]

For me, I find it’s often just as good or better to dial flash exposure compensation down a stop or two than it is to bounce a small onboard flash. Just enough to fill. Reduces shadows and isn’t nearly as harsh as direct, but more light than a bounce against high ceilings.

But, yes, the Canon M’s have this feature as well. It’s funny how often we know our own brands so well that we just assume nobody else has some of the great features we like. Then we find out it’s been available for years elsewhere. Good stuff.

 

[PhotoTeach2]

I've noticed that DPRs camera reviews of cameras with built-in flashes often comment on whether the built-in flash is bounce-able.

As others have said, to really be useful as a bounce flash, it needs to have much more power. The light needs to get up to the ceiling, where it gets diffused in the reflection process, then back down. It's more of a gimmick for special situations, I think.

I WOULD like to see more powerful built-in flashes in bridge cameras, even if they make the camera bigger, so that a built-in bounce flash could truly be used as such.

I agree but the flash (capacitor) would have to be considerably bigger to really make bounce truly useful.

So again we are back to compromises and there are already complaints about the larger size of cameras like the FZ1000 and RX10xx. And of course, a larger flash would totally blow the "small" size advantage of the RX100xx.

Personally, I want a "shorter" pulse width strobe, (maybe up to GN-200), to be able to take full advantage of the "leaf" shutters ability to flash-sync @ 1/4000s & f/2.8, (for longer range fill-flash in SUN-light).

One of my first purchases in the past was a good bounce flash for my cameras. There are times when bumping ISO through the moon is not practical (too much noise or subjects in motion). Direct on-camera flash usually has "that look" which is not attractive.

But bounce is not always best either since it leaves shadows in eyes and under noses/hats.

A combination is often best. My Metz 60CT4 has both a small forward head but "big" one that can swivel to bounce, (and GN-200).

 

[Donald B]

I've noticed that DPRs camera reviews of cameras with built-in flashes often comment on whether the built-in flash is bounce-able.

As others have said, to really be useful as a bounce flash, it needs to have much more power. The light needs to get up to the ceiling, where it gets diffused in the reflection process, then back down. It's more of a gimmick for special situations, I think.

You cant be serious .gimmick ? built in flashes were never designed to be bounced off surfaces.

I WOULD like to see more powerful built-in flashes in bridge cameras, even if they make the camera bigger, so that a built-in bounce flash could truly be used as such.

One of my first purchases in the past was a good bounce flash for my cameras. There are times when bumping ISO through the moon is not practical (too much noise or subjects in motion). Direct on-camera flash usually has "that look" which is not attractive.

--
Sony A7r2 , A6300

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244

past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1, em5mk2, em1mk2.

 

[FrancoD]

Those built in flashguns have a very low guide number , yours is 6.

That means on a direct flash it can reach 6 metres on 100 ISO if using an f/1 lens. So 1.5 m with an f/4 .

With the increase use of high ISO they become more useful but you do lose a lot of distance when you bounce them, of course also depending on the distance of and paint on the ceiling.

BTW, yes of course "a bigger flash" seems to be the logical suggestion but with that you will need also a bigger battery. Therefore the cam,era size would grow in two different ways.

Something else that may not be all that obvious is that the CIPA standard for batteries include using the flash , so a more powerfull flash would either take the number of shots to a considerably lower level or as I mentioned you would need to compensate with a much larger battery.

 

[sybersitizen]

... As others have said, to really be useful as a bounce flash, it needs to have much more power. The light needs to get up to the ceiling, where it gets diffused in the reflection process, then back down. It's more of a gimmick for special situations, I think.

I WOULD like to see more powerful built-in flashes in bridge cameras, even if they make the camera bigger, so that a built-in bounce flash could truly be used as such.

I agree but the flash (capacitor) would have to be considerably bigger to really make bounce truly useful.

So again we are back to compromises and there are already complaints about the larger size of cameras like the FZ1000 and RX10xx. And of course, a larger flash would totally blow the "small" size advantage of the RX100xx.

Since you mention the RX100 series, the pop-up flash of my RX100III can provide a good exposure when bounced in a moderate size room with a bright ceiling at f/1.8, ISO 1600, and any shutter speed up through 1/2000s, without the help of any additional light. That's one of the first things I tested when I bought it. ISO 1600 is certainly not an optimal setting, but I'll take it when better options aren't readily available. And I don't want the camera to be any bigger, so I'm okay sticking with the flash that Sony gave it.

 

[PhotoTeach2]

I've noticed that DPRs camera reviews of cameras with built-in flashes often comment on whether the built-in flash is bounce-able.

As others have said, to really be useful as a bounce flash, it needs to have much more power. The light needs to get up to the ceiling, where it gets diffused in the reflection process, then back down. It's more of a gimmick for special situations, I think.

You cant be serious .gimmick ? built in flashes were never designed to be bounced off surfaces.

I WOULD like to see more powerful built-in flashes in bridge cameras, even if they make the camera bigger, so that a built-in bounce flash could truly be used as such.

One of my first purchases in the past was a good bounce flash for my cameras. There are times when bumping ISO through the moon is not practical (too much noise or subjects in motion). Direct on-camera flash usually has "that look" which is not attractive.

An excellent example of a SUN-light fill-flash only possible w/ "leaf" shutter.

