valo_soul

The minimum output on manual is actually even BRIGHTER than on TTL (oddly). Much brighter actually. It's almost completely washed out on manual setting.

 

I do often use bounce flash but sometimes it's just not an option (especially in the situations I noted). I suppose I shall have to look into a diffuser of some sort for these situation.

 

Also, I am under the impression that the camera will automatically detect proper settings for flash even with a diffuser on it? I won't have to change my settings in any drastic way when using it? So that would be ideal if I am correct in my thinking. At around ISO 100-400 everything will be fine with or without a diffuser and at ISO 800+, the diffuser will bring things down to where they should be?

P.S - I've even tried -3 FEC on the flash units and I get the identical blown-out exposure.

Hi,

 

I've asked a question similar to this before but I just can't accept the idea

that I'm stumbling into a limit of my new speedlight flashes.

 

When shooting at higher ISO speeds, and anything around f/2.8 or larger, I get

HIGHLY over-exposed images when using my 580EXII or 430EX speedlights. It

doesn't matter if the subject is near or far. I've tried Av mode on camera as

well as Manual (as these are what I mainly shoot with anyway). Doesn't matter...

severe blowout images every time.

 

Is this really just a limitation of the flash units? Their minimum output is

simply too high to use at high ISO speeds and large apertures? I need to shoot

receptions/dances etc where I will set the camera to i.e ISO 1600, f/2.0 (to

expose for the dance hall/garden environment/etc), and then use flash as main

for the dancing people (think wedding photojournalism).

 

I just can't understand how my pop-up flash on camera can handle this type of

situation and my multi-hundred dollar external flash cannot.

 

I am including an image which shows 2 shots from my 40D. Identical settings in

every way. The only difference is that one was with the 430EX and the other was

with built-in flash.

 

Someone PLEASE tell me I'm missing something.<div></div>

Just for the record: I ended up getting the iPod Touch 16GB model. The pictures DO look vivid and bright on the device BUT... the pinch zooming serves ABSOLUTELY NO PURPOSE. There is no way to put full-res photos on the ipod. It creates teeny tiny little thumbnail size "preview" type images when it syncs your photos to the device. Zooming in even a tiny bit makes the photo look grainy/pixelated and SUPER soft. So much so that I won't even look at a photo when zoomed in.

 

A huge dissapointment indeed. Apple doesn't say anything about this, anywhere. Also, their tech support is garbage. There is no way to contact the company except by telephone and you only get help with one problem per product while it is under warranty! lol amazing.

Am I missing something? Jimmy Ho is the OP of this thread... and then James Lee seems to have taken over as if he were the OP?

 

I dunno, that just caught my attention.

I can't believe nobody has responded to this yet.

 

If this is true: HOORAY! I almost bought a 1DIII instead of a 40D but couldn't justify the price with my "non-pro" status... and the AF problems solidified that decision.

 

Now I'll be lusting after the MarkIII again :( haha

To Sheldon Nalos:

 

Longer lenses DO NOT have less depth of field. I just had to say it because it bothers me so much when people say that.

 

That caused me a lot of confusion when I was learning the ways of DSLR photography. FF sensors do have less DOF, but not because of the reason you said.

 

See this: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml

The Photozone tests are just that; Photozone's tests. One test for each lens. One sample (usually) against one sample. Except for a few exceptions where he had obvious poor samples. (24-70) If he were to get a bad sample of say, an 85L and an exceptional sample of some non-L zoom lens and the zoom's resolution figures surpassed the prime at equal apertures; that does not mean that the 85L is not a great lens. In fact: he only recently updated the test on the 85L, it originally showed it as being very good but not excellent, especially in the corner frame. It's now displayed as nearly excellent throughout. I believe it was the 85L anyway, or perhaps the 135 f/2. One of them was revised as being better than he had originally claimed, anyway.

 

Most tests are like this, and therefor should be taken lightly. Although they can give a decent indication of what to expect, I wouldn't purchase just on them alone. I've learned this in my purchases.

 

Your 70-200 f/2.8 should be almost indistinguishably close in sharpness at equal apertures to the f/4 version, from what I understand.

Good idea Bob. I'd be interested in hearing your impressions later, and your final choice and outcome. I take interest in this sort of thing. I think I even obsess a little over my gear at this point haha. I had a few troubles earlier this year.

 

And thank you for the comment. I didn't mean to grab for attention there, hope it didn't come across that way :) I was just quite impressed that I could count the individual legs of the the spider in that frame. Quite sharp IMO for shooting wide open. It was at 105mm by the way, just FYI. I think the exif is still intact anyway.

Hmmm.. nobody commented on my post. Perhaps mine is not as sharp as I thought? :P

And now a 100% crop - Yes, that black dot on the lamppost was a spider!<div></div>

Hi Bob,

 

I have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS version (which is supposedly slightly less sharp even than the non IS).

 

Judge for yourself.

 

This is @ f/2.8, standard JPG setting, straight from the camera.<div></div>

Thank you both :)

I've had the opportunity to aquire a second speedlite and was wondering: when

using a master flash to wirelessly control a slave flash, should there be a

delay when testing them with the pilot light button on the master?

 

That is: I press the test firing button on my 580EX II, and it fires, and then

about half a second later, the slave fires. Is this normal?

