EOS 5D Mark IV Testing Has Begun [CR2]

[ishdakuteb]

Neuro, you obviously don't understand

Flashes are only for use indoors... and indoors you don't need lens hoods...

No real photographer uses fill flash as that would be altering the lighting conditions and therefore un-natural.... do that and your pictures will be banned from National Geographic ....

Don, I am not really sure about national geographic rule on capturing people images, but for landscape, it is not allowed to move/clean up, even a leaf on the ground, or alter the scene during post process. You have stated that "no real photographer" uses fill flash outdoor and it should be used indoor only. This was what I understand when I first started to learn journalism. However, it is not completely right. Yes, for journalism, you do not need it since who care about hard shadow appearing under eyes, nose, etc... But for wedding, outdoor portrait photographers, and fashion photographers, they either use one of the following or combination of them under certain situation:
1. Reflector, or
2. Flash, or
3. Constant light such as Lowell iLight (kinda hot when using it), Ice Light (licensed to Jerry Ghionis), etc...

I have been learning about light in the past almost 3 years and still do (since I love journalism), plus keeping track of number of renown journalism photographers (most of them are wedding photographers from all around the world) so that why I pretty much have my confident in saying this. Even Cliff Mautner, a master of natural light, still has to use flash in certain situations. In short, nothing is absolute and again I am not really sure about National Geographic rule on capturing people...

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong...

 

[Don Haines]

Neuro, you obviously don't understand

Flashes are only for use indoors... and indoors you don't need lens hoods...

No real photographer uses fill flash as that would be altering the lighting conditions and therefore un-natural.... do that and your pictures will be banned from National Geographic ....

Don, I am not really sure about national geographic rule on capturing people images, but for landscape, it is not allowed to move/clean up, even a leave on the ground, or alter the scene during post process. You have stated that "no real photographer" uses fill flash outdoor and it should be used indoor only. This was what I understand when I first started to learn journalism. However, it is not completely right. Yes, for journalism, you do not need it since who care about hard shadow appearing under eyes, nose, etc... But for wedding, outdoor portrait photographers, and fashion photographers, they either use one of the following or combination of them under certain situation:
1. Reflector, or
2. Flash, or
3. Constant light such as Lowell iLight (kinda hot when using it), Ice Light (licensed to Jerry Ghionis), etc...

I have been learning about light in the past almost 3 years and still do (since I love journalism), plus keeping track of number of renown journalism photographers (most of them are wedding photographers from all around the world) so that why I pretty much have my confident in saying this. Even Cliff Mautner, a master of natural light, still has to use flash in certain situations. In short, nothing is absolute and again I am not really sure about National Geographic rule on capturing people...

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong...

you are right.... but did you realize that I was poking fun....

I am a big believer in using whatever the appropriate tool is to capture the image to the best of one's abilities and not to be bound by perceived rules. Fill flash is one of those very useful tools.... who hasn't taken a portrait shot with light from the back (sunset background is one example).... without a fill flash you are shooting a silhouette...

 

[ishdakuteb]

Neuro, you obviously don't understand

Flashes are only for use indoors... and indoors you don't need lens hoods...

No real photographer uses fill flash as that would be altering the lighting conditions and therefore un-natural.... do that and your pictures will be banned from National Geographic ....

Don, I am not really sure about national geographic rule on capturing people images, but for landscape, it is not allowed to move/clean up, even a leave on the ground, or alter the scene during post process. You have stated that "no real photographer" uses fill flash outdoor and it should be used indoor only. This was what I understand when I first started to learn journalism. However, it is not completely right. Yes, for journalism, you do not need it since who care about hard shadow appearing under eyes, nose, etc... But for wedding, outdoor portrait photographers, and fashion photographers, they either use one of the following or combination of them under certain situation:
1. Reflector, or
2. Flash, or
3. Constant light such as Lowell iLight (kinda hot when using it), Ice Light (licensed to Jerry Ghionis), etc...

I have been learning about light in the past almost 3 years and still do (since I love journalism), plus keeping track of number of renown journalism photographers (most of them are wedding photographers from all around the world) so that why I pretty much have my confident in saying this. Even Cliff Mautner, a master of natural light, still has to use flash in certain situations. In short, nothing is absolute and again I am not really sure about National Geographic rule on capturing people...

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong...

you are right.... but did you realize that I was poking fun....

I am a big believer in using whatever the appropriate tool is to capture the image to the best of one's abilities and not to be bound by perceived rules. Fill flash is one of those very useful tools.... who hasn't taken a portrait shot with light from the back (sunset background is one example).... without a fill flash you are shooting a silhouette...

LOL... No wonder I can not find that rule posting on National Geographic, about the landscape rule, I have known for a little more than years via B&H but I did not really care until I recently decided to learn about landscape...

