Canon Flash vs Nikon Flash issue!

[elliot1]

<p>I use both Canon and Nikon. I typically also preferred my Nikon when shooting flash, especially when I used my 5D which I found gave me very poor flash results. I now find using the 5D Mark II that I am getting exceptional results when using it with 530EXII. IMO, the flash results are every bit as good and in some cases better with the Canon setup than my Nikon. Nikon's wireless CLS system is far superior to Canon's at this point in time.</p>

<p>Getting back to your original question... A friend of mine has a D90 and amazed me with some of his shots of large halls he shot using his SB-400 flash (Nikon's smallest, lowest power flash in their current lineup). In evaluating his images and looking at his camera's settings, I believe that certain settings in the camera, specifically but not limited to Nikon's 'D-Lighting' is why the flash exposures appear to be so well balanced. Using software like Photoshop, DXO, etc., you can get the same results.</p>

<p> </p>

[picturesque]

<p>OK, this is a topic for another discussion perhaps, but I still can't believe a flash metering system can circumvent the inverse square law. I don't see evidence of that in the sample shown. The heads in front are blown out. I do see that the subjects are correctly exposed. I do see that subject distance has helped even out apparent light fall off (this is nothing special to Nikon) and I do see that the Stofen type diffuser has had some effect, probably from the white walls of the church (again, nothing special to Nikon). I know that without upping the compensation, ETTL evaluative would have underexposed, not only from 'seeing' the heads in front, but because of the white wall. ETTL averaging less so. So far, the only thing I see different is that ETTL would have underexposed, and i-TTL got the subject exposure correct without comp. I do not see any circumventing of the inverse square law.</p>

<p>I know nothing about D-Light. What I just read is that it alters the contrast in a scene and there are a few downsides, such as increased noise. How does that work with flash?</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Ciprian -<em>What do you mean by "activating AF simultaneously with the shutter release"?</em></p>

<p>On my camera I use a custom function so that AF is activated with the rear button, not the shutter button. If I AF, release the AF button, then fire a shot, the camera does not bias exposure to the AF point that was used for focusing. If I hold down the AF button and fire, it does. Playing with the flash attached I can see a large difference in exposure depending on whether or not I'm holding the AF button. Canon's flash metering is too biased to the selected AF point IMHO, especially in E-TTL I.</p>

<p><em>what I meant by "doing different settings" was that yes, if you change settings around you will get same results as the Nikon flash only that the shutter speed on Canon is say 1/30 instead of 1/100 on a Nikon. I know that looking at things from a complete realistic and methodical view it's impossible for a Nikon flash to get more ambient light in and yet IT DOES! How? No clue!</em></p>

<p>Ambient light is existing light in the scene that has nothing to do with the flash. It's light that would be recorded if you took the flash off and put it in your bag. The flash brand or model cannot "get" more of it.</p>

<p>You're saying different things in different posts and therefore it's impossible to nail down what was going wrong. At this point I would guess multiple things. If there were shots with identical settings, identical foreground flash exposure, and background ambient exposure which seemed to be different, the only answer is in camera processing. There's nothing wrong with that answer. I've read high praise for D-Lighting. But it's nothing that couldn't be done in post, even with thousands of images in an automated fashion. (I have no idea if Canon's Lighting Optimizer works as well or not. It would be worth trying.)</p>

<p>If the background was also lit primarily by the flash, and this light from the flash looks better in your friend's shot, it's not because Nikon learned how to break the laws of physics. It's also most likely due to in camera processing, or possibly due to a flash attachment. (I'm assuming you weren't overlooking flash head position.)</p>

<p>There's not much else to say without sample photos.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Nadine - <em>OK, this is a topic for another discussion perhaps, but I still can't believe a flash metering system can circumvent the inverse square law.</em></p>

<p>Of course not. It's a law of physics.</p>

<p><em>I know nothing about D-Light. What I just read is that it alters the contrast in a scene and there are a few downsides, such as increased noise. How does that work with flash?</em></p>

