Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon 20D With 420EX Flash

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 11:06:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Anyone had problems with exposure when using a 20D with 420EX Flash?

To be honest, the majority of the time I use the flash is for people
indoors. Therefore, I use it in program mode as opposed to aperture
priority, as people tend to move. As a result, the final photos don't seem
to come out very good. Most of the time they seem under-exposed. I have
tried FEC, but this doesn't seem to make much of a difference.

Is it me?

More about : canon 20d 420ex flash

Anonymous
March 16, 2005 7:57:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tod" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:9Zidnd_eIrT9oqrfRVnyvw@pipex.net...
> Anyone had problems with exposure when using a 20D with 420EX Flash?
>
> To be honest, the majority of the time I use the flash is for people
> indoors. Therefore, I use it in program mode as opposed to aperture
> priority, as people tend to move. As a result, the final photos don't
> seem
> to come out very good. Most of the time they seem under-exposed. I have
> tried FEC, but this doesn't seem to make much of a difference.
>
> Is it me?
>
>
No, it's not you. There is a constant underexposure with the ETTL II and
all of the EX flashes when used on "program." One way to beat this is to
shoot on manual and crank the FEC over a stop or more. DPReview is loaded
with posts on this subject.
The other way to beat it is to use a non Canon flash, we use Quantum T4D
flashes, no problems. Others report similar results with Sigma, Metz,
Sunpak, etc.
The flash seems to be in constant "fill" mode, any appreciable amount of
ambient light and the flash is cut considerably. I get excellent results in
very low light levels, or using it as a fill flash. (I have the 420EX,
too.)

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 9:56:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hello Skip, thank you for the post.

Do you know if the problem is also apparent with 550EX or 580EX?


"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:B2WZd.56242$xt.9252@fed1read07...
> "Tod" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:9Zidnd_eIrT9oqrfRVnyvw@pipex.net...
> > Anyone had problems with exposure when using a 20D with 420EX Flash?
> >
> > To be honest, the majority of the time I use the flash is for people
> > indoors. Therefore, I use it in program mode as opposed to aperture
> > priority, as people tend to move. As a result, the final photos don't
> > seem
> > to come out very good. Most of the time they seem under-exposed. I
have
> > tried FEC, but this doesn't seem to make much of a difference.
> >
> > Is it me?
> >
> >
> No, it's not you. There is a constant underexposure with the ETTL II and
> all of the EX flashes when used on "program." One way to beat this is to
> shoot on manual and crank the FEC over a stop or more. DPReview is loaded
> with posts on this subject.
> The other way to beat it is to use a non Canon flash, we use Quantum T4D
> flashes, no problems. Others report similar results with Sigma, Metz,
> Sunpak, etc.
> The flash seems to be in constant "fill" mode, any appreciable amount of
> ambient light and the flash is cut considerably. I get excellent results
in
> very low light levels, or using it as a fill flash. (I have the 420EX,
> too.)
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 10:39:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Giulia" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:-sidnU1tvO09HaXfRVnyvw@pipex.net...
> Hello Skip, thank you for the post.
>
> Do you know if the problem is also apparent with 550EX or 580EX?
>
>
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:B2WZd.56242$xt.9252@fed1read07...
>> "Tod" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:9Zidnd_eIrT9oqrfRVnyvw@pipex.net...
>> > Anyone had problems with exposure when using a 20D with 420EX Flash?
>> >
>> > To be honest, the majority of the time I use the flash is for people
>> > indoors. Therefore, I use it in program mode as opposed to aperture
>> > priority, as people tend to move. As a result, the final photos don't
>> > seem
>> > to come out very good. Most of the time they seem under-exposed. I
> have
>> > tried FEC, but this doesn't seem to make much of a difference.
>> >
>> > Is it me?
>> >
>> >
>> No, it's not you. There is a constant underexposure with the ETTL II and
>> all of the EX flashes when used on "program." One way to beat this is to
>> shoot on manual and crank the FEC over a stop or more. DPReview is
>> loaded
>> with posts on this subject.
>> The other way to beat it is to use a non Canon flash, we use Quantum T4D
>> flashes, no problems. Others report similar results with Sigma, Metz,
>> Sunpak, etc.
>> The flash seems to be in constant "fill" mode, any appreciable amount of
>> ambient light and the flash is cut considerably. I get excellent results
> in
>> very low light levels, or using it as a fill flash. (I have the 420EX,
>> too.)
>>
>> --
>> Skip Middleton
>> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>>
>>
>
>
I haven't tried it with a 550EX, but we bought a 580EX in hopes that it
would solve, or at least alleviate the problem. It didn't, exposures were
exactly the same, to all appearances, so we took it back. We rent the
Quantum T4D flashes, since they run about a grand for the whole set up, and
they give us the results we need. I used the 420EX yesterday as a fill
flash, shooting at the beach in the afternoon. It did that job admirably.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 4:01:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Let me think about that.... Is an 550EX an 'EX' ??? Is a 580EX and 'EX'???
Wait, let me think about that some more....

