Flash gun questions?

lucky_13

lucky_13

Messages
624
Name
Billy
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all I just left the London tattoo convention and wile there I was using the built in flash which took time to recycle and would not let me fire another shot for around 5-10 sec, and I missed quiet a few shots. So my question is would a flash gun recycle much quicker than the in-built flash? Can I shoot in continuos mode and the flash gun fire each time? On a 550D that's 3.7 shots per sec.
 
Last edited:
in a word - yes - it can also provide a hell of a lot more power

a 580ex II recycles within 6 seconds - but that's at max power. Producing the same amount of flash as your pop up - it would probably recycle in .5 - 1.5 seconds
 
I seem to remember that with an external flash on a "fractional" power setting like 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 etc then it would pretty much fire off in quick succession till till the buffer is exhausted.

Eg fire off up to 8 times at 1/8 with almost no recycle time.
 
invest in some higher mah batteries for your unit aswell...... the 'recycle' time for flashes is quicker and overall last for more flashes.... i use 3000 mah batteries in all my flash guns (and there rechargeable too)
 
Thanks people, 580 it's a tad out my price range aspecialy as it'll only be used once in a blue moon. I was thinking the 430 EX II or the jessops 360 AFD any one know if the jessops one would be any good for what I'm after?
 
lucky_13 said:
Hi all I just left the London tattoo convention and wile there I was using the built in flash which took time to recycle and would not let me fire another shot for around 5-10 sec, and I missed quiet a few shots. So my question is would a flash gun recycle much quicker than the in-built flash? Can I shoot in continuos mode and the flash gun fire each time? On a 550D that's 3.7 shots per sec.
Click to expand...

YES & NO

It depends how you use it. If you are in a dark place shooting at a low ISO and a small aperture then the flash needs to use a lot of power to light the scene. If you had upped the ISO that would have reduced the power required and made the recycle time much quicker.

It's the same with a flash gun except that the power they use is much higher and they are better than the small one of the camera.

BUT you should NOT use continuous firing as you will BURN OUT THE FLASH GUN very quickly doing this. They generate an awful lot of heat. I think the manual mentions you need to give the flash time to cool after about 9 shots when using it like that so care has to be taken about the way you use it.

So I suggest next time, bump up the ISO a good bit and that small flash will recycle much quicker. Also if you can use a larger aperture that will help. A 50mm f1.8 will be 3.333 stops faster than say an 18-50 at 50mm. That means at 1.8 your flash can output 3 stops less power so will be MUCH faster at recycling :)

Cheers
Jim
 
On-cam flash will recycle much quicker if you reduce the flash exposure compensation/overall power of flash in settings. On most Dslrs there is a little button beside the flash with a lightening bolt icon on, keep that pressed and use the wheel to take down exposure of the flash. Somewhere in the menu settings there are settings to reduce the power of it also. And set it to TTL.
 
Cagey75 said:
On-cam flash will recycle much quicker if you reduce the flash exposure compensation/overall power of flash in settings. On most Dslrs there is a little button beside the flash with a lightening bolt icon on, keep that pressed and use the wheel to take down exposure of the flash. Somewhere in the menu settings there are settings to reduce the power of it also. And set it to TTL.
Click to expand...

If you reduce the FEC you will under expose the subject you are lighting?! :bonk:

3 choices.

1. Get closer so the flash doesn't need to use so much power.
2. Increase the aperture - so the flash doesn't need to use so much power.
3. Increase the ISO - which will also affect the ambient light

FEC is used in the same way as your camera meter - The flash will under expose when it sees a bright scene and over expose darker scenes so you use the FEC to control that.
 
Last edited:
Eh, no you won't if use wider apertures to let in some ambient along with. I hate when people use that smilie out of context.
 
Cagey75 said:
Eh, no you won't if use wider apertures to let in some ambient along with. I hate when people use that smilie out of context.
Click to expand...

Your post said reduce the FEC - Nothing else.

Even if you use a wider aperture using FEC will STILL under expose your subject. If you have the ETTL/ITTL set, tyhen the camera will try to properly expose the subject. If you use FEC you are over riding that.

What you say is not what FEC is used for. Will leave the smiley out this time!
 
Last edited:
I would have assumed people knew how and when to open their aperture ...
 
Cagey75 said:
I would have assumed people knew how and when to open their aperture ...
Click to expand...

You assume wrong (or why would the OP be asking)?

Also how is using FEC and opening the aperture going to gibve a correct exposure?

Openiing the aperture means the flash needs less power.... so will refresh quicker.

If you further reduce flash exposure using FEC you will (under normal circumstances) then under expose the subject you are lighting with flash.....

I do not see your point at all :thinking:
 
Last edited:
That's not really for you to answer. There's always one know-it-all though eh. I don't see why you jumped in on my suggestion, it was none of your concern tbh.

Anyone who owns a dslr should know when to open up their aperture. Seriously.
 
Cagey75 said:
That's not really for you to answer. There's always one know-it-all though eh. I don't see why you jumped in on my suggestion, it was none of your concern tbh.

Anyone who owns a dslr should know when to open up their aperture. Seriously.
Click to expand...

This is a forum, I responded (BEFORE YOU) giving the OP a fairly detailed explanation of what he needed to do. You came in and gave an answer..... A DUMB one (see my mantra). No dumb questions only dumb answers.

I certainly don't profess to know it all but I obviously know more than you!!!