<p>It would brighten the shadow detail (i.e. the background which received less light due to fall off) to achieve better balance with the rest of the photo. You can do the same thing with various PS tools, such as the "Shadows/Highlights" command. One version of PS Elements had a similar command literally named "Fill Flash". (It might still be there in the latest.) This would increase noise because you're making everything in the shadows brighter, including noise.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Here is a sample of Auto Lighting Optimizer at work with the 5D mkII: http://thefire.us/archives/292</p>

<p>It's going to do something similar with a background which is dark due to flash light fall off. It's what D-Lighting would do.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>OK Daniel, understood. Now, what camera are you using? I'm going to try your experiment with the AF button on my camera, but since I use ETTL averaging, I kind of doubt anything is going to happen. That is one of the tricks I used to use with ETTL, the original.</p>

[dave_holland]

<p>There seems to be a surprising lack of understanding of the inverse square law by some participants of this forum. If his background is better, then it's very unlikely to be a difference in flash output. It could certainly be technique, such as bouncing light against a white ceiling or using a flash diffuser. But that's a difference between photographers, or between sensors, or a difference in high ISO capability of the sensor. That's not flash output.<br>

To make your point that one system is better, you need to balance the most critical variable in photo quality -- the brain two inches behind the eyepiece.<br>

As a Canon shooter, I envy the ability to do second curtain sync on a remote, and some subtle qualities of the Nikon trigger system. But I'm not sold by the above unfair comparison.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

[dogbert]

<p>My freind has a D80 and I have seen some flash shots from him that amazed me and would simply be impossible on my drebel - dark guy in dark shirt sitting back, fair girl forward yet both perfectly exposed.<br>

I think Nikons flash system also has different diffusion modes - portrait throws mre light to the center, group throws light out evenly and I think they have one other mode. Maybe this accounts for soem of Nikon's flash superiority.<br>

I have never thought the canon system very good and I look at photos I shot 20 years ago with a Sunpak autothyristor and suspect that all this ETTL and ETTL11 nonsense while very technically advanced has just taken things backwards.</p>

[ciprian]

<p>I will try to get a friend ( Nikon shooter)to shoot with me soon and I will post the results.<br>

Daniel,<br>

I also use the back AF for focusing so i'll pay attention to what you mentioned about it. <br>

Thank you guys.<br>

Ciprian.</p>

 

[dansutton]

<p>"I think Nikons flash system also has different diffusion modes - portrait throws mre light to the center, group throws light out evenly and I think they have one other mode. Maybe this accounts for soem of Nikon's flash superiority."</p>

<p>i'm a nikon shooter, and there is nothing like what you are describing. the sb900 has different dispersion patterns from center/standard/full but this is a custom engaged function and not updated by the metering or whatnot. i've switched to pocketwizards and a vivitar along with my sb900 as 500 ponies a flash is too much. going manual is what i'm liking.<br>

this is plain and simple the other shooter knowing more how to balance and control his light. i'm sure you're all aware that flash technique is so far more important than just simply metering and blasting. if there was more "ambient light" at the same ISO, shutter and aperture, that must mean s/he bounced his/her flash to get more light thrown around and appear ambient. don't switch to nikon just for flash, read strobist or zach arias' one light dvd. it'll be far cheaper and more rewarding. </p>

<p>but i guess my main point is that if the other shooter can't drag the shutter to get more light (against the rules of the contest), then you are not actually seeing "ambient" light at all- that's good flash technique--bounce. but i wasn't there so i certainly don't know. about active d-lighting, i don't use it and but it certainly won't give you results like what you are describing; if i understand, you are saying your background was a few stops underexposed: d-lighting will not give you this back. </p>

<p>and yes, you can get a general idea about exposure from LCD screens, you don't need a calibrated NEC to see differences. i agree that LCD's make underexposed shots look better than they should, but you can tell global contrasts like background way lower relative to foreground on an LCD. The calibrated monitor test fails.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>"active d-lighting, i.... won't give you results like what you are describing"</p>