[sigh....]

"Giulia" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:-sidnU1tvO09HaXfRVnyvw@pipex.net...
> Hello Skip, thank you for the post.
>
> Do you know if the problem is also apparent with 550EX or 580EX?
>
>
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:B2WZd.56242$xt.9252@fed1read07...
> > "Tod" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:9Zidnd_eIrT9oqrfRVnyvw@pipex.net...
> > > Anyone had problems with exposure when using a 20D with 420EX Flash?
> > >
> > > To be honest, the majority of the time I use the flash is for people
> > > indoors. Therefore, I use it in program mode as opposed to aperture
> > > priority, as people tend to move. As a result, the final photos don't
> > > seem
> > > to come out very good. Most of the time they seem under-exposed. I
> have
> > > tried FEC, but this doesn't seem to make much of a difference.
> > >
> > > Is it me?
> > >
> > >
> > No, it's not you. There is a constant underexposure with the ETTL II and
> > all of the EX flashes when used on "program." One way to beat this is to
> > shoot on manual and crank the FEC over a stop or more. DPReview is loaded
> > with posts on this subject.
> > The other way to beat it is to use a non Canon flash, we use Quantum T4D
> > flashes, no problems. Others report similar results with Sigma, Metz,
> > Sunpak, etc.
> > The flash seems to be in constant "fill" mode, any appreciable amount of
> > ambient light and the flash is cut considerably. I get excellent results
> in
> > very low light levels, or using it as a fill flash. (I have the 420EX,
> > too.)
> >
> > --
> > Skip Middleton
> > http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
> >
> >
>
>
March 17, 2005 8:42:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:39:45 -0800
In message <0_6_d.56436$xt.6405@fed1read07>
"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:

> >> No, it's not you. There is a constant underexposure with the ETTL II and
> >> all of the EX flashes when used on "program." One way to beat this is to
> >> shoot on manual and crank the FEC over a stop or more. DPReview is
> >> loaded with posts on this subject.
> <SNIP>
>
> I haven't tried it with a 550EX, but we bought a 580EX in hopes that it
> would solve, or at least alleviate the problem. It didn't, exposures were
> exactly the same, to all appearances, so we took it back.
> <SNIP>

Maybe Canon can save face *and* fix it with a
20D (and Mark II series) update:

CUSTOM FUNCTION
EX Autoflash
0 = Fill Flash (current default)
1 = Primary Light (or some other wording)

ANYTHING so it works as implied by advertising.

