Canon Flash vs Nikon Flash issue!

[ruben leal]

<p>I also want to add (in a separate message, to avoid mixing it with the test mentioned before), that I believe the Nikon flash can not "<em>circumvent the inverse square law</em>", but it is possible that the OP could find a difference in the final results due to additional in-camera processing, such as the mentioned D-Lighting, which, at the end, may be considered as an integral part of the Nikon Flash System.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Just a bit of a guess...I think the one feature at play here is i-TTL BL (balanced lighting), where the flash will attempt to light fore- and background. I'm not a flash guru, and I have very little experience with Canon flashes, but the effect in what the topic starter described seems to fit the marketing description of iTTL BL perfectly.</p>

<p>Active D-Lightning (ADL) does not make flash work any better, in my experience the opposite. Since the camera is set to underexpose with ADL turned on, the flash also seems to be underpowered when used on auto. I found results with flash (on auto) and ADL activated quite disappointing, but I'm no flash wizard so I might have missed a setting. And to put this difference on the post processing... well, sounds a bit unlikely, a Canon RAW will have around the same latitude as a Nikon RAW.</p>

<p>By the way: one of the reasons why these forums are a nice place to hang around: a Canon versus Nikon discussion without senseless name-calling... you honestly don't find that elsewhere.</p>

[mark_ethridge]

<p>I'll admit I'm far from a professional, but I'm having a hard time following some of the arguments in this thread. How can one camera and flash system really be "better" than another? I will give you that some of the automated systems may do a better job of metering the scene, but in the end metering serves only to decide which settings to use and the final result is <em>this</em> shutter speed, <em>this</em> aperture and <em>this</em> flash output (and possibly <em>this</em> ISO setting). I don't see how one camera can use these three (or four) settings better than another. </p>

<p>Can the Nikon flash output different amounts of light to different areas of the scene? Can the camera amplify or suppress light selectively from different areas of the scene? Discounting drastic differences in sensor quality, one should be able to set either camera up to do whatever you want (within the confines of what's possible). I don't see this as a superior system, I see it as a superior flash photographer. Perhaps Nikon's system lends itself to better results with automatic settings or "out of the box," but I just won't believe that one system will do something that another won't with only four perameters of exposure since both cameras use the same type of shutter, aperture, flash output and ISO settings. It's just a matter of learning your system.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>With respect, I disagree. I know how to control my exposure. I am versed in the shutter, aperture, ISO (and WB!). I would agree that proper exposure is obtained via these controls. However, according to Canon's own literature, their top two bodies have a better metering system then all their other bodies. I never had the pleasure of shooting with one of Canon's top two bodies. I have however, shot with a Nikon D90 and a Nikon D300. The D300 essentially uses Nikon's best AF/metering whereas the D90 uses what I guess we will call their 2nd best system (and their cheaper bodies use a different system). I can say that there is a difference. The D300 will meter more accurately than the D90. I can only assume that Canon's top two bodies will meter more accurately than their other bodies. Therefore the D300 is more consistent than the D90. And when using your flash in Nikon's iTTL or Canon's eTTL, this initial metering is critical, in event shooting you often don't get a 2nd shot. Perhaps it is a simple as Nikon utilizing a their in camera database to determine the exact power at which to fire the flash, I don't know. And honestly don't care. I do know that my flash exposures are far more consistent than anything I got using eTTL. Could I achieve what I wanted with eTTL, sure. It just took more of an effort- where flash photography was concerned. If we assume a scene has a perfect exposure, the question becomes, which system will get you closest to that perfect exposure faster? Not that each can't create a perfect exposure.</p>

<p>I want to add that I really wish I could afford to shoot both systems. I really miss my 24-105 at times. I really miss the availability of wide, fast primes. I really liked having more affordable lenses. It seemed to me that the AF on the Canon cameras was faster (though ultimately not as accurate- but again I wish I has shot with a D series.). It's a matter of choice. </p>

[mark_ethridge]

<p>I guess I don't agree with you on the definition of "better." As I noted, the Nikon system may be "better" faster or easier, but the OP was suggesting that the Nikon system would do something the Canon would not. To that I say, no way. In the end, it all comes down to aperture, shutter speed, flash output and ISO. I don't consider white balance a part of it because when shooting RAW, it is a factor for post processing and not exposure. And even if you're shooting JPEG, if your flash is the primary light source (particularly in a dark setting with little other influencing light) then white balance should be straightforward.</p>

<p>The OP was suggesting that the Nikon flash was doing a better job of lighting the main subjects and the background, all while correctly exposing all parts of the frame. Like I said before, perhaps the Nikon camera metered it better, but in the end it exposed the scene using the same four aspects of exposure that the Canon did. </p>

[chrisjb]