 

[Marsu42]

Sun at noon is on your head which does not include scene.

Not so, I don't live near the equator and unless it's high summer time the sun is never that high. And I I like uwa shots, so often the sun is in the frame or near the frame's edge.

Your tree leaves example shot shows that a higher sun doesn't necessarily exceed Canon's dr range, but often it does even with proper exposure - with Magic Lantern's raw histogram, it's easy enough to check

To answer your question: none of the current camera has enough dynamic range, so work the way out of it... but i am not a big fan of HDR

In my experience, the difference between Canon 11-ish dr and Sonikon or dual_iso 14-ish dr does make a difference for real world shooting, it's just the difference between clipped sky or not with sufficient detail in backlit subjects (with using a little fill flash).

Of course shooting with 14ev often does give you a hdr-ish look, so if you don't like that at all Canon's dr limit probably won't matter a lot to you.

Sorry to ask: Are you most of the time expose correctly, even with a black tape cover your LCD?

Well, no, but in my defense I have to say vs. my old 60d I find the 6d's metering is rather dodgy. But as I'm shooting moving animals a lot can expose ok on the first shot, but need a second shot after viewing the raw histogram to ettr and not clip more than I want.

If you can really get a sunset shot ettr'ed perfectly the first time (as the sun's core is always clipped) or have trained to much you can guess manual exposure all the time, kudos to you ... though you cannot expect everybody else to perform at that level.

Btw personally I don't find having more margin for error a bad thing (either via more mp for cropping/rotating or mp for correcting exposure), and as a consumer it's absolutely ok to voice that preference.

 

[Dick]

What comes to a pop up flash, it's a useless addition to any camera and I would personally pay extra not to have features I don't want to have, such as that stupid flash. Every pointless feature that potentially creates extra issues is something that shouldn't be there.

Seriously, I can't think of a single case where using a pop up flash would be a good thing.

 

[romanr74]

I'd love to see the people with the most smartassy posts here (they will know they are meant) to show off some of their pictures. I don't really know why, but I'm convinced i'll not be impressed...

 

[vscd]

Exactly. I don't see why people are against a feature that causes no harm when not in use, and which could come in handy at times.

We explained it at least 10 times to you, it's written here in the forum but it seems you can't read well enough. Just a short abstract again:

- cost
- ugly
- difficult prismdesign
- sucks an battery
- shitty light
- weathersealing
- ...

It harms me in any way as you are "harmed" by 90EX (It get stuck on something... mimimimi).

 

[StudentOfLight]

So, on the inexpensive cameras, the lens blocking the pop-up flash is not much of an issue..... but for those with their expensive cameras and f2.8 (or faster) lenses, it is.

Perhaps that is the real reason for no pop-up flashes on the more expensive cameras...

It isn't blocked by the 35/1.4L. It isn't blocked by the 24-105/4L IS. It isn't blocked by the 70-200/2.8's.

 

[Sporgon]

My camera bag is already full, where should I put this extra thing?

In your shirt pocket, or your pants, or under your hat..........

 

[Loswr]

I'm just following your lead.

Feel free to point out factual errors that I've posted, where I have not acknowledged my error when it was pointed out.

The DIGISUPER 75 is still not a camera.

 

[Loswr]

It isn't blocked by the 35/1.4L.

I guess you were wrong about that. Taking a page from dilbert's book is never a good idea.

 

[dak723]

Seriously, I can't think of a single case where using a pop up flash would be a good thing.

How about when you need a flash but aren't carrying one with you?

How about those of us (like me) who almost never need a flash, so we don't spend our hard earned money on one?

I have owned Canon cameras for 11 years. I needed to use the pop-up flash no more than 10 times in that time. I was glad I had it when I needed it. When I didn't need it, there were 0 times that I wished it wasn't there. Zero.

There are no logical reasons that a camera has no built in flash. You can argue to your hearts content about it - as people do on every subject here in the forum. But it is not really a debate about flash (or whatever the useless argument of the day is). It is about arguing for arguments sake. People on this forum seem to be tech-savvy, but being tech-savvy apparently doesn't mean you are smart. Some of the arguments on this forum seem to be carried out by 6 year olds.

I came to this forum because I enjoy photography and hoped to share my enthusiasm with other like minded folks. What I see here is constant whining and complaining, inane arguments about flashes and dual card slots, and constant bickering about DR. The fact that today's cameras are incredibly good at taking photos - far better than cameras have ever been - seems to elude most people here.