Jeff
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 8:42:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Confused" <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote in message
news:kq4i31pua1o38qrur8cis2uf3ehl2h31rg@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:39:45 -0800
> In message <0_6_d.56436$xt.6405@fed1read07>
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> >> No, it's not you. There is a constant underexposure with the ETTL II
>> >> and
>> >> all of the EX flashes when used on "program." One way to beat this is
>> >> to
>> >> shoot on manual and crank the FEC over a stop or more. DPReview is
>> >> loaded with posts on this subject.
>> <SNIP>
>>
>> I haven't tried it with a 550EX, but we bought a 580EX in hopes that it
>> would solve, or at least alleviate the problem. It didn't, exposures
>> were
>> exactly the same, to all appearances, so we took it back.
>> <SNIP>
>
> Maybe Canon can save face *and* fix it with a
> 20D (and Mark II series) update:
>
> CUSTOM FUNCTION
> EX Autoflash
> 0 = Fill Flash (current default)
> 1 = Primary Light (or some other wording)
>
> ANYTHING so it works as implied by advertising.
>
> Jeff

What really annoys me is that every Canon body I've owned until now had a
Custom Function called "Fill Flash Reduction Cancellation." It, obviously,
cancelled the reduction in flash power when the camera read the situation as
only needing fill flash, so you got the full power of the flash. My A2, 1n,
D30 and 10D all had this, but I never used it, because the flash metering
wasn't biased so much to the ambient light. Now, when it's needed, Canon
leaves it off of the 20D. Sheesh...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 1:25:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Kof_d.56468$xt.18378@fed1read07...
>
> What really annoys me is that every Canon body I've owned until now had a
> Custom Function called "Fill Flash Reduction Cancellation." It,
obviously,
> cancelled the reduction in flash power when the camera read the situation
as
> only needing fill flash, so you got the full power of the flash. My A2,
1n,
> D30 and 10D all had this, but I never used it, because the flash metering
> wasn't biased so much to the ambient light. Now, when it's needed, Canon
> leaves it off of the 20D. Sheesh...

How is that different from the custom function that forces the shutter speed
to <whatever> in Av mode???

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
March 18, 2005 1:25:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <d1c0js$g95$1@nnrp.gol.com>
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:Kof_d.56468$xt.18378@fed1read07...
>
> > What really annoys me is that every Canon body I've owned
> > until now had a Custom Function called "Fill Flash Reduction
> > Cancellation." It, obviously, cancelled the reduction in
> > flash power when the camera read the situation as only
> > needing fill flash, so you got the full power of the flash.
> > My A2, 1n, D30 and 10D all had this, but I never used it,
> > because the flash metering wasn't biased so much to the
> > ambient light. Now, when it's needed, Canon leaves it
> > off of the 20D. Sheesh...

Oh! Important functions stripped out for the 20D from both the 10D
and Mark II cousin's. Sheesh...

> How is that different from the custom function that forces
> the shutter speed to <whatever> in Av mode???

C.Fn-3 changes the Av sync speed from Auto (default) to 1/250.

Back to Fill Flash...

If other Canon cameras had a function for "Fill Flash Reduction
Cancellation", that's essentially the needed/missing custom function I
described earlier in the thread:

0 = Fill Flash (current default)
1 = Primary Flash (or some other wording)

Skip's comment is from experience with multiple EX speedlights and
Canon cameras. Mine is a novice "I expect it to work" viewpoint.

In comparison, my Sony F717 does a great job with point-and-shoot
flash exposure when the 20D dictates an undesired long exposure.

I wouldn't mind finding the custom function in the menus and toggling
between "Fill Flash" and "Primary Flash" modes. I'd park it on
"Primary Flash" and select "Fill Flash" when desired, then I'd add a
note to my "check the ISO before using camera" list. ;-)

As long as Canon and the 20D are in the spot light, here is my list of
other "should be simple to put back in" custom functions. These would
enhance the photographic experience for many [most?] 20D owners:

o Continuous shooting
0: 5 shots per second (current default)
1: 1 shot per second
2: 2 shots per second
3: 3 shots per second
4: 4 shots per second

o Jpeg fine quality
0: (current default)
1: highest quality (IE 10 in the Mark2 series)

o Self timer
0: 10 seconds (current default)
1: 2 seconds

Another handy change would be how the first two presses of the zoom-in
button work. First press: Zoom in to show the cropped 3:2 image the
viewfinder shows. Second press: Crop the *edges only* of the first
image to zoom it to a full 4:3 LCD sized image. I'M BEGINNING TO HATE
NOT HAVING A WYSIWYG VIEWFINDER. Accurate photographic composition is
impossible with a partial viewfinder.

