Canon flash

[digitalride]

Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?

After getting frustrated and doing some controlled tests a few years ago, I have concluded that the Canon flash system is not nearly as good as it could be from a technical/theoretical standpoint. However I'm not sure if any other system is better so I decided to just live with it and adjust things manually as necessary.

Particularly when bouncing, it over illuminates close objects and under-illuminates far away objects - and yes the flash had plenty of power to illumninate the far away objects if turned up manually. If it is truly reading the light falling on the object just before the shot I don't understand why it can't do a better job, I guess a preflash is somehow different enough than the real flash that it can't be accurately predicted.

It would be awesome to have a "FE ITERATIVE" mode where after one shot it realized that it underexposed the spot, so it would automatically dial up the power for the next shot, and then iterate after that.

 

[old-pr-pix]

Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?

In 1977 my flash was a Graflex Stroboflash IV. Not only was it full manual, the flash head had to be hand held separate from the camera (every shot was off camera flash), it weighed about 12 pounds, it used two expensive 225 volt batteries to give only about 200 full power shots before you threw them away, and when fired gave off an unmistakable POP.

Late in 1978 I switched to a Canon 199A, which by the way still works fine, and have never looked back. Are current generation flashes perfect - hardly! - and maybe it was the training of having done so much manually; but, I fully appreciate the automation of current speedlights. Do they miss proper exposure sometimes - yep - but usually I know it is going to happen and adjust compensation. Or, for old time sake, just go full manual and appreciate that I don't have to wait until I developed all the film to know my guess was on, or off, target! I could use a flashmeter to set exposure (don't believe those were around in 1977 either, or at least I couldn't afford one). I'd consider that cheating. There has to be some skill left in the process!

 

[Ozarker]

Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?

Sold my 70D because even in auto mode the battery still wouldn't install itself. Didn't matter which button I pushed. Piece of junk.

Had the same problem when I'd hoped the 5D Mark III would solve my problem. It is crappy too, but a friend took it into his shop and somehow got the battery to install.

Now the problem is that it won't charge itself in auto mode either. Got to take it back to my friend to see what he can do with it. Another piece of junk.

I thought auto mode meant I didn't have to think. Turns out there are stories all over the internet about how crappy the 70D and 5D Mark III are and how they won't take a decent photo.

Sony.

 

[rlarsen]

Re: Canon

Canon

 

[tpatana]

Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?

A poster on this forum expressed frustration with the TTL exposure accuracy of his 600 EX RT speedlight that costs $469.00 Maybe some of you can share with him your helpful stories about hammers, batteries, and uninformed rants.

Like I said above, there's big difference admitting that you don't know how it works and asking for advice, compared to telling it's worst of the worst and waste of money/time (when everyone else knows it's you, not the device).

I plan to take ~1000 clicks tomorrow using Canon TTL, and based on earlier experience I expect 99%+ to be properly lit.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?

it over illuminates close objects and under-illuminates far away objects - and yes the flash had plenty of power to illumninate the far away objects if turned up manually. If it is truly reading the light falling on the object just before the shot I don't understand why it can't do a better job, I guess a preflash is somehow different enough than the real flash that it can't be accurately predicted.

It would be awesome to have a "FE ITERATIVE" mode where after one shot it realized that it underexposed the spot, so it would automatically dial up the power for the next shot, and then iterate after that.

If you learn how to use it, there is a solution. The laws of physics say that objects further away will get less light, why to you blame the flash for this, its just a light bulb and cannot give each item in a room a custom amount of light.

 

[rlarsen]

Re: Canon

Canon

 

[Loswr]

Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?

With Canon products the subject distance info is deactivated which unfortunately makes it less accurate in bounce mode.

Physics? Bah, who cares about physics. What's an inverse square, anyway...a circle?

 

[privatebydesign]

Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?

They had thyristor sensors that could be placed in the hotshoe. I could aim the flash nearly anywhere I wanted to, including bounce, and get quite consistent auto exposure results with typical subject matter.

The 600-EX-RT and 600-EX-RTII have a thyristor in them too. When I got mine I played with it for a few exposures and it worked very well.