Hi Jennifer, sorry for the late response. I have actually purchased it from multiple retailers. First two rebel XT's were from Cameta Camera in New York. First one was DOA (and this was my first DSLR experience), second had the big ball of hot pixels.

 

I now purchase my lenses from a fairly large retailer in Ontario.

 

Just random bad luck!

Thank you, all! Sounds like it might be a great tool afterall.

I was considering buying an iPod Touch because of it's innovative little

features for photo/video display. I really like the way it seems to operate in

this manner.

 

I was wondering though; how sharp is the LCD? It says it's a 3.5 inch

widescreen touch display, nothing more. I can't seem to find a way to contact

Apple directly to ask them except via telephone so I thought somebody might

know on here.

 

How many pixels does that 3.5" LCD have?

 

"3.5-inch (diagonal) widescreen multi-touch display

480-by-320-pixel resolution at 163 pixels per inch"

 

So does that mean it's only 480x320= 153,600 pixels? I know the Canon 40D has

230,000 pixels on a 3" LCD and it's soft as a cloud. One of the bigger

disappointments of that camera actually. So, increase the size of the LCD and

subtract almost 100,000 pixels = useless for photo IMO. This must be wrong.

Well thank you, everyone. Same would go for the pop-up flash, I take it. I did a few test shots using it instead of the speedlite, and got the same thing at high ISO around the house. It's weird though, I don't remember ever seeing this with the Rebel XT. Maybe I just didn't use flash enough to notice before.

I'm considering it.

Oh yes, the wall is actually a cream/off-white color. It only looks white because the flash was SO harsh. This only happens with direct flash. When I bounce it, it looks fine. This confuses me furthur because when it's direct, the zoom head is active, the flash can also use distance information, etc. If anything, I thought it would be more properly exposed. Not rediculously overexposed.

 

-2 FEC! Why does it look like that. Even at the standard flash exposure mark, it looks basically the exact same. It just overexposes no matter what.

Man, I seem to be full of problems and questions lately :P

 

So I've been testing the 40D with a 580EXII speedlite. I started getting REALLY

extremely overexposed pictures all of a sudden. It seems to be when there is

any white object in the frame whatsoever.

 

I'm talking like 2 and 3 stops overexposed images. I am attaching one shot

where I actually dialed the flash down to -2 stops FEC and look what I got! (I

realize the picture itself has no photographic merit, I was just continuing the

testing).

 

I must be missing something simple here.

 

File Name IMG_1645.CR2

Camera Model Canon EOS 40D

Shooting Date/Time 10/5/2007 12:33:37 AM

Shooting Mode Aperture-Priority AE

Tv( Shutter Speed ) 1/160

Av( Aperture Value ) 2.8

Metering Mode Evaluative Metering

Exposure Compensation 0

ISO Speed 1600

Lens EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

Focal Length 70.0 mm

Image Size 3888x2592

Image Quality RAW

Flash On

Flash Type External E-TTL

Flash Exposure Compensation -2

Shutter curtain sync 1st-curtain sync

White Balance Mode Auto

AF Mode One-Shot AF

Picture Style Standard

Sharpness 4

Contrast 1

Saturation 1

Color tone 0

Color Space sRGB

File Size 15678 KB

Drive Mode Single-frame shooting

The answers I anticipated and predicted are being stated :) I know, it seems amazing.. but it's all true. Like I said, I have the repair forms here. "Repaired focus" "Optical resolution alignment" "repaired focus of body" "electrical adjustment to focus", etc. That doesn't even include the 2 other copies of the 16-35 that I had exchanged.

 

I mean, I'm not going to go through a lot of trouble to prove this, but, my equipment problems were and are real.

 

Even reading my own words seems absurd. It couldn't possibly happen to one person unless that person was just paranoid.. or didn't know how to use the equipment. Well, it can and did happen.

 

I also had a nice young man steal nearly $5000 from me while buying equipment over eBay at this time last year. Asif Zamir is the name he goes by. From near the Toronto area. If anybody ever meets him.. well, I won't say. Yeah, I have insanely bad luck in life it seems.

Ok, all of a sudden, it stopped giving the error message. I can take bursts to no end and it doesn't do it :S Perhaps it's just a lucky streak or something.

 

Anyway, I wiped the lens contacts with a dry PEC pad, lightly rubbing over them. Should this help if indeed the contacts were dirty? Is there a better, suggested way of cleaning them? I can't see this being the problem though, honestly. The lens is BRAND new. Also, I've never ever had a problem with dirty contacts before and I have 5 other lenses which I change frequently.

It's not rare to have something like this happen with Canon at all. If you check out my post, 2 posts down, you'll see what I mean. 7 L lenses, 6 with severe focusing problems and one with a defective EMD unit. 3 camera bodies, 1 wouldn't work at all out of the box (like yours) the other had a huge clump of hot pixels and the focus was completely off, and the third seems alright so far.

 

I'll learn, some day.

 

And of course, people will comment on what I'm saying, telling you that the problem is most likely user error, etc. It isn't. I know how to shoot and use the cameras/lenses. Canon has admitted to and attempted to "fix" every one of these issues. I have all the repair forms right here in a box.

 

Others will tell you they've used Canon equipment for 15 years and never had a single problem. Good for them! :D Wish I could be so lucky.

Wow.. thanks for that Mark. I just did the lens test you described and I get Error99 every single time I start a burst of shots. It fires about 4 shots and then I get the error.