Jeff
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 4:18:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Confused" <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote in message
news:7ikj315qihopb7mdccj8fn5io4637o0ga2@4ax.com...

> Back to Fill Flash...
>

'Fill flash reduction' on/off doesn't really switch between 'fill flash' and
'primary flash' -- it only changes how much the fill is reduced over a small ev
range where Canon thinks there is enough light to do so. Outside that range,
the switch has no effect. So, I don't think it would actually do what you want.

Basically, it's a philosophy. For Canon, flash is for fill. For Nikon, flash
is primary.

For an explanation, see:

http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/index2.html#fi...

[all three sections of this long article make good reading]

If you want another philosophy of what a flash should do, you're more likely to
be satisfied with a different camera [which likely won't have a switch to make
it behave the 'Canon way']....
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 4:18:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"SamSez" <samtheman@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:S%p_d.5595$ed6.4544@trndny06...
>
> "Confused" <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote in message
> news:7ikj315qihopb7mdccj8fn5io4637o0ga2@4ax.com...
>
>> Back to Fill Flash...
>>
>
> 'Fill flash reduction' on/off doesn't really switch between 'fill flash'
> and
> 'primary flash' -- it only changes how much the fill is reduced over a
> small ev
> range where Canon thinks there is enough light to do so. Outside that
> range,
> the switch has no effect. So, I don't think it would actually do what you
> want.
>
> Basically, it's a philosophy. For Canon, flash is for fill. For Nikon,
> flash
> is primary.
>
> For an explanation, see:
>
> http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/index2.html#fi...
>
> [all three sections of this long article make good reading]
>
> If you want another philosophy of what a flash should do, you're more
> likely to
> be satisfied with a different camera [which likely won't have a switch to
> make
> it behave the 'Canon way']....
>
>
Unfortunately, to "be satisfied with different camera" wasn't really an
option. Too much invested in EF mount lenses to make a change, and, anyway,
one thing I didn't check before buying was the availability of certain
custom functions. And, additionally, we'd never had a problem with the way
Canon flashes behaved in the past, it seems that ETT-L II reduces the flash
levels too much in comparison with the older ETT-L and ATT-L.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
March 18, 2005 7:32:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 01:18:42 GMT
In message <S%p_d.5595$ed6.4544@trndny06>
"SamSez" <samtheman@verizon.net> wrote:

> "Confused" <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote in message
> news:7ikj315qihopb7mdccj8fn5io4637o0ga2@4ax.com...
>
> > Back to Fill Flash...
>
> 'Fill flash reduction' on/off doesn't really switch between 'fill flash' and
> 'primary flash' -- it only changes how much the fill is reduced over a small ev

Well, let's pretend it's worded differently, eh? Something was
obviously lost in translation in the first place.

> range where Canon thinks there is enough light to do so. Outside that range,
> the switch has no effect. So, I don't think it would actually do what you want.

The experience of others using older EX flash+camera combinations
indicates otherwise.

> Basically, it's a philosophy. For Canon, flash is for fill. For Nikon, flash
> is primary.
>
> For an explanation, see:
>
> http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/index2.html#fi...
> <snip>

Thanks... saved for a rainy day reading (probably tomorrow here).

Regardless, Skip described a mode that worked as expected in previous
models that does not work now. It's a glaring mistake, and a
deception by Canon's Marketing Department.

Jeff
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 7:32:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Confused" <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote in message
news:ndlk315dnkb7l9i4khgs61bpm3gjjmucij@4ax.com...