How many folks come here very happy with their Canon cameras and the pics they take and suddenly doubt their equipment - thinking that Sony and Nikon must be much better according to all of these experts? Luckily for me, I bought the Sony A7 II to compare with my 6D. Luckily, I bought it from a store where it could be returned (and it was) so I didn't lose any money. In actual use, the Canon proved better for me. For others it may be a different outcome. But the reality seems to be that there is very little difference in cameras from different brands - which is quite logical since they all take excellent pics under normal usage. They take pics that are virtually indistinguishable from one another. But how many other folks come to this forum happy with their equipment and wanting to share their enthusiasm only to be dragged down - or put in doubt - by the constant complaining?

If you aren't happy with your Canon camera, then please get another camera. Their are so many choices out there. Put yourself out of your misery and make the switch - please! Certainly you must realize that anyone so unhappy with their equipment who continues to use it, looks like an idiot or a person who would rather than complain than have what they want.

It could be a fun place to be - here in the forum - but it is not. Sorry for the interruption. Please continue with the inane arguments and constant complaining about your wonderful cameras.

 

[Don Haines]

If you don't want it, don't use it, but I would find a pop-up flash handy to have on my 5d3 from time to time.

Exactly. I don't see why people are against a feature that causes no harm when not in use, and which could come in handy at times.

Because when you're a professional photographer, you never use the built-in flash.

Therefore any camera that doesn't have a built in flash is a professional camera so that when I buy one, I feel like I'm a pro because I've got pro gear. It doesn't matter if it would make sense for me to have it or not, if it is there then I don't have a pro camera and therefore I can't look like a pro.

Similarly because I'm a pro or wanna-be pro, no camera that I might want to buy can have a built in flash and people who buy cameras with built-in flashes (even if from another manufacturer) are lesser beings.

One would certainly never use the built-in flash to trigger the slave flashes.... how unprofessional!

And I agree that not having a flash is what makes a camera a pro camera. That's why I have a GoPro... a real "Pro" camera that has been used for footage on several Hollywood films. We use it for time-lapse photography outdoors.... it is far better for the job than a 1Dx would be....

 

[Loswr]

There are no logical reasons that a camera has no built in flash.

Several have been presented in this thread. For example, is it logical to include a feature that doesn't work properly with several lenses?

 

[Don Haines]

There are no logical reasons that a camera has no built in flash.

Several have been presented in this thread. For example, is it logical to include a feature that doesn't work properly with several lenses?

Is it logical to have manual mode on a camera when you usually shoot in aperture priority? It is a tool to be used when needed and ignored when not....

There are many reasons to have a built in flash, there are many reasons to not have it. There are times it will be useful and times that it is useless. The answer is a personal one and represents an individual's needs and preferences. There is no definitive answer to the question.

 

[100]

There are no logical reasons that a camera has no built in flash.

Several have been presented in this thread. For example, is it logical to include a feature that doesn't work properly with several lenses?

Autofocus doesn't work properly with TS-E lenses or the MP-E 65 for instance, with that kind of logic we should leave AF out too.

 

[tron]

There are no logical reasons that a camera has no built in flash.

Several have been presented in this thread. For example, is it logical to include a feature that doesn't work properly with several lenses?

Autofocus doesn't work properly with TS-E lenses or the MP-E 65 for instance, with that kind of logic we should leave AF out too.

This logic is flawed since the correct would be to say that AF is not supported on these lenses. Doesn't work properly implies it works somehow but not 100 correctly...

Also by the use of manual focusing we can get results. Something similar cannot be said for lenses that block the on-camera flash...

 

[romanr74]

so many so silly agruments and still no pictures... why am i not surprised?

 

[Loswr]

Is it logical to have manual mode on a camera when you usually shoot in aperture priority? It is a tool to be used when needed and ignored when not....

Last time I checked, both manual and AV mode worked properly with all current Canon lenses. The same cannot be said of a popup flash, particularly on FF.

There are many reasons to have a built in flash, there are many reasons to not have it. There are times it will be useful and times that it is useless. The answer is a personal one and represents an individual's needs and preferences. There is no definitive answer to the question.

There's an answer, of sorts. If you want a popup flash on a FF camera, don't buy Canon.

 

[Lee Jay]

There are no logical reasons that a camera has no built in flash.

Several have been presented in this thread. For example, is it logical to include a feature that doesn't work properly with several lenses?

Autofocus doesn't work properly with TS-E lenses or the MP-E 65 for instance, with that kind of logic we should leave AF out too.

This logic is flawed since the correct would be to say that AF is not supported on these lenses. Doesn't work properly implies it works somehow but not 100 correctly...

Also by the use of manual focusing we can get results. Something similar cannot be said for lenses that block the on-camera flash...

Even a 580EX or 600RT doesn't properly illuminate the scene for an 11-24 or an 8-15 without a Stoffen diffuser or similar.

So, maybe they should stop making those flashes as well.

The popup on a crop body can't properly illuminate the scene for a 10-22 or 10-18. As such, this argument is irrelevant as those bodies have a popup flash.