A-TTL over E-TTL??

[robert_davis7]

Dost my eyes deceive me? It seems to me that the photos taken with

my EOS 1N and 540EZ look better than those taken with my EOS 3 and

420EX. They just look more natural, and the photos look better

exposed. The 420EX seemed kind of hot, but the 540EZ ... wow.

 

Anyone else out there notice differences? Does anyone else prefer A-

TTL (or straight TTL) over E-TTL?

[bill_goldman]

My experience has been just the opposite. When I upgraded from my EOS-1N and 540EZ to the EOS-1v and 550EX, my flash pictures improved dramatically. E-TTL is also the first system I've used that really makes bounce flash foolproof.

 

Maybe your 420EX is not performing optimally.

[PuppyDigs]

I found that you can get equally excellent results with both once you learn the idiosyncrasies. I started with A-TTL and used it for 10 years before switching to E-TTL. After a short learning curve, I learned how to get A-TTL to do what I wanted, e.g., which situations to apply FEC. At first I got terrible results E-TTL, but eventually learned its wrinkles too. However, E-TTL seems to need more manual overrides than A-TTL ever did, especially with DSLRs. The only real advantages of E-TTL over A-TTL are the abilities to use wireless slaves and set ratios with multiple units.

[scott_ferris]

Hi Robert,

 

Not as experianced as Bill or Puppyface never having used A-

TTL, but I did use TTL, IMHO E-TTL is fantastic, swiveling

bounce flash with no brackets at weddings is a dream. I haven't

found the need to override it, indeed in tests I did before my first

wedding with E-TTL on print film it was difficult to tell what mode

was being used, although I agree flash compensation can be hit

and miss I haven't had one unprintable neg due to poor flash

performance.

 

Take care, Scott.

[krieves]

I have a D300 and the 550ex. I still trying to figure out how to get predictable bounce flash results. I other digital camera, an Olympus 3030 with an FL-40 flash, is much simpler and predictable. The Canon seems to always under expose. I'm probably not doing something right. :)

[vincent_j_m]

In my experience with my old EOS and Vivitars (ATTL) they are far more idiot proof than ETTL flash. I could almost always get accurate exposure with my old ATTL setup. I have to be a lot more careful with ETTL.

[maureen_m]

There's no arguing with success, as many people seem to have better results with TTL/ATTL over ETTL. Still it is strange, considering TTL/ATTL meter one of only three areas of the image, and that area is 50% of the image (which of the 3 areas is determined by where the active focus point is). Seems like light or dark backgrounds would throw off the metering.

[maureen_m]

oops, forgot the diagram of the metering area...

[picturesque]

I shot side by side test rolls on my Elan IIe (E-TTL) and RT (TTL/A-TTL), and the RT was consistently well exposed while the Elan IIe was underexposed anywhere from a stop to a stop and a half, even though I was careful about where the focus point ended up (I tried to pick medium-toned areas). The RT has only one focus point, and I thought it was using an averaged flash metering scheme using its five (?) segments, and not the three section pattern that Maureen shows. Maureen, is this right? Or does it use the middle section?