<p>Either D-Lighting or something else in the camera's settings or a combination of in-camera settings do give the exact results the OP is describing. The good news is that this appearance can be reproduced well via software during post and perhaps in-camera with some setting adjustments.</p>

<p>The bottom line is that there is no 'magic' to Nikon's results, just clever and effective and image processing. Nikons SB flashes are equivalent to Canon's EX flashes - both offer a single light source. Whatever the Nikon can produce via flash can be reproduced with Canon all things being equal.</p>

[j.art.photo.]

<p>I dont understand why for some people is so hard to understand that the whole Nikon lighting system is just far superior period.<br>

I shoot both Nikon and Canon and for me this is just a matter of choosing what I need, where I need, when I need, so if heavy use of flash is needed then Nikon will be the obvious choice for the easy of use and reliability on the exposure, not to mention you can use multiple units as slaves without the need of a pocket wizzard,,, but then again this posting will become a war of the brands, cause ppl who only use Canon will feel insulted.<br>

The Nikon lighting system is just good out of the box, easy to use and reliable, I dont say Canon can not replicate the results on the hands of a very experienced person but sometimes that takes precious time away from a shot...</p>

[torben.palm]

<p>I understand, that with Nikons more advanced cameras (e.g. D3/D700) and flashes (e.g. SB900/800), several systems work together to ensure good flash exposure. The iTTL-system fires pre-flashes and the result is measured by a separate 1005 pixel RGB sensor. The information is then evaluated by the 3D Color Matrix system, which tries to recognize the motive type by matching with a build-in motive database (containing information like brightness, contrast, chosen AF-points, colors, distance to motive, bounce setting etc.) and then tries to expose best possible. The iTTL-BL tries to balance the flash, with ambient light. These systems also support multiple flashes – either by sync cable or wireless. The iTTL-system works well in practice, but is not flawless. Then again - what is?</p>

[heimbrandt]

<p>Same ol', same ol'? Atually this seems to be quite an sensible thread for beeing on such a sensitive topic.<br>

I am also one of those that have used both systems (film based). I used the Canon EOS 5 (A2E + 420 EZ flash) for several years and liked it a lot. It had all the bells and whistles I thought I could ever need. Boy was I in for a surprise when I later discovered that I ended up taking better shots with the Pentax 67 using a separate Minolta meeter. And that with a camera that only had shutter and aperture dials... My, my, it is not the camera then, but the photographer. The lack of features on the Pentax made me think more before snapping away. I later went back to 35 mm, this time with a used Nikon F90 (+SB-25 flash) and loved it so much I stayed with Nikon when I moved to digital. My point is that both systems are equally capable. However, for certain situations one might be easier to get perfect results from than the other. And perfect here is in the eye of the beholder. If one really was that much better the other would dissappear, but they are both still around. Any difference observed between two systems under identical conditions might also reflect the manufacturers ideas of what makes a good photograph, right?<br>

A good photographer learns the tools he/she uses and learns how to master it for any given situation. This includes using compensatory tools every now and then. The secret of the trade is knowing when to do what and how. So what if our Canon friend here has to open up an f/stop or use a longer shutter speed than his Nikon using friend? Does is really matter to their clients? Surely not. Many people say Nikons overexpose, well if it does overexpose dial in some exposure compensation then? Nowadays, photopgraphy is a hobby of mine and yes, I am amazed by some of the "toys", but they are merely tools for creating images.<br>

