Canon Speedlite 199a starts charging but never gets there

[dani_atao]

When I turn my Canon Speedlite 199a on, the rising squeal starts.  But it never gets all the way to the normal high pitched level, and the flash never gets ready.  Could this be a matter of a working inverter circuit, but a failed capacitor unable to store power?

[ben_hutcherson]

Are your batteries good? When in doubt try a fresh set of name brand alkaline batteries-they're not necessarily the best tool for actual flash use(rechargeables recycle faster, and unattended alkalines have a tendency to destroy flashes) but on AA-powered flashes are the gold standard for checking operation. I have no particular brand loyalty, other than the fact that Sam's Club seems to consistently have good prices on Energizer 40 count packs. Freshly charged NiMH can work great also, but I don't recall if the 199A was ever intended to use with NiCds. NiCd and NiMH are electrically similar enough  in this sort of application that they can be used interchageably, and their lower internal resistance makes for faster recycles(NiCd is actually better than NiMH in this regard, but NiCds can be a bit more temperamental in some respects and also tend to have about half the capacity of an NiMH of comparable quality that I pretty much only use NiCd in a few isolated cases with integrated chargers that are designed around Ni-Cds...and that's too much rambling on the subject). The "danger"(not really a danger, but potential source of trouble) with some older flashes is that 4x Nickel-based rechargeable have a nominal voltage of 4.8V for 4 cells, where Alkaline(and "standard" carbon zinc) will be a nominal 1.5v/cell or 6V for 4 cells. Some flashes can't handle this lower voltage.

Have you cleaned the contacts in the battery chamber?

Also, are you sure that there's not been a past battery leak with corrosion hiding somewhere inside the flash?

It's been a long time since I've even touched my 199A-I have fond memories of it as I bought mine when I was in college on Ebay and it was the first purchase I'd made on my own personal Ebay accont(as opposed to using my dad's) and even paid for it with a money order since I didn't have Paypal set-up at the time. That's enough reminisicing, but I didn't use it for super long before I found the 299T which still lives with my FD kit and actually even saw occasional use with my Digital Rebel when I still had it.

With that said, lately I've been playing-well-a lot with Metz flashes including the 45 and 60 series units that were made from the late 70s on up into the 2010s(for at least one model). I've done some kind of nutty and stupid stuff with them-that amazing has worked-like actually succesfully bringing back to life 6V "Dry Fit"lead acid gel cells that were completely dead(don't try this at home-I'm a chemist who pretends to know what I'm doing).

What I can say from playing with and using all of these is that first of all, if the battery can't output what the flash needs, it's will charge(you will hear the whir/hum from the inverters) but won't ever actually get the capacitor full charged. Capacitors don't have an infinite life, and most all 40 year old flashes(which is what the 199A would be now, if not a little older) will have some leakage. If your batteries are marginal, or the batteries themselves are fine but the electrical contacts are pitted/corroded and not making good enough contact, the leakage from the capacitor may be higher than the flash can pull power out of the batteries to make up for.

Last, and I promise final-thing. I mentioned leakage from the flash capacitors. My experience is that most are actually pretty robust and even though they may not be where they were new, most will continue to function just fine even if they haven't been used in years. There is a small caveat to this, though. Metz, in their manuals(and I know we're talking Canon here and not Metz, but Metz knew a thing or two about flashes), advises that a flash not in active use should be switched on for 10 minutes every 3 months or so to reform the capacitors.

Ancedotally, lately I've been buying up what some would say is a ludicrous amount of 60 CT series flashes, along with a lesser number of 45s. Say what you will, but often I buy them to get accessories and other odds and ends lotted with them. When I say "slightly ludicrous" just this morning I crammed 8 60 CT-1 and CT-2 flash heads(they are very similar) into a box to go on the shelf and be further sorted/tested/cleaned up/etc along with 3 60 CT-4. The 60 series flash heads do not actually contain a capacitor, but rather have a separate "power pack" that contains the battery, charging circuit for the battery(from a wall plug) and the flash capacitor. These big affairs(about the size of an A5 notebook, but 4 inches thick and in use mean to be work over your shoulder or on your belt) connect to the flash head via a heavy 3 wire cord that carries the high voltage from the capacitor to the flash head(which contains the "brains" of firing the flash). When I test a power pack, I put a fresh, fully charged(charged and confirmed on a bench PSU, not with the internal charger) in it, switch it on, and connect a known good flash head. It can take anywhere from 15 seconds to 2 minutes to get that initial ready light. After the first full power flash, the next recharge will usually take 10 seconds or so. After a few flashes I will usually let it sit powered on for a few minutes(or fun thing I just learned today-it seems that the earliest power packs-the ones with the gray on-off switch-don't have a bleed off resistor for the capcitor when switched off like later ones, or maybe the one I was using was defective...). After I go through all of this, a full recycle wlll take 5-7 seconds, which is in-line with what I get with my newest pack fitted with a battery I bought new in 2018(back when Metz still existed and you could get stuff like this).