Not possible w/ any ILC w/ Focal-Plane shutter.

 

[PhotoTeach2]

... As others have said, to really be useful as a bounce flash, it needs to have much more power. The light needs to get up to the ceiling, where it gets diffused in the reflection process, then back down. It's more of a gimmick for special situations, I think.

I WOULD like to see more powerful built-in flashes in bridge cameras, even if they make the camera bigger, so that a built-in bounce flash could truly be used as such.

I agree but the flash (capacitor) would have to be considerably bigger to really make bounce truly useful.

So again we are back to compromises and there are already complaints about the larger size of cameras like the FZ1000 and RX10xx. And of course, a larger flash would totally blow the "small" size advantage of the RX100xx.

Since you mention the RX100 series, the pop-up flash of my RX100III can provide a good exposure when bounced in a moderate size room with a bright ceiling at f/1.8, ISO 1600, and any shutter speed up through 1/2000s, without the help of any additional light. That's one of the first things I tested when I bought it. ISO 1600 is certainly not an optimal setting, but I'll take it when better options aren't readily available. And I don't want the camera to be any bigger, so I'm okay sticking with the flash that Sony gave it.

Anyone can get a longer-distance flash w/ higher ISO "indoors".

But at a sacrifice in IQ.

And in SUN-light only ISO-100 is practically possible, (thus much shorter range), thus only a "leaf" shutter can give an advantage by enabling up to 1/4000s @ f/2.8. (but then somewhat limited by the longer flash-duration at full-power)

 

[PhotoTeach2]

Those built in flashguns have a very low guide number , yours is 6.

That means on a direct flash it can reach 6 metres on 100 ISO if using an f/1 lens. So 1.5 m with an f/4 .

With the increase use of high ISO they become more useful but you do lose a lot of distance when you bounce them, of course also depending on the distance of and paint on the ceiling.

BTW, yes of course "a bigger flash" seems to be the logical suggestion but with that you will need also a bigger battery. Therefore the cam,era size would grow in two different ways.

Actually, a bigger "capacitor" is main factor.

Something else that may not be all that obvious is that the CIPA standard for batteries include using the flash , so a more powerfull flash would either take the number of shots to a considerably lower level or as I mentioned you would need to compensate with a much larger battery.

I do agree a bigger battery would also be necessary for a faster recycle time and total shots possible.

 

[sybersitizen]

... As others have said, to really be useful as a bounce flash, it needs to have much more power. The light needs to get up to the ceiling, where it gets diffused in the reflection process, then back down. It's more of a gimmick for special situations, I think.

I WOULD like to see more powerful built-in flashes in bridge cameras, even if they make the camera bigger, so that a built-in bounce flash could truly be used as such.

I agree but the flash (capacitor) would have to be considerably bigger to really make bounce truly useful.

So again we are back to compromises and there are already complaints about the larger size of cameras like the FZ1000 and RX10xx. And of course, a larger flash would totally blow the "small" size advantage of the RX100xx.

Since you mention the RX100 series, the pop-up flash of my RX100III can provide a good exposure when bounced in a moderate size room with a bright ceiling at f/1.8, ISO 1600, and any shutter speed up through 1/2000s, without the help of any additional light. That's one of the first things I tested when I bought it. ISO 1600 is certainly not an optimal setting, but I'll take it when better options aren't readily available. And I don't want the camera to be any bigger, so I'm okay sticking with the flash that Sony gave it.

Anyone can get a longer-distance flash w/ higher ISO "indoors".

But not everyone's pop-up flash will tilt for bouncing, which was the topic.

But at a sacrifice in IQ.

Yes, everything in photography is a trade-off.

And in SUN-light only ISO-100 is practically possible, (thus much shorter range),

Any ISO is possible by closing down the aperture, which might be desirable for greater DOF while maintaining a fast shutter speed. And/or by using ND filters. But changing ISO in those ways won't change the flash range or the ratio of flash illumination to sunlight. Those things will remain the same at all ISOs.

thus only a "leaf" shutter can give an advantage by enabling up to 1/4000s @ f/2.8. (but then somewhat limited by the longer flash-duration at full-power)

Kudos to the leaf shutter of the RX100 models - but that's drifting even further off topic.

 

[Donald B]

I've noticed that DPRs camera reviews of cameras with built-in flashes often comment on whether the built-in flash is bounce-able.

As others have said, to really be useful as a bounce flash, it needs to have much more power. The light needs to get up to the ceiling, where it gets diffused in the reflection process, then back down. It's more of a gimmick for special situations, I think.

You cant be serious .gimmick ? built in flashes were never designed to be bounced off surfaces.

I WOULD like to see more powerful built-in flashes in bridge cameras, even if they make the camera bigger, so that a built-in bounce flash could truly be used as such.

One of my first purchases in the past was a good bounce flash for my cameras. There are times when bumping ISO through the moon is not practical (too much noise or subjects in motion). Direct on-camera flash usually has "that look" which is not attractive.

An excellent example of a SUN-light fill-flash only possible w/ "leaf" shutter.

Not possible w/ any ILC w/ Focal-Plane shutter.

ND filter

--
Sony A7r2 , A6300

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244

past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1, em5mk2, em1mk2.