If that is the kind of tech you seek then maybe pick up a cheap 600 now the MkII is coming, or you can have my old 533G with thyristor for a fraction of the price, it will work fine.

 

[Zeidora]

Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?

Particularly when bouncing, it over illuminates close objects and under-illuminates far away objects - and yes the flash had plenty of power to illumninate the far away objects if turned up manually. If it is truly reading the light falling on the object just before the shot I don't understand why it can't do a better job, I guess a preflash is somehow different enough than the real flash that it can't be accurately predicted.

Have you heard of the "inverse square law"? No amount of sophistication in the metering can address that. In mixed light (ambient plus flash) you can reduce the flash contribution by opening f-stop or increasing ISO to get more even illumination back and front (assuming ambient is even over entire scene).
Alternatively, your bounce is spilling too much onto the subject directly. In that case, you need to block light from the flash with a gabo/barndoors or similar, or set the zoom-setting of the flash to a longer focal length (if available).

 

[FECHariot]

Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?

I only use bounce with my 580 and or 430s and I almost never get an exposure off more than 1/3rd stop unless I am trying to push the flash beyond its limits like bouncing too high a surface at too small an aperture or something like that. It would seem you would be better off addressing a specific problem and posting the exact settings and the resulting exposure and letting someone help you. Or you could look for hand made custom nails that don't bend so easily.

 

[d]

Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?

It would seem you would be better off addressing a specific problem and posting the exact settings and the resulting exposure and letting someone help you.

This.

The hyperbole-laden venting you've opened your topics with doesn't really characterise you as someone to be engaged with constructively. You label yourself a pro photographer, but you're not representing yourself as one, more as an inexperienced, whinging amateur. All equipment has a learning curve, and different flash systems have their metering and performance nuances that need to be understood and mastered. Over the years I've used both Nikon and Canon speedlights on camera to shoot events, using both direct and bounced lighting, and haven't noticed any real performance difference between the two systems.

I don't think it's the gear.

d.

 

[Ozarker]

Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?

A poster on this forum expressed frustration with the TTL exposure accuracy of his 600 EX RT speedlight that costs $469.00 Maybe some of you can share with him your helpful stories about hammers, batteries, and uninformed rants.

Yeah, and it hurt so bad you went to another thread and complained about the hurt. I think you are trolling. If your friend at Canon or your friends at Vanity Fair can't help you...

At least you admit in that thread to your limited understanding instead of blaming the manufacturer.

 

[YuengLinger]

Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?

Every time I parallel park my Minivan I rub the wheels against the curb, yet Consumer Reports gives it such a high rating. When I complain on the minivan forums about how poorly a $32,000 vehicle handles, I get criticized for my driving skills.

I guess I struck a nerve.

 

[Loswr]

Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?

Every time I parallel park my Minivan I rub the wheels against the curb, yet Consumer Reports gives it such a high rating. When I complain on the minivan forums about how poorly a $32,000 vehicle handles, I get criticized for my driving skills.

I guess I struck a nerve.

See, if you'd only gone there asking for help instead of blaming your minivan, someone might have been willing to suggest the solution.

 

[triggermike]

Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?

I have had excellent success with ETTL from my 580EXii when it stays in ETTL mode! I would check your flash LCD and verify it is staying in ETTL when you are actually ready to fire. My flash, and many others on blogs, seems to suffer a defect within the unit (not contacts at hotshoe.) I admit I have simply been to lazy to send it in for repair. The unit wanders out of ETTL and usually fires at full power.
But, as I mentioned in the beginning, when ETTL stays engaged, it works flawlessly especially when bounced. I saw an earlier post about hot foregrounds and dark backgrounds when bouncing - this requires an adjusted bounce angle, not the flashes fault

 

[YuengLinger]

Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?

Every time I parallel park my Minivan I rub the wheels against the curb, yet Consumer Reports gives it such a high rating. When I complain on the minivan forums about how poorly a $32,000 vehicle handles, I get criticized for my driving skills.

I guess I struck a nerve.

See, if you'd only gone there asking for help instead of blaming your minivan, someone might have been willing to suggest the solution.

Haven't seen those in YEARS!