<p>I use the ettl system and have very little probs, its not fool proof and does require imput to work it, I still use the FEL dance which started back with the T90 as I still don`t trust full auto and prefer control. the same settings and distance to subject requires the same intensity of light for correct exposure with a foreground subject regardless of equipment used as I see it. Fall off would be the same if the angle of the flash head reflectors equal. One thing that gets overlooked often when bouncing canon flashes is they default to 50mm and to spead the light further has to be manually zoomed, so I wonder if the Nikon still zooms in the bounced position? as this would account for a larger light source, and did the OP use the flash with wider adjustment. As for the straight on shots to me I only see possible `in camera` inhancement. But the amount of difference needs to be seen in the same computer and software or printed. My most used tool for us since CS3 has been `shadow & highlight` as nearly all our work is flash in many different venues. I often think of getting a Nikon just to try as I sold them alongside most brands years ago (film) and never liked but recent times have seen vast improvement, a freind another pro raves how his D3x +12 ~24 + latest flash gives amazing results used like a P&S, Too easy. I`ve also wondered, does the Nikon metering system see white as 18% grey like Canon does? ;)</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>So where are the comparison shots with EXIF data that would actually prove something? It's just a bunch of random opinions and hearsay without anything to show that one is better than the other. This "conversation" has no basis in demonstrated fact.<br>

<br /> FWIW, I have shot with on-camera flash, dedicated flash, non-dedicated flash on and off camera, and studio flash. Nothing, I repeat nothing, changes the inverse square law. The character of the light is far more similar between any two standard on-camera strobes than between a bare bulb and a standard flash. The light quality is what matters - control of exposure may be slightly easier or harder with one system, but it can always be controlled, and it won't be different once the controls are in place. People go nuts when they see photos I take with the Sunpak 120J, it's just got a different character (and round catchlights), especially with the Norman diffused head I usually put on it, but that's all about the quality of the light. And it's fully manual and still gives fine light.<br>

<br /> The rework of the rather poor photograph above only proves how silly this is. This is what someone "thinks" it would result in? How valid is that? <br>

<br /> It's not that difficult to put two equivalent systems together and work through the settings to understand the differences in the system and what it takes to get identical results. However, it seems far easier to blather on endlessly without anything to bo by.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>I'll be the first to say I don't have all the answers. I do have my experience with both systems. I do process literally tens of thousands of images a year from both Canon and Nikon (and one Fuji user) and I can state that you aren't likely to find ONE image that defines it all. Even if it's a very controlled test image. I can state with certainty that in my experience the Nikon flash system does better. Is it because the Nikon system gauges the distance more effectively <em>based on the metering informatio</em><em>n</em> or knows when and at what angle the flash is being bounced? I don't know. I know the SB900 knows when the diffuser dome is on (does a 580 EXII?). The flash knows if it's on a DX or FX camera and adjusts accordingly (does a 580 EX II?). I know the flash is probably smarter than me and I know in my experience, I get better, more consistent results. Again, it is slightly unfair since I never shot with Canon's better system (by Canon's definition, not mine). Can one flash have a better output than another? Heck yes. I much prefer the output of my Quantums- in large part because of the flash tube and the parabolic reflector I should imagine. But in any case, I whole heartedly believe that different flashes can offer a different level of performance one not based on simply power alone. I just don't like shooting my flashes in manual for run and gun shooting. I will even go back to my criticized image and state I have never seen such even frame coverage from my Canon flash. Maybe the 580 EXI didn't <em>know</em> the difference between FX and DX, and thus the distance ratio was all screwy and thus my frame coverage never quite the same. Again, I don't know! But one has to admit that it's interesting that those of us that have <em>used both</em> systems tend to agree (for the most part) that the Nikon does flash better. As I said, there are things Canon does better and I have no problems saying that. </p>

<p>On another note, I have no idea if the Nikon metering system sees white as 18% grey. I do know that my Canon system (camera & lens) tended to produce a naturally warmer image with a more pleasing skin tone. I find that I use a 1/2 warm card to get a warmer tone from my Nikon's. And I had to re-evaluate how I read the histogram when I made the switch. The Canon seemed to use a 5-f/stop histogram which seemed to work well: I knew if I was 1-f/stop under/over. The Nikon histogram is 4-sections, but the middle is 18% grey and it took a bit to adjust. I can easily be a almost a whole section "under" on the Nikon and still have correct exposure provided that most of by pixels in the scene are to the left of 18% grey. With my Canon, if I was one section under, I was one f/stop underexposed! Not saying one is better than the other- just different. We loaned our D90 to one of our Canon shooters and nearly every image came back 1 f/stop overexposed!</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I know the SB900 knows when the diffuser dome is on (does a 580 EXII?). The flash knows if it's on a DX or FX camera and adjusts accordingly (does a 580 EX II?).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes to both, although it's a diffuser panel and not a dome on the 580.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>those of us that have <em>used both</em> systems tend to agree (for the most part) that the Nikon does flash better.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Until someone can post some controlled examples, that's meaningless. It's called "hearsay" and it really has no value.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>Perhaps, but controlled examples aren't of much more value. At least to me. I want real world results/feedback. If one system tested better but another actually performed better, which would you choose? The one that tested better so that you could point that out, or the one that that in your experience delivered better results even though there wasn't any scientific proof? I believe both hearsay (user feedback) and controlled tests each have their place and one should use what works for them. I wouldn't place too much emphasis on either. Heck, Viagra was a scientific accident and Gary Fong as made a fortune selling better light diffusion! Someone could walk in here tomorrow and show me conclusive testing and charts and white-papers and pictures about how much better the Canon flash system is and I would simply dismiss them because my experience, hearsay as it is, shows me otherwise. Whenever anyone tells me that the proof is measured only in static terms I am reminded of this... paradigm...</p>

