milbourn Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 <p>I am considering getting the Metz 58 AF2 because I use bounce flash a lot and the feature of the extra flash on the front should help a lot with this. On my 380 EX, which has died, the bounce flash rather looked like the top of people's heads had been fried. Does anyone who has one think the Metz is worth the extra cost (£70) and possible compatibility problems compared to the Canon 430 EX at all please?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodeo_joe1 Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 <blockquote> <p>" the bounce flash rather looked like the top of people's heads had been fried."</p> </blockquote> <p>Andrew, have you tried altering the angle that you bounce the flash at? Light doesn't ricochet like a bullet when it hits a diffuse surface, so there's no need to calculate a 'snooker shot' angle from flash to subject. In fact you can point the flash directly up or even backwards from the camera and get nice diffuse light from it.<br> All you're doing with a bounce is making the light-source bigger and less prone to falloff, but setting the flash so that the pool of light is almost directly over the subject's head kind of defeats that purpose.</p> <p>If you really feel the need for a secondary or sub-flash - the real purpose of which is to provide eye catchlights BTW - then also consider Nissin's Di866 Mk2.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milbourn Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 Thanks for that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill C Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 <p>I once did an eval on an earlier Metz 58, and thought the forward-facing secondary light would be a great feature for certain situations.</p> <p>As I recall, there was limited control of the forward light - something to the effect that there was a certain relationship to the top light, and your only options were to set it (the front) to either half or quarter.</p> <p>I don't remember if I even did test shots, or not, but it seemed to me that if you had a certain amount of fill-light effect (while bouncing the main head), this would change with either subject distance or ceiling height. Again, I'm not certain about this, but it's something you ought to be aware of and investigate further; perhaps user manuals are available online.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now