>>
>> http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/index2.html#fi...
>> <snip>
>
> Thanks... saved for a rainy day reading (probably tomorrow here).
>
> Regardless, Skip described a mode that worked as expected in previous
> models that does not work now. It's a glaring mistake, and a
> deception by Canon's Marketing Department.
>
> Jeff

Hmm, you must be in "sunny" Southern California, too!
Well, I wouldn't call it a deception, but it is damned annoying.
I've had that article bookmarked for some time, it is very useful.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 5:18:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Confused" <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote in message
news:ndlk315dnkb7l9i4khgs61bpm3gjjmucij@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 01:18:42 GMT
> In message <S%p_d.5595$ed6.4544@trndny06>
> "SamSez" <samtheman@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > "Confused" <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote in message
> > news:7ikj315qihopb7mdccj8fn5io4637o0ga2@4ax.com...
> >
> > > Back to Fill Flash...
> >
> > 'Fill flash reduction' on/off doesn't really switch between 'fill flash' and
> > 'primary flash' -- it only changes how much the fill is reduced over a small
ev
>
> Well, let's pretend it's worded differently, eh? Something was
> obviously lost in translation in the first place.
>
> > range where Canon thinks there is enough light to do so. Outside that
range,
> > the switch has no effect. So, I don't think it would actually do what you
want.
>
> The experience of others using older EX flash+camera combinations
> indicates otherwise.
>
> > Basically, it's a philosophy. For Canon, flash is for fill. For Nikon,
flash
> > is primary.
> >
> > For an explanation, see:
> >
> > http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/index2.html#fi...
> > <snip>
>
> Thanks... saved for a rainy day reading (probably tomorrow here).
>
> Regardless, Skip described a mode that worked as expected in previous
> models that does not work now. It's a glaring mistake, and a
> deception by Canon's Marketing Department.
>
> Jeff

Ok, try this: custom function 4=1 [shutter fixed at 1/250 in Ev].

How would that not do what you want?
March 18, 2005 10:27:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:18:29 GMT
In message <VqB_d.6391$b_6.3771@trnddc01>
"SamSez" <samtheman@verizon.net> wrote:

> Ok, try this: custom function 4=1 [shutter fixed at 1/250 in Ev].
>
> How would that not do what you want?

C.Fn-04 Shutter button/AE lock button

Huh? Do you own a 20D and a 580EX speedlight?

Jeff
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 10:31:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Kof_d.56468$xt.18378@fed1read07...
> "Confused" <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote in message
> news:kq4i31pua1o38qrur8cis2uf3ehl2h31rg@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:39:45 -0800
>> In message <0_6_d.56436$xt.6405@fed1read07>
>> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> >> No, it's not you. There is a constant underexposure with the ETTL II
>>> >> and
>>> >> all of the EX flashes when used on "program." One way to beat this
>>> >> is to
>>> >> shoot on manual and crank the FEC over a stop or more. DPReview is
>>> >> loaded with posts on this subject.
>>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>> I haven't tried it with a 550EX, but we bought a 580EX in hopes that it
>>> would solve, or at least alleviate the problem. It didn't, exposures
>>> were
>>> exactly the same, to all appearances, so we took it back.
>>> <SNIP>
>>
>> Maybe Canon can save face *and* fix it with a
>> 20D (and Mark II series) update:
>>
>> CUSTOM FUNCTION
>> EX Autoflash
>> 0 = Fill Flash (current default)
>> 1 = Primary Light (or some other wording)
>>
>> ANYTHING so it works as implied by advertising.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> What really annoys me is that every Canon body I've owned until now had a
> Custom Function called "Fill Flash Reduction Cancellation." It,
> obviously, cancelled the reduction in flash power when the camera read the
> situation as only needing fill flash, so you got the full power of the
> flash. My A2, 1n, D30 and 10D all had this, but I never used it, because
> the flash metering wasn't biased so much to the ambient light. Now, when
> it's needed, Canon leaves it off of the 20D. Sheesh...
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>

Hi Skip,

Does C.Fn03 help your problem at all?