<p>40% of all accidents on the road are caused by drunk drivers. Therefore, 60% of all accidents are caused by sober drivers. Conclusion: if we all drove drunk there would be less accidents.</p>

<p>Joking aside, each much evaluate what works for them. I understand the OP's original frustration because it was my frustration. If someone else isn't having this frustration- then it's a non-issue! BTW, the SB900 has a pull out wide angle adapter as well but it also recognizes when the actual dome is attached. It is good to hear that the 580 EX II knows if it's DX or FX. I imagine that contributed a lot to my issues.</p>

[john_bolton2]

<p>How can distance be gauged from metering?</p>

<p>Canon USM lenses return distance information to the body. If the body and flash both support E-TTL II, and a Canon USM lens is attached, then distance information is used in calculating flash power / exposure.</p>

[ruben leal]

<p>John Deerfield: Actually the original 580 EX also knows if it is APS-C (DX) or 35mm (FX). But the only issue with that is the use of a wider or tighter angle of coverage, which will lead to a longer or shorter reach. But once an angle of coverage is set (in the way of a focal lenght), the flash will generate an specific amount of light, and then knowing the camera sensor format is irrelevant. What I mean is, the only problem you could have when using a 580 EX with a APS-C camera (at least a problem related to the sensor format), could be the waste of light all around the area you were trying to illuminate, which could lead to a lack of reach for further subjects, but the system would know that the power wasn't enough by the time the preflash from the ETTL-II was fired.<br>

Anyway this may become quite technical, and the point is, what really matters is the end result for the user. That's why I want to do an objective ETTL-II vs iTTL test. I'm not trying to demonstrate that Canon or Nikon is superior, I just want to understand how both systems work, as I believe ther must be a logic behind the algorithm from each system, and perhaps the Nikon algorithm is more user friendly.<br>

Let's put it this way: If I were to shot using whatever system available, I would test it before hand, and that testing would be in a very controlled environment, in such a way that it should let me take advantage of it's pros, and take care of it's cons when used in a real scenario, but I can't admit that the only way is to take a new camera, and just go out and take photos of, say, a wedding, and hope the system worked fine without intervention, and then learn from the errors, and try to compensate next time. That just isn't my way, I need to test, and test, and then test again, until I have a degree of knowledge of what's going on. And trust me, that testing is quite simple these days, at least compared to when I used to do all that testing on positive film, spending lots of money and time in the process.<br>

John Bolton: Just to clarify, not every USM lens returns the distance, such as the 50mm f/1.4 and the original 85mm f/1.2L (source: <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/#distancedata">http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/#distancedata</a>).<br>

And now that I am talking about <a href="http://photonotes.org">http://photonotes.org</a>, perhaps that kind of article is the problem of the people who trust their work to the Canon ETTL system: We may be way too technical, and we may search and read lots of information, and then try and try and try, until we believe we understand the system. And that's not natural, that's way too complicated, and, I agree, it took me a while to understand ETTL, so maybe we should just gave up before hand, and let Canon know that their system was too complex, but at least I can't do that, I must master whatever I'm on, and that's how I understand ETTL, so maybe Nikon's iTTL is just the way it should be: Shoot and expect for the best. But at the end we have these discussions because, after years mastering a techinque, we can't tell we had a hard time to figure it out at the very begining, maybe because we don't want to, or maybe because we already forgot that obscure time in our past...</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>That's why I want to do an objective ETTL-II vs iTTL test. I'm not trying to demonstrate that Canon or Nikon is superior, I just want to understand how both systems work, as I believe ther must be a logic behind the algorithm from each system, and perhaps the Nikon algorithm is more user friendly.</em></p>

<p>I'm curious about this to. The equipment I have immediate access to (i.e. I can use or borrow at any time) includes my Canon equipment (all E-TTL I) and my neighbor's Nikon equipment (D70, D200, lenses). Unfortunately my friend does not have a Nikon flash, and I don't know if there's any difference between a D200 and the later D300 on flash performance.</p>