So, a TL/DR on my most-

1. Clean your contacts and clean them well. When in doubt use a pencil eraser, as it's just abrasive enough to do the job without removing the nickel plating present to prevent corrosion(I've been known to get more aggressive, but if it's something worth saving I am also able to restore contacts to nearly good as new...). The pencil eraser on the cotacts isn't a bad practice for maintenance of any flash of any age. I do it when I get a new to me used flash like the Nikon SB-900 I bought a few years ago.

2. Fit 4 fresh Duracell or Energizer AA alkaline cells

3. Switch the flash on and see if it goes to ready. If it does go there, set it to manual and full power(don't remember if the 199A lets you dial back power) and flash it. It WILL be bright-the 199A IIRC is a full "professional" flash which should have a rated(probably optimistic) guide number of 110-130ft or 35-40m. Incidentally flash technology hasn't progressed too far and this is similar to what a current Nikon SB-5000 offers at the same flash zoom seeting.

4. Whether or not it gets there, leave it turned on for 10 minutes+

Last thing-I promise-

It's pretty rare, but I have seen the neon ready lamp go bad. I only actually remember seeing this once(on an ancient Metz unit from probably the 50s or 60s) but it can happen. It's worth trying the test button after a minute or so to see if that's the case. Of course this wouldn't apply to something newer that uses an LED ready, but I'm 99% sure I remember the 199A using a conventional neon, which normally will glow pinkish-orange.

[dani_atao]

Wow, thanks for all that insight.  i will start by cleaning the batery contacts and go from there.  Incidentally, the little batteries are known good; I pulled the battery carrier out of another 199a which is working fine.

[rodeo_joe1]

On 9/16/2023 at 1:56 AM, dani_atao said:

When I turn my Canon Speedlite 199a on, the rising squeal starts.  But it never gets all the way to the normal high pitched level, and the flash never gets ready.

A classic symptom of a leaky storage capacitor. Maybe it can be re-formed with lengthy charging, maybe not.

Quite frankly, that old and underpowered 199a isn't really worth the trouble trying to revive. There are much better used Canon film-era dedicated flashes to be had for not much money. 

I see the 199a being offered on *Bay for 20 or 30 quid - and that's more than I'd personally pay for a 'remainder-bin' flash like that with a stated GN of 98 in feet - yeah right! That's (optimistically) <20 in meters @ 100 ISO in real life use. I also see Canon 540EZ flashes (1 stop more powerful) being offered for around the same price. While other brands of flash offer manual control and a wide range of auto-aperture control without being attached to a Canon camera.

What I'm suggesting is basically to save your time, frustration, wasted film or missed exposures and buy something a bit newer, more powerful and that's infinitely more convenient and useable. It'll need feeding with batteries less frequently, recycle a lot faster and almost certainly offer a wider range of convenient features.

And it doesn't have to cost much more either. 

Edited October 10, 2023 by rodeo_joe1

[ben_hutcherson]

1 minute ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

A classic symptom of a leaky storage capacitor. Maybe it can be re-formed with lengthy charging, maybe not.

Quite frankly, that old and underpowered 199a isn't really worth the trouble trying to revive. There are much better used Canon film-era dedicated flashes to be had for not much money. 

I see the 199a being offered on *Bay for 20 or 30 quid - and that's more than I'd personally pay for a 'remainder-bin' flash like that with a stated GN of 98 in feet - yeah right! That's (optimistically) <20 in meters in real life use. I also see Canon 540EZ flashes (1 stop more powerful) being offered for around the same price. While other brands of flash offer manual control and a wide range of auto-aperture control without being attached to a Canon camera.

What I'm suggesting is basically to save your time, frustration, wasted film or missed exposures and buy something a bit newer, more powerful and that's infinitely more convenient and useable. It'll need feeding with batteries less frequently, recycle a lot faster and almost certainly offer a wider range of convenient features.

And it doesn't have to cost much more either. 

To add onto that...

If one wants an era-appropriate flash, the 299T IMO is the jewel of the era.

It functions more or less like the 199A with auto-aperture coupling(it's still an automatic flash-you can't get TTL since the A-1 can't support it) but the head has both tilt and swivel as well as(manual) zoom.