Also I was under the impression that the better (more expensive) Canon flash
units let you adjust the fill ratio.

I don't know because I don't have an external flash but I got this from a
photonotes.org article. If anyone knows where if Canon have manuals for
their flash units downloadable anywhere I would like to know.

Lester
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 10:31:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Lester Wareham" <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote in message
news:423b2caa$0$8749$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:Kof_d.56468$xt.18378@fed1read07...
>> "Confused" <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote in message
>> news:kq4i31pua1o38qrur8cis2uf3ehl2h31rg@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:39:45 -0800
>>> In message <0_6_d.56436$xt.6405@fed1read07>
>>> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >> No, it's not you. There is a constant underexposure with the ETTL
>>>> >> II and
>>>> >> all of the EX flashes when used on "program." One way to beat this
>>>> >> is to
>>>> >> shoot on manual and crank the FEC over a stop or more. DPReview is
>>>> >> loaded with posts on this subject.
>>>> <SNIP>
>>>>
>>>> I haven't tried it with a 550EX, but we bought a 580EX in hopes that it
>>>> would solve, or at least alleviate the problem. It didn't, exposures
>>>> were
>>>> exactly the same, to all appearances, so we took it back.
>>>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>> Maybe Canon can save face *and* fix it with a
>>> 20D (and Mark II series) update:
>>>
>>> CUSTOM FUNCTION
>>> EX Autoflash
>>> 0 = Fill Flash (current default)
>>> 1 = Primary Light (or some other wording)
>>>
>>> ANYTHING so it works as implied by advertising.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>
>> What really annoys me is that every Canon body I've owned until now had a
>> Custom Function called "Fill Flash Reduction Cancellation." It,
>> obviously, cancelled the reduction in flash power when the camera read
>> the situation as only needing fill flash, so you got the full power of
>> the flash. My A2, 1n, D30 and 10D all had this, but I never used it,
>> because the flash metering wasn't biased so much to the ambient light.
>> Now, when it's needed, Canon leaves it off of the 20D. Sheesh...
>>
>> --
>> Skip Middleton
>> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>>
>
> Hi Skip,
>
> Does C.Fn03 help your problem at all?
>
> Also I was under the impression that the better (more expensive) Canon
> flash units let you adjust the fill ratio.
>
> I don't know because I don't have an external flash but I got this from a
> photonotes.org article. If anyone knows where if Canon have manuals for
> their flash units downloadable anywhere I would like to know.
>
> Lester
>
>
The adjustment works only to a point, frankly, I never figured it out to the
point of getting it to work, and when you're shooting a wedding, the last
thing you need is to have to be constantly changing settings.
CF3 does seem to help, but I'm wondering what happens when there's to little
light for 1/250th sec... I'll find out tonight.
Good suggestion, thanks, but I just wish the camera worked as well in flash
modes as the old ones did...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 2:19:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Confused" <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote in message
news:3kam31lm02ne26vqibf4764f1mfr8j23o5@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:18:29 GMT
> In message <VqB_d.6391$b_6.3771@trnddc01>
> "SamSez" <samtheman@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Ok, try this: custom function 4=1 [shutter fixed at 1/250 in Ev].
> >
> > How would that not do what you want?
>
> C.Fn-04 Shutter button/AE lock button
>
> Huh? Do you own a 20D and a 580EX speedlight?
>
> Jeff

No, a 420EX and a 20D. And sorry, it wasn't in my hands at the time to remember
if it was 3 or 4, but any idiot [oops, sorry] should be able to read the rest --
shutter fixed at 1/250 -- even with the other pre-coffee typo of E instead of
A....

Do you own a 20 and 420 [or 580]?

If you did, fixing 1/250 in Av mode will allow the flash to max out as you stop
down, to the point that the nice little green OK light won't even come on after
the flash. And if the shutter is at 1/250, and the flash is maxed out, well
gee, that ain't 'fill flash' anymore.