One a sidenote (related to the ever so infested Canon vs. Nikon flame war), a large Swedish consumer guide-type of magazine tested about a dozen DSLRs. The Nikon D90 gave the worst images of the lot right out of the box. Haha said the Swedish Canon users. While the Nikon camp questioned using only out-of-the-box-settings the Canon fans said this was a reliable test, especially since Canon came 1st, 2nd and 4th. This showed everyone that Canons are the way to go. The Canon fans overlooked the fact that the Canon that came in first was the cheapest Canon, the one in second place the second cheapest and the one in fourth place the most expensive of the three. They where so enthusiastic over the "proof" of Nikon's "lousy camera" they gladly overlooked the other equally obvious conclusion from that test; the more you pay for a Canon, the worse camera you get for your money...<br>

Cipric, why not have a look at the EXIF data since so many people question your claim on using identical settings? Does it really matter if what you say is true? I think not.<br>

What matters is learning to get the most out of your gear, no matter what name might be inprinted on the pentaprism...</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>"Whatever the Nikon can produce via flash can be reproduced with Canon all things being equal." - problem with this statement is that all things cannot be equal. Both systems use different algorithms, metering, balancing and knowledge base refrenced to achieve final effect</p>

<p>"why not have a look at the EXIF data since so many people question your claim on using identical settings?" - EXIF data cannot provide a clue what flash determination was used, how flashes arrived with different settings, what influenced final outcome, etc. EXIF just cannot contain, and is not ready yet for this amount of information, that is not provided to recorded image file by the CLS processor.</p>

<p>" The iTTL-BL tries to balance the flash, with ambient light. These systems also support multiple flashes – either by sync cable or wireless." - CLS multiflash system is totally wireless. It cannot accept cables to sync other remote flashes.</p>

<p> </p>

[qtao]

<p>shouldn't use a hand-hold meter to get the ambient light measurement first? this way, both camera eliminate the measurement difference.<br>

if a half frame camera obtain a f 4.0, 1/100, how can you use it on a full frame camera?</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>I've heard good things about the Nikon flash system. I've heard that it's easier to use than Canon's.</p>

<p>That said, once I learned how to use Canon flashes, I've been very happy with what I can do with them.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[Brad_]

Two words: Commander mode.

 

Pretty soon that will probably be enough to get me to change brands...

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Nadine - all my bodies / flashes are currently ETTL I. I'm curious to see if you find any differences with ETTL II depending on AF point.</p>

[john_bolton2]

<p>So where's the bad Canon shot that is shooting the same scene as the great Nikon shot? All my bodies and flashes are ETTL II, and I have no problems with flash.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Daniel--I did a test using my 5D and 580EX (both the original, not II). I used a black desk clock (centered) sitting on a dark wood surface with a light yellow wall right behind. First, I would expect, using ETTL averaging, that I'd need to up the compensation by 1 1/3 stops, due to the light colored wall. I used 1/200, f4, ISO 400, zero comp on the flash.</p>

<p>I used ETTL averaging first, using the * button to focus. Taking my finger completely off the button, I took a shot. It was underexposed as expected. It took, actually 1 2/3 stop or 2 stops comp to get the histogram to where I wanted it.</p>

<p>Then, I set the focus to the shutter button, used the center focus point (dead center on the black clock), and shot again. Then I set the focus point to one of the outer ones on the light colored wall and shot again. All of the exposures and histograms were basically the same. Slight variations (less than 1/3 stop) were probably from framing--I didn't use a tripod to lock the camera down.</p>

<p>Then I did the whole thing again using ETTL evaluative, and results were almost exactly the same. What do you think?</p>

<p>Jose--I don't have a hard time understanding why Nikon's flash system is superior (I wouldn't say 'far' superior). I think anything is better than ETTL evaluative when using flash as primary. The question, "Why?" is interesting though. Reading Torben's description, I think maybe the database or distance info makes a big difference. Didn't Nikon patent their distance using flash metering system? And didn't Canon have a hard time incorporating the distance method into their system?</p>

