Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > Flash (External)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 4, 2007, 3:07 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 172
Default

In the market for an external flash, I've read many of the posts and believe the 430ex is more than adequate for my current needs.

A major desire will be to obviously get rid of pop-up flash, and, have the option of getting a flash completely out of the faces of my young pre-toddlers. (They trip out at the flash, but...)

One desire I have is to even get the flash completely off the camera. Rather than simply bounce, when not too inconvenient, just get the flash COMPLETELY AWAY. A hassle for many situations perhaps, but, ideal for many others. Can someone please confirm, does the CAnon transmitter power the 430ex's? I am 99% certain the answer is "yes" but found the CAnon site, at least the page I viewed, to actually confuse.

Secondly, I like the idea of the transmitter over a big, obtrusive, heavy flash in those "certain" circumstances. One could certainly argue, why not go Sigma 500 Super and a 430ex and let the Super drive the 430ex. (I do believe that is an option) It would certainly make more sense to have two usable, working flashes than a situational solution in the transmitter. Again, size, weight and hassle may be worth it to me to avoid another big flash and just go with a smaller transmitter.

WHAT ELSE MAY I NOT BE CONSIDERING? WHAT ARE PROS AND CONS OF EACH SETUP? OTHER COMPLETELY DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATIONS OR THINGS I DON'T YET KNOW TO ASK?
leeraff is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 4, 2007, 8:54 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
hgernhardtjr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 516
Default

Assuming you stick with Canon products/system units, you will note how costly the ST-E2 transmitter that matches the 580EX, 430EX, and 500DG SUPER is. The ST-E2 costs approximately $200 if you shop a bit. The 500DG Supercosts about the same, and while somewhat larger, you can turn off the flash and use it as a transmitter-only to control a slave. Ditto if you have a 580EX.

In my book, that gives you some potential benefits in light placement, especially if you use an off-camera mount and the Canon Off Camera Shoe Cord 2or, as I do, leave the controlling flash (mine is a 580EX) in the hotshoe and use a Lightshpere (outstanding albeit expensive little diffuser) while the flash controlsone or more remote 430EX (or similar). While the transmitter has its place, I would rather have the option of using some extra flash-power. Anyway, IMHO and it works for me..
hgernhardtjr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 2007, 10:12 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

leeraff-

Looking for a low cost or no cost solution to your problem I did some experimenting this evening using the data provided at http://www.abetterbouncecard.com. I used a Canon 420EX flash unit attached to my Canon XTi equipped with a Sigma 18-125mm lens.

All I did was to swivel the flash 90 degrees as directed by the referenced website, then I pointed the flash straight up, and wrapped a sheet of computer paper around the flash head. Here is the photo result.

(a) There was no direct flash. The light sources are bounce flash and reflected flash

(b)The result is very similiar to what I regularlyget using the Lightshere II

(c) My husband said that the flash which was both bounced and reflected was not distastefull at all to his eyes. So hopefully, it will be equally easy with your children.

(d) All it took was a sheet of recycled computer paper folded in half and a recycled rubber band.

You might want to explore this technique with your children, all eight of ours are grown up and gone, so my husband (thank goodness) acts as my willing model now.

This is the photo sample. Next I will post a photo of what the actual paper placement around the flash head looked like.

Sarah
Attached Images
 
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 2007, 10:21 PM   #4
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

I agree the ST-E2 is quite expensive for what it does... Getting another flash Master and use it as a transmitter only (with its flash output turned off) is probably more flexible.

Also the ST-E2 is lacking the group C (as opposed to a flash which has control over 3 groups: A, B, and C). This probably doesn't mean much to anyone if no exposure compensation is required in the ratio mode

-> The only way to get the ST-E2 on the cheap is to buy the 550EX or the 580EX as a kit: two 550EX+ST-E2 or two 580EX+ST-E2 from B/H or Adorama
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 2007, 10:23 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Leeraff-

Here is what the actual flash set-up looked like. As you can see it is pretty basic and simple.

I am sure there are technically better solutions. However, I decided to see if this would help you out a little at almost no cost. If I have misunderstood your situation, I apologize in advance.

Sarah

Attached Images
 
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2007, 6:08 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 172
Default

Cool. Thanks to all.

As my post mentioned, one could certainly question letting the Sigma drive the 430ex. As this camera spends a good deal of time sitting in the nursery, I just wanted to keep the equipment, gadgets, add-ons, etc to a minimum.

Doesn't seem like there is any hidden advantage to using the transmitter. Only benefit for me is the smaller profile. I'll certainly start with a 430ex or maybe 500dg Super and see where it takes me later.

It DOES seem pointless, unless one were made of money, to throw any money at that transmitter. Having a full-functioning flash that can perform the same functions as transmitter makes a lot more sense than a single-purpose piece of equipment for $200. And, of course, for the same money, give or take, one has a backup flash.

Finally, those bouncing techniques certainly seem to break up the light well. Definitely worth a shot. Just wanted to look down the road and see what was best immediate and longer term solution.

Thanks.

leeraff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2007, 6:55 AM   #7
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

This is a really bad decision based on Canon's part and I hope they remedy it soon... :idea:

Minolta (now Sony) had the Master function built-into the camera's flash, and now Nikon has it too. This is only a matter of reprogramming the firmware in the camera to modulate the built-in flash and wouldn't cost a thing

I don't know why Canon still force people to buy the ST-E2 (even though I already have one). For a 1 series camera, ,I can understand where there's no built-in flash and the ST-E2 can also be used to augment the autofocus in the dark, but for other cameras with built-in flash this is just so easy of a thing to fix!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:24 PM.