Repeat -- does it not do what you want? [or are you still just thinking about
buying one?]

Plonk.
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 2:19:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"SamSez" <samtheman@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3mJ_d.134$191.3@trnddc02...
>
> "Confused" <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote in message
> news:3kam31lm02ne26vqibf4764f1mfr8j23o5@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:18:29 GMT
>> In message <VqB_d.6391$b_6.3771@trnddc01>
>> "SamSez" <samtheman@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Ok, try this: custom function 4=1 [shutter fixed at 1/250 in Ev].
>> >
>> > How would that not do what you want?
>>
>> C.Fn-04 Shutter button/AE lock button
>>
>> Huh? Do you own a 20D and a 580EX speedlight?
>>
>> Jeff
>
> No, a 420EX and a 20D. And sorry, it wasn't in my hands at the time to
> remember
> if it was 3 or 4, but any idiot [oops, sorry] should be able to read the
> rest --
> shutter fixed at 1/250 -- even with the other pre-coffee typo of E instead
> of
> A....
>
> Do you own a 20 and 420 [or 580]?
>
> If you did, fixing 1/250 in Av mode will allow the flash to max out as you
> stop
> down, to the point that the nice little green OK light won't even come on
> after
> the flash. And if the shutter is at 1/250, and the flash is maxed out,
> well
> gee, that ain't 'fill flash' anymore.
>
> Repeat -- does it not do what you want? [or are you still just thinking
> about
> buying one?]
>
> Plonk.
>
>
Well, I tried that this afternoon, and got a better exposure on "P" and the
420EX than I did on AV and 1/250th. Still not up to scratch, but CF3
doesn't seem to be the solution, either. It still doesn't seem to max out
the flash, adding FEC helps, too, so there must be some headroom left.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
March 19, 2005 5:15:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:58:08 -0800
In message <O5u_d.56649$xt.39357@fed1read07>
"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:

> > > http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/index2.html#fi...
> >
> > Thanks... saved for a rainy day reading (probably tomorrow here).
> >
> > Regardless, Skip described a mode that worked as expected in previous
> > models that does not work now. It's a glaring mistake, and a
> > deception by Canon's Marketing Department.
>
> Hmm, you must be in "sunny" Southern California, too!

Yup! Warm, cold, sunny, hazy, smoggy, rainy...roll the dice.

I'm north by north west of you in the foothills -- The Land of Gritty,
Dusty, Smoggy, Hazey, Low Visibility Air -- where protective UV
filters are not an option when hitting the bricks... ;^)

> Well, I wouldn't call it a deception, but it is damned annoying.

After re-reading the impressive glossy 20 page 20D brochure with
specifications (Canon publication #0046W464 0/04)

"EOS 20D: The New Standard"

I check the dictionary and my opinion remains the same. "DECEPTION"
is an appropriate term regarding the 20D + Speedlight 580EX.

> I've had that article bookmarked for some time, it is very useful.

I skimmed it quickly and then carefully read part of it...it should be
included with the 20D documentation. But then I probably would not
have bought the 580EX. By the time I understood 1/3 of it I would
have asked about the 580EX here...

Jeff
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 7:50:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Confused wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:39:45 -0800
> In message <0_6_d.56436$xt.6405@fed1read07>
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>>No, it's not you. There is a constant underexposure with the ETTL II and
>>>>all of the EX flashes when used on "program." One way to beat this is to
>>>>shoot on manual and crank the FEC over a stop or more. DPReview is
>>>>loaded with posts on this subject.
>>
>><SNIP>
>>
>>I haven't tried it with a 550EX, but we bought a 580EX in hopes that it
>>would solve, or at least alleviate the problem. It didn't, exposures were
>>exactly the same, to all appearances, so we took it back.
>><SNIP>
>
>
> Maybe Canon can save face *and* fix it with a
> 20D (and Mark II series) update:
>
> CUSTOM FUNCTION
> EX Autoflash
> 0 = Fill Flash (current default)
> 1 = Primary Light (or some other wording)
>
> ANYTHING so it works as implied by advertising.
>
> Jeff