<p>In any case, to me, it doesn't matter if iTTL is 'better'. Maybe, if flash primary shooting is highly important, one should use Nikon. Use the tools that make your job easier. Or if you want a flash system that you can 'set and forget', use Nikon. Its just the urban legend aspect of Nikon flash that is amusing. Such as circumventing the inverse square law. It seems to me the only thing I can figure out is the difference between ETTL and iTTL is that iTTL gets the subject exposure correct more often and ETTL underexposes. There is no way that iTTL can be selectively determing that this part of the scene needs more light and that part, less light...especially if it goes against the law of physics.</p>

<p>I agree completely with Neil Van Niekirk, who wrote the following piece. Use and test the camera and flash that you have, learn to work it and work with it, and be happy.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.planetneil.com/tangents/2009/03/25/ttl-flash-canon-and-nikon/">http://www.planetneil.com/tangents/2009/03/25/ttl-flash-canon-and-nikon/</a></p>

[picturesque]

<p>Also, any definitive conclusions about the differences between the two systems should only be made after testing identical subjects and conditions, as Neil did. And defining the goals first. I'd say, and Neil's test kinda supports this--that ETTL is 'easier/better' to use for fill flash than iTTL.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Frank ... "all things cannot be equal"</p>

<p>I am referring to shooting RAW, and using the same ISO, aperture and shutter speed. Flash output would be more difficult to control as you cannot use the same flash on both cameras but I believe through simple adjustments you can get the two flashes to be balanced so the output is equivalent. While examining Nikon's RAWi mages in NX and Canon's RAW image in DPP will have camera settings affect the images, opening the files in a setting neutral program like Photoshop will give unbiased results.</p>

<p>Although the testing method is flawed (IMO), if you look at the backgrounds of the images in the link Nadine gives, you will notice little or no difference in illumination between the two cameras. This is to be expected WITHOUT taking in-camera 'D-Lighting' or equivalent features into account.</p>

[heimbrandt]

<p>Frank, EXIC data will give us ISO, shutter speed, aperture and camera mode, RAW/JPEG settings - settings previous posters doubted where identical in Cipric's comparison.</p>

[ruben leal]

<p>I believe reliability is what a photographer expects from a camera system.<br>

A hand held exposimeter will always read the incident light in the same way, and reflected light in the same way, so this gives the photographer the expected reliability.<br>

If I use a handheld exposimeter to measure reflected light from a white surface, I need to compensate before entering the exposure value into the camera. Same thing if I meter from a black surface.<br>

The exposimeter within the camera is a reflective exposimeter, and I expect it to behave just like that, and that's they way the exposimeter in my cameras behave (with some minor changes when the exposure pattern is changed).<br>

A couple years ago I did a quick test with my 20D + 580EX to compare the ETTL-II to the equivalent Nikon Flash Exposure algorithm, but never found a Nikonian to complete the test. This test basically demonstrates that the ETTL-II needs the same compensation needed when measuring with a reflective handheld exposimeter. Perhaps the Nikon's RGB system will find the difference between white, gray and black, and neglect the need of manual compensation, Is that the case? I really would like to know that. Perhaps my test didn't include more elaborated scenarios, like a white target over a black background, or focus point bias, or several targets at different distances, but I will add those if a Nikon user wants to perform the same set of controlled tests to compare the systems.<br>

Real life experience would be much better, but difficult to measure. If the photographer in the only photo in this thread would aim higher, to avoid the heads in the foreground, the exposure could be quite different, so that test doesn't helps to me. If, in the same photo, a Canon flash had a Stofen, we don't know if the Nikon diffusor could make the difference, so this is how we end taking pictures of brick walls, just to have a measurable comparison.<br>

Is a Nikonian interested in the test? Could we open a new thread to let fellow photonetters decide the test rules?<br>

My old test is in Spanish (<a href="http://www.rubenleal.com/ETTL/">http://www.rubenleal.com/ETTL/</a>), but here's an auto translation from Google (I need to translate it to make sure we don't have Google translation errors):<br>

<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=y&u=www.rubenleal.com%2FETTL%2F&sl=es&tl=en">http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=y&u=www.rubenleal.com%2FETTL%2F&sl=es&tl=en</a></p>