For real use, I've basically retired everything that doesn't have a swivel head. In many cases, especially with a high ceiling or one that's not particularly reflective, only being able to point the flash straight up to bounce off the ceiling just doesn't cut it. That's particularly true with a less powerful flash. With a swivel head, you can take advantage of a wall as a bounce surface, or even in a more normal sized room I find that bouncing off both the wall and the ceiling behind me(say flash turned around and angled 45º) can give me a more "natural" look than a 90º bounce.  I know you know all of this, Joe(or may have an opinion contrary to mine-just stating what works for me and also taking a lot of photos in casual situations where I can play with this, and on digital where I can see results in real-time) but I think it's worth repeating. Even though zoom heads are often used to inflate GNs, I've found them moderately useful in situations where I might be on the edge of the flash's power in a bounce situation. If there's enough distance between me and the bounced surface(wall, ceiling, or both) even if the head is zoomed it will still diffuse enough to cover the area. I still think that I get the best light quality if I have the zoom set as diffuse as possible-the flashes I use regularly either have wide-angle diffusers built in or I have add-on ones for them-but if it's the difference between properly exposed or getting a little better light quality, I'll choose the former.

[rodeo_joe1]

19 minutes ago, ben_hutcherson said:

To add onto that...

Also... 

I totally agree that a "zoom" head makes a big difference when bouncing. The wider the better as far as quality of lighting goes - that's if softness and lack of hot spot reflections is the aim. 

So anything without a zoom reflector is quite limiting. 

26 minutes ago, ben_hutcherson said:

If one wants an era-appropriate flash

But, but, why would you? 

Things move on and (debatably) improve. That's why we no longer have to poison ourselves with chloroform or mercury fumes to get a photographic image. Or risk setting fire to things by burning magnesium powder for a flash exposure. 

[ben_hutcherson]

7 hours ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

But, but, why would you? 

Things move on and (debatably) improve. That's why we no longer have to poison ourselves with chloroform or mercury fumes to get a photographic image. Or risk setting fire to things by burning magnesium powder for a flash exposure. 

I genuinely don't know this, as it's been a few years since I sold the only modern-ish Canon flash I had. I think I had a 580EX or something like that. I recall it not being the current model when I bought it(2014ish?) but it did give full E-TTL, etc, on the Digital Rebel I then had.

I know it also worked fine with TTL on my T90, although didn't do rear curtain sync.

I never actually remember trying it on my A-1 or any of my other FD cameras. One of the nice things you do get with the "A" and "T" series dedicated Canon flashes(300TL aside) is coupled aperture auto flash. As I think you've said here, and I've seen myself, auto flash(or Auto Thyristor as I got use to calling it since the first flash I owned was a Vivitar 283) in general works great as long as you're aware of its limitations. Coupled auto just is one less chance for a mistake if you're using different apertures, so I like it.

I'm also not sure if or when Canon stopped putting auto flash into their flashes. The 300TL I don't think has it at all, but then it was also made to show off the T90 flash capabilities. I honestly don't remember if the flash I had did auto or not. I know Nikon kept up to the SB600/SB800 but cut it on the next generation of flashes.

For my use and money, for an old film camera I'm rather fond of the Metz 36CT3 for a shoe mount flash. It's right in that 36m/120ft GN range(at the "normal" zoom setting, 98 wide, 148 tele) sweet spot of a lot of shoe mount flashes, and gives both tilt and swivel. One of my real likes of it is that since it's an SCA 300 system flash, I can use an SCA 343 for TTL-compatible MF Nikons, an SCA 310 for auto-aperture coupling(and flash ready) on A and T series Canons, and an SCA 311, which I have but haven't tested, should give me full TTL on a T90. Back when I still had my Bronica SQ-A, I use to use it in the hot shoe on the winder grip with just the plain shoe. I happened in to the 36CT3 probably 15 years ago at a flea market. It was on a mid-range Minolta SLR and I paid $40 for everything, then turned around and sold the camera on Ebay for $80 a week later.

Joe, I know from past comments you're not a big fan of the handle mount Metz flashes, but the 45 series in particular do still have a place for me. If I have to use direct flash(of course avoided at all cost) the off-axis handle mount is less evil than in the hotshoe and a lot less bulky than something like a Stroboframe. A 45 CL4 Digital has been stuck on my D850 the couple of weeks and has done a lot of good work for me, although unfortunately that particular one ditches SCA300 compatibility(unless there's a trick I'm missing to fitting an SCA 300 shoe to it) but also packs a lot into it and is otherwise compatible with most of the other 45-series goodies like light modifiers going back to the 70s.

[BeBu Lamar]

I have 2 of them 199A. They work OK except that they don't reliably set the aperture on the AE-1 or A-1.