I have the 20D and 1D MKII which I use with 550EX and 580EX speedlites.
Regardless of which camera is used with which speedlite, the tendency is
to underexpose. Since I'm aware of the underexposure, depending upon the
scene, I may quickly adjust the speedlite to about +2/3 and shoot.
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 11:06:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"nick c" <n-chen@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:v_adnXAFrb_Nh6PfRVn-3g@comcast.com...
> Confused wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:39:45 -0800
>> In message <0_6_d.56436$xt.6405@fed1read07>
>> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>No, it's not you. There is a constant underexposure with the ETTL II
>>>>>and
>>>>>all of the EX flashes when used on "program." One way to beat this is
>>>>>to
>>>>>shoot on manual and crank the FEC over a stop or more. DPReview is
>>>>>loaded with posts on this subject.
>>>
>>><SNIP>
>>>
>>>I haven't tried it with a 550EX, but we bought a 580EX in hopes that it
>>>would solve, or at least alleviate the problem. It didn't, exposures
>>>were exactly the same, to all appearances, so we took it back.
>>><SNIP>
>>
>>
>> Maybe Canon can save face *and* fix it with a 20D (and Mark II series)
>> update:
>>
>> CUSTOM FUNCTION
>> EX Autoflash
>> 0 = Fill Flash (current default)
>> 1 = Primary Light (or some other wording)
>>
>> ANYTHING so it works as implied by advertising.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> I have the 20D and 1D MKII which I use with 550EX and 580EX speedlites.
> Regardless of which camera is used with which speedlite, the tendency is
> to underexpose. Since I'm aware of the underexposure, depending upon the
> scene, I may quickly adjust the speedlite to about +2/3 and shoot.
>
I have had to adjust as much as 1 1/3 stops with barely acceptable
results...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 7:14:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> writes:

> I haven't tried it with a 550EX, but we bought a 580EX in hopes that
> it would solve, or at least alleviate the problem. It didn't,
> exposures were exactly the same, to all appearances, so we took it
> back. We rent the Quantum T4D flashes, since they run about a grand
> for the whole set up, and they give us the results we need. I used
> the 420EX yesterday as a fill flash, shooting at the beach in the
> afternoon. It did that job admirably.

The 580 set exposure from the AF point, and this can give you unexpected
flash results. I heard there was going to be a firmware fix to alow that
to be turned off with a CF.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 9:57:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<prep@prep.synonet.com> wrote in message
news:87vf7mcbxn.fsf@prep.synonet.com...
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> writes:
>
>> I haven't tried it with a 550EX, but we bought a 580EX in hopes that
>> it would solve, or at least alleviate the problem. It didn't,
>> exposures were exactly the same, to all appearances, so we took it
>> back. We rent the Quantum T4D flashes, since they run about a grand
>> for the whole set up, and they give us the results we need. I used
>> the 420EX yesterday as a fill flash, shooting at the beach in the
>> afternoon. It did that job admirably.
>
> The 580 set exposure from the AF point, and this can give you unexpected
> flash results. I heard there was going to be a firmware fix to alow that
> to be turned off with a CF.
>
> --
> Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
> +61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
> West Australia 6076
> comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
> Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
> EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

A while back, I speculated on the distance information parameters of the
ETT-L II metering affecting the flash exposure, but I wasn't sure how.
Saturday, I shot a wedding using my Sigma 15mm fisheye more than usual.
(Tight quarters) I know this lens does not report distance to the camera,
and most of my exposures with the 420EX were more than just acceptable, (we
used up the batteries on the Quantums, 6 hour wedding, bad planning on my
part.) without pushing up the FEC. Hmmmm, weird.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
!