DigiReb & Sigma Flash

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Steve Wolfe, Jan 6, 2005.

  1. Steve Wolfe

    Steve Wolfe Guest

    A new Sigma EF-500 DG Super ETTL flash showed up yesterday, so last night
    I hooked it to my DigiReb when some friends came over, and took some indoor
    shots. Nearly all of the them came out underexposed - anywhere from
    "significantly" to "majorly" underexposed. I tried both in Av and automatic
    modes, and both modes seemed to do about the same - most shots underexposed
    (subject and foreground), and just a few where either the subject was at
    least properly exposed, or (in a couple of cases) the entire scene was
    properly exposed. Any ideas why that would be?

    Earlier today, I shot a quick shot with and without the Sigma, and here's
    what I got:

    http://www.codon.com/flash

    steve
     
    Steve Wolfe, Jan 6, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Steve Wolfe

    Ron Lacey Guest

    I've found neither my D60 or 20D work with my two Vivitar Canon
    dedicated flash units, the flash output is always too low when I use
    the hot show in any exposure mode and the cameras don't recognize that
    a flash unit is attached (ie it allows faster than sych shutter
    speeds). My workaround was to connect the flash unit to the camera's
    PC terminal and shoot manually using guide numbers.

    Ron

    Ron Lacey
    Murillo Ontario
     
    Ron Lacey, Jan 6, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Steve Wolfe

    Colin D Guest

    I have also wanted a flash for a 300D, but here in NZ there is a
    considerable waiting list for 550/580EX guns, and I have a wedding to do
    in two weeks ... I had decided to use my old faithful EOS 10 film
    camera one last time, because of the apparent exposure problems with
    e-ttl, even if I could lay hands on a 580EX.

    So, I decided to try my other old faithful - a Metz 45CL-4 handle-mount
    flash unit (Guide number 148 (feet) at 100 ISO), with the SCA311 adapter
    intended for the EOS 10. I checked the trigger voltage - 5 volts.
    Great. Fitted it to the 300D, and Voila! it flashed. Now because it is
    not communicating with the camera, I cannot use any metering from the
    camera to the flash, so it has to be manual. The Metz has its own
    exposure sensor on the handle, so you can set the gun to expose for,
    say, 200 ISO and f:8, and it meters itself. I set the 300D to manual,
    WB to 'flash', exposure 1/200 at f:8 at 200 ISO, and took some shots.
    They were spot on! excellent exposures.

    This now opens up a whole new range of possibilities. I can set the
    camera for backgound exposure with Av (fixed aperture), fill flash by
    setting the gun for 1 or 2 stops underexposure, and there it is. I can
    fire the flash off-camera with its extension cord, and I can fire other
    flashes with slaves, with no problems due to the e-ttl pre-flash, and I
    am immune to the blink syndrome that the preflash induces in some
    subjects. Not quite as automatic as a 580EX, maybe, but judging by the
    problems some posters are having with erratic exposures, I think I have
    a winner here.

    So, 580EX no longer wanted, thanks.

    Colin
     
    Colin D, Jan 6, 2005
    #3
  4. Steve Wolfe

    Hank Guest

    Cool
    hank

     
    Hank, Jan 6, 2005
    #4
  5. Steve Wolfe

    Matt Ion Guest

    Colin D wrote:

    Yoiks! Don't you need a permit from the atomic energy board to carry
    around a small sun like that??
    Nice. My 420EX served well with my RebelG 35mm camera, and continues to
    do so on my DRebel, but there've been times I might have wished for a
    little more manual control...
     
    Matt Ion, Jan 8, 2005
    #5
  6. Steve Wolfe

    Colin D Guest

    It's what I call the V8 syndrome - lazy power but *grunt* when you need
    it {:)

    Colin
     
    Colin D, Jan 9, 2005
    #6
  7. Steve Wolfe

    Steve Wolfe Guest

    As a follow-up, if anyone cares, it seems to be a defective camera - I
    tried the EF-500-DG Super E-TTL, a Quantaray digital flash (borrowed from a
    friend who uses it on a DigiReb), and a Canon 520EX - all with exactly the
    same results, severely underexposed pics. On most shots, the entire upper
    half of the histogram would be completely zeros. So, the camera went back
    for exchange today.

    steve
     
    Steve Wolfe, Jan 11, 2005
    #7
  8. Are you SURE there is a defect rather than a setting on the camera ?

    I'd really like to know because I may be suffering the same malady.

    --
    Dave




    |
    | As a follow-up, if anyone cares, it seems to be a defective camera - I
    | tried the EF-500-DG Super E-TTL, a Quantaray digital flash (borrowed from a
    | friend who uses it on a DigiReb), and a Canon 520EX - all with exactly the
    | same results, severely underexposed pics. On most shots, the entire upper
    | half of the histogram would be completely zeros. So, the camera went back
    | for exchange today.
    |
    | steve
    |
    |
    | | > A new Sigma EF-500 DG Super ETTL flash showed up yesterday, so last night
    | > I hooked it to my DigiReb when some friends came over, and took some
    | indoor
    | > shots. Nearly all of the them came out underexposed - anywhere from
    | > "significantly" to "majorly" underexposed. I tried both in Av and
    | automatic
    | > modes, and both modes seemed to do about the same - most shots
    | underexposed
    | > (subject and foreground), and just a few where either the subject was at
    | > least properly exposed, or (in a couple of cases) the entire scene was
    | > properly exposed. Any ideas why that would be?
    | >
    | > Earlier today, I shot a quick shot with and without the Sigma, and
    | here's
    | > what I got:
    | >
    | > http://www.codon.com/flash
    | >
    | > steve
    | >
    | >
    | >
    | >
    |
    |
     
    David H. Lipman, Jan 11, 2005
    #8
  9. Steve Wolfe

    Steve-O Guest

    I can never be 100% sure. Because I didn't have the Canon 580ex in
    hand, Canon's tech support was entirely unwilling to help me in any
    way, shape, or form - the fact that I mentioned third-party flashes
    meant more to them than the fact that even *their* flash did exactly
    the same thing.

    The Canon rep *did* dance around, trying to hint (without ever
    saying) that because the DigiReb doesn't have flash compensation, I'd
    be screwed. On the other hand, I'd used a friend's DigiReb with an
    external flash, and it worked great.

    So, I did a "reset all settings" (or whatever it's called) on my
    camera, and borrowed my friend's. I went through all of his settings
    to be sure they were identical to mine, then did side-by-side tests
    with each of the flashes in each of the camera. In every case, his
    exposed *far* more correctly than mine, although there his did
    underexpose by a just a small amount on a couple.

    At that point, when the problem was entirely reproduceable, where one
    camera worked just fine and the other didn't - same scene, same
    settings, same shooting - I decided that there just wasn't anything
    else I could do, and it was up to Canon. If I get a new camera back
    and it does the same thine, I'll feel awfully foolish - but the good
    exposures with the other DigiReb make me believe that the new camera
    will work much better than the last. We'll see in a couple of days!
    steve
     
    Steve-O, Jan 23, 2005
    #9
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.