|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/01/2005 02:35:08 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I have yet to see a built-in flash that doesn't suck.
I'd crank the ISO to 3200 and underexpose before I'd use one. They are too close to the lens axis to do anything but create red-eye, a harsh shadow and generally unflattering light. They might be useful to give some fill, but they still suck. |
From the dpreview.com review of the 20D--
"Higher pop-up flash
The EOS 20D now has a flash which raises considerably higher than the EOS 10D, it now has a claimed FOV coverage of 17 mm. It also uses E-TTL II flash metering which utilizes lens distance information to improve flash power calculation."
"Internal flash
The EOS 20D features an all new E-TTL II pop-up flash, which raises much higher than the EOS 10D's unit which means fewer problems with lenses causing a shadow and will probably improve red-eye performance. The internal flash has a guide number of 13 (approx. 3.3 m @ 17 mm / 2.3 m @ 85 mm; ISO 100) and a wide angle coverage of 17 mm. Support for E-TTL II means that lens distance information is now used to calculate the required flash power. Flash sync speed is up slightly to 1/250 sec.
The EOS 20D also allows for FE-Lock (Flash Exposure Lock) which can be used to take a meter reading of the subject using the flash before taking the shot. This can be useful for recomposing the scene, with the flash up (or an EX flash attached) simply aim the center of the frame at the subject to be metered, press the * button and the camera will fire the flash and take a meter reading, the next shot you take will use this locked exposure."
From the imaging-resources.com review of the 20D --
"The new flash pops up higher than the flash on the 10D, offering greater clearance over lenses and also somewhat reducing the likelihood of red-eye at closer ranges. Unlike the Digital Rebel, which has a similar pop-up mechanism, the new mechanism doesn't rattle noticeably when the camera is moved, and it pops up more quietly as well. The 20D gives you a great deal of control over flash exposure, allowing you to adjust flash and ambient exposure independently of each other, in one-half or one-third EV increments. This makes it very easy to balance flash and ambient lighting for more natural-looking pictures. The 20D also uses E-TTL II control for both the built-in and compatible external flashes (according to Canon this includes the current 550EX flash, as well as the new 580EX), a new standard that promises better, more balanced exposures."
From the dpreview.com review of the E-500--
"Pop-up Flash
Thanks to the height of the viewfinder prism and a nice long arm the E-500's pop-up flash sits a better than most 53 mm (2.1 in) above the top of the lens, this is about the same as the Canon EOS 350D (Digital Rebel XT). This additional height will be very useful when using lenses with their hoods attached and should also help avoid red-eye. The pop-up flash is now released electronically (either via a push-button or automatically if in the right mode), it has a guide number of 13 and an X-sync speed of 1/180 sec. In a low light situation with the flash raised the camera will strobe the flash to act as an assist lamp for the AF system (it must be raised manually to perform this function)."
From the dpreview.com review of the FZ30 --
"The pop-up flash is activated manually by a small switch on its left side (viewed from the rear). It is fairly high - around 1.5 inches from the top of the lens barrel, which should help minimize red-eye, and fairly powerful. With auto ISO you can use the flash from around 30cm to 7m, and it recycles very quickly. All the usual flash options (on, off, red-eye reduction, slow synch) are available; the red-eye reduction system is a simple single pre-flash (around 0.8 seconds before the main exposure)."
From the dpreview.com review of the PowerShot S2 IS --
"The pop-up flash on the S2 IS is a little more powerful than the unit used on the S1, and sits a little higher (meaning red-eye is even less of a problem)."
From the dpreview.com review of the Fuji S9000 --
"The pop-up flash is manually released (using a button on right side). It sits fairly high, which helps minimize red-eye, and there's a very efficient AF illuminator just below, which allows focus in almost complete darkness at distances of up to around 3m." |
Very nicely researched, but none of them will be anywhere near as effective at eliminating redeye as bounce flash, having the flash on a bracket or even a shoe mounted flash pointed directly at the subject. It's all about the distance of the flash from the lens axis. Compared to the other options, no onboard flash is even close. Nor will they do anything to mitigate the harsh lighting and shadows from direct on camera flash.
The latest generation of on-camera flashes may suck less than earlier on-camera flashes, but they still suck.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2005 03:04:35 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
[quote=coolhar]
The latest generation of on-camera flashes may suck less than earlier on-camera flashes, but they still suck. |
Agreed. They are pretty useful in a limited way for providing fill flash in backlit/cross-lit situations outdoors, and they do a better job than previous on-camera flashes for indoor people shots, but there's NO way on-camera