I still can't understand WHY you would reduce flash exposure using FEC (under normal circumstances) or why you would suggest it! :bonk::thinking::nono:
 
Last edited:
Oh sorry, so your suggestion is the only one that should count. I not that I didn't quote or refer to your suggestions. But do carry on, oh expert ...

I know the results I get using the very suggestions I gave. All fine. The flash recycles quicker, that is what he wanted tips on, durrrrr.
 
Cagey75 said:
Oh sorry, so your suggestion is the only one that should count. I not that I didn't quote or refer to your suggestions. But do carry on, oh expert ...
Click to expand...

No absolutely not

You didn't comment on my THREE suggestions because they were accurate,. I commented on yours because it's BAD ADVICE AND WRONG!
 
Cagey75 said:
Oh sorry, so your suggestion is the only one that should count. I not that I didn't quote or refer to your suggestions. But do carry on, oh expert ...
Click to expand...

The problem is, that unless I am missing some vital part of your text, he is actually correct. If you use iTTL & a minus flash exposure compensation, the aperture will make not a blind bit of difference, it will under expose the flash part - albeit that yes, it probably will recycle quicker.


So gentlemen, lets leave it at that shall we, it is a little late into Sunday for me to really want to start the cleaning up now.
 
Yv said:
The problem is, that unless I am missing some vital part of your text, he is actually correct. If you use iTTL & a minus flash exposure compensation, the aperture will make not a blind bit of difference, it will under expose the flash part - albeit that yes, it probably will recycle quicker.


So gentlemen, lets leave it at that shall we, it is a little late into Sunday for me to really want to start the cleaning up now.
Click to expand...

Thanks Yvonne. I tried to explain - but no amount of explanation helped.
 
EOS_JD said:
YES & NO

It depends how you use it. If you are in a dark place shooting at a low ISO and a small aperture then the flash needs to use a lot of power to light the scene. If you had upped the ISO that would have reduced the power required and made the recycle time much quicker.

It's the same with a flash gun except that the power they use is much higher and they are better than the small one of the camera.

BUT you should NOT use continuous firing as you will BURN OUT THE FLASH GUN very quickly doing this. They generate an awful lot of heat. I think the manual mentions you need to give the flash time to cool after about 9 shots when using it like that so care has to be taken about the way you use it.

So I suggest next time, bump up the ISO a good bit and that small flash will recycle much quicker. Also if you can use a larger aperture that will help. A 50mm f1.8 will be 3.333 stops faster than say an 18-50 at 50mm. That means at 1.8 your flash can output 3 stops less power so will be MUCH faster at recycling :)

Cheers
Jim
Click to expand...

Hello mate thanks for ur advice. Unfortunately I was using a 15-85 and I was shooting between 70-85mm which meant f/5.6 and no lower I'm afraid but I did bump the ISO to 800 I guess I could have pushed it to 1600 but I think the Flash would have still had to be used as fill-in flash as the lightning there was a tad harsh to say the least, dark places were near black with a sudden rush of light where there was light. And I still had to use 1/160 1/200 shutter as I was shooting moving subjects (dancers etc) I did wish I had 50 1.4 and tbh I have been thinking of getting a (Sigma 50mm 1.4) or even a Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC but I think the 50 1.4 would probably be more suited with its 1.4 to this kind of situations. Any thoughts on the Jessops cheap £60 flash gun? Or should I just concentrate on getting a 50 1.4 first?
 
Last edited:
A 2.8 lens would still provide 4x more light than the f5.6 you have. A 1,4 lens means very narrow depth of field at f1.4.

When it's dark you need the flash to be pretty much the MAIN light not fill in.

However was it a stage you were shooting? To be honest using flash would destroy any atmosphere. A fast f2.8 zoom should do it if the lighting is fairly decent.

I used a 70-200 for this and ISO3200 - no flash. Flash would have destroyed any light. Shoot in Av using exposure compensation (not FEC) and the camera should get the exposure fairly close

APF-3.jpg
 
Any idea what the shutter speed was? It was a stage but its got sky light and any photo taken is backlit and the subject apears to be very dark and shadowie, if that makes any sense at all.. Tbh shallow depth of field is needed there as there's a lot of clutter all around the main stage.
 
Last edited:
that was 1/320th - Buththe light was on and off constantly so Av was doing its job. Stuck it on f2.8 oh and used a bit of exposure compensation to compensate for the bright background.
 
Last edited:
lucky_13 said:
I was thinking the 430 EX II or the jessops 360 AFD any one know if the jessops one would be any good for what I'm after?
Click to expand...

I started out with the Jessops 360AFD. Very good flash for the price but the biggest downside is time to recharge. It's way slower than the Metz 50 I now use.

One flash which you may want to consider is the Yongnuo 565. Not used it myself but apparently it takes 3 secs to recharge and you can attach an external battery pack which would bring recycle times down to 1-1.5 seconds.
 
Remember that recharge rate is at full power. You don't often use the flash at fullpower
 
gadgeteer said:
I started out with the Jessops 360AFD. Very good flash for the price but the biggest downside is time to recharge. It's way slower than the Metz 50 I now use.

One flash which you may want to consider is the Yongnuo 565. Not used it myself but apparently it takes 3 secs to recharge and you can attach an external battery pack which would bring recycle times down to 1-1.5 seconds.
Click to expand...

How does the Metz 50 compare to the Canon's own 430 EX II as on digitalrev the Metz 50 is around £30 more expensive than the Canon.?
But on eBay Metz 50 goes for around £129 and the cheapest I've found the 430 ex II is £169
 
Last edited:
Metz make good speedlights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top