 

[tonyespofoto]

Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?

I will guess that either your particular unit is malfunctioning or you are not operating it properly. It is entirely possible that you have a plus or minus exposure chosen on the flash or you have the same chosen on your camera, which would be a global change, affecting not only the flash exposure but the ambient exposure as well. As someone who used strobes back in the seventies, I think I have some experience here and would like to offer you some suggestions. First, don't EVER let the strobe do your thinking for you. No matter how sophisticated, no camera or strobe can successfully make decisions like that. You need to understand how it thinks and constrain its thinking so that it give you an acceptable result. Let me explain: First, set you camera on Tv. Set your shutter at 1/60, or the lowest shutter speed you can reliably handhold. Nest, set your ISO to give you a good exposure at the aperture you would like to shoot at in that location without the strobe. I generally (but not always) set the strobe to +1/3. Now you have constrained its thinking to give you an exposure close to the base exposure in the room. NEVER point the strobe directly at the subject. Bounce it off the ceiling while using a modifier like the Lumiquest 80/20 or the little white card (in my opinion slightly less effective) that you can pull out of the 580EX. In my experience at hundreds of venues, the aperture hovers around f/2.8, the shutter stays at 1/60 and the ISO is 400-1000. What you are aiming at is an exposure looks just like what your eye sees, only better. The bounce light from the strobe + the adequately rendered ambient exposure gives you a good even light that shows the venue properly. The small amount of forward-directed light from the strobe clears up raccoon eyes and cleans up the color. I use a flash bracket that always keeps the flash directly over the lens, so that any shadows fall below and behind the subject. I often use gels over the strobe the match the existing light in the room. This is a choice that only your own experience can inform and of course is the subject of a different and much longer post. Now at each shot you need to think like a strobe: Is there a window behind the subject or in the field of view that will mess up its thinking? If so change your position or exposure. Common at corporate events are group shots involving shiny award plaques. Tell your subjects to angle the plaques slight downward or the reflection off the plaque will cause a severe under-exposure, not to mention Photoshop post production work. These are just 2 examples of things that cause auto-exposure failure. There are many others and your experience should be your guide here. White tablecloths, black walls and glass-covered pictures in the background are others. Of course, you need to be shooting RAW. This will allow you to make nearly every exposure spot-on. That said, flash auto exposure has came a long way since the seventies. It is way more accurate and reliable. Back in the day, you educated yourself by carrying a hand-held meter and measuring exposure and comparing that to what your eye/experience told you was correct. After a while, you would get pretty sharp at guessing exposure. Cameras are not foolproof now and have never been. By properly guiding the instrument, you can produce professional quality work far more easily than was possible in the seventies. Is it stressful? Yes, it is. You are combining your experience and a mechanical/electronic device in an effort to create a perfect record of an event, done in real time. Stress is what causes you to be sharp, not only technically, but also to improve your eye, to recognize good images as they occur and capture them. When all of this works together and you are on your game, it is exhilarating.
Regards,
Tony

 

[rlarsen]

Re: Canon

Canon

 

[deleteme]

Re: Canon TTL flash what could be worse ?

I've been struggling with Canon ttl flash for as long as I can remember. After spending a couple weeks shooting some really big corporate events I just have to say the Canon 580 EX used on my 5D mklll in ttl mode is the worst product I have used in my life. This POS is totally unreliable. I hate it. It takes all the fun out of photography and replaces it with stress. Switching to manual mode and working likes it's 1977 is no answer. How do people cope with this ? Are there speedlights for Canon that actually work in auto mode ?

I totally agree. However, whenever I express this opinion I am greeted with a torrent of responses that are always along the lines of "You don't know how to use it"
It doesn't matter that I have been doing this from the 70's and am extremely tech savvy.
The simple fact is that depending on a machine to make the decision will always introduce variables that the machine cannot recognize and compensate for.
For on camera flash nothing yet compares to the old 45GN Nikkor where aperture varied with the distance focused upon. Set the guide number and go. Perfect exposures every time.
With the electronics of today's cameras there is no reason that a similar system with even more ability could be incorporated into on camera flash.