<p>With a little effort I could probably borrow a Nikon flash to use with my neighbor's D200. I'm not sure about putting together an E-TTL II setup though, at least not until I upgrade.</p>

<p>Ruben, if you come up with a test that anyone can perform I will put together a D200 plus flash and try the test. I can try ETTL I as well.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Nadine - it sounds like ETTL II is not sensitive to AF point?</p>

<p>When I was testing and figuring out my 420EX I put a dark blue bath towel and a white beach towel next to each other, then got close enough that they filled the frame, each covering 1/2 of the frame. With AF on the shutter release, if I chose an AF point over the white towel I got severe underexposure. Over the black, severe overexposure. With AF not on the shutter release the exposure was pretty close to perfect.</p>

<p>As I continued to play around with other subjects I found that engaging AF while shooting yielded under/over exposed shots. Using AF first, then shooting yielded pretty consistent exposures.</p>

<p>I've shot a few weddings as favors for friends. Naturally I engage AF separate from shooting because of the AF point bias in ETTL I. In my experience exposures are pretty consistent when used this way. I sometimes dial in additional flash output via FEC. I might be tempted to say that Canon's flash program is a bit too conservative with flash output, but then I prefer to 'expose to the right' with the histogram.</p>

<p>There's no getting around the inverse square law, so I have often used Photoshop to lift the background shadow detail relative to the subject who is primarily lit by flash. I'm really curious as to how Canon's lighting optimizer might work here.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Daniel--yes, I think with ETTL II, just as Canon describes, the active focus point is a factor but not a very large factor in the overall determination of flash exposure. Let me add that you might want to go back and see if the degree of under or overexposure between the black and white was equal. In my experience, white produces a larger degree of of underexposure than black produces overexposure. The oversensitivity to white or light values is one of the things that drives me nuts with ETTL. In other words, your test might not be really testing active focus point sensitivity because of the oversensitivity to white, although the latter might be an ETTL II thing. Perhaps using gray and black, rather than white and black, might be better for noticing whether a change in metering occurs.</p>

<p>Based on my recollection of ETTL original, the 'off the * button' response sounds correct--as I heard, this forced the flash metering to revert to averaging. ETTL original, actually, made me buy a Metz 54MZ4-i, which, when combined with the 3102 M1 module, allows me to use auto thyristor in all camera modes.</p>

<p>I am somewhat skeptical of features like D Lighting or Canon's lighting optimizer. I've tried, for instance Highlight Tone Control on my 40D. While on the surface, they work as advertised, there are always some downsides because one is basically 'tricking the system'.</p>

<p>As for Nikon vs. Canon flash metering, I would also be interested in a fair and precise test. I, for one, do think that Nikon's database and distance data evaluation had something to do with the fact that in John Deerfield's submitted image, the subject was correctly exposed. As far as I know, Canon does not use a database, but tries to determine background and foreground by other means. As I said above, this one fact (the subject is correctly exposed) is the only one that I see that supports the statement that Nikon's flash metering is better. The statement that the background is nicely lit (the officiant) and the other wedding party members, has more to do with light fall off at longer distances and the use of a bounce diffuser, both of which would have happened with a Canon flash, given that the exposure on the subject was correct.</p>

[markonestudios]

Perhaps Nikon will agree to make flashes for Canon if they're asked reeeally nicely :)

[michal_fanta]

<p>Is it really that important which brand are we using? I trully do not care, I just need a fully manual mode. BTW. I just made this http://www.redbubble.com/people/michalfanta/t-shirts/3658558-1-does-this-really-matter</p>

[mvw photo]

<p>Not my experience. I shoot both - I am a newspaper shooter etc and I teach photography. Both Canon and Nikon. I am teaching a course "Advanced Flash for Wedding Pros" tomorrow night in Phoenix, AZ. I am a Canon shooter but know Nikon well.</p>

<p>The Nikon SB900 overheats too easily. Other than that systems are the same if you know how they work.E.g.:</p>

<ul>

<li> "Slow flash" is automatic in Av mode in Canon but must be enabled with "Slow" on Nikon.</li>

<li> Canon is more prone to underexposing if there are reflective surfaces</li>

</ul>

<p>Flash is perfect light, once you know how to use it, and "x is better than y" in this instance really is a meme.</p>

<p>On my blog, http://blog.michaelwillems.ca search for (or use keyword) "Flash" and see what Canon flash does when used properly. Nikon would get the same results when used properly.</p>

<p>Michael</p>

 

[mvw photo]

<p>Jeff said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nothing, I repeat nothing, changes the inverse square law.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Hear hear! And also, nothing changes exposure (as in ISO/Aperture/Shutter).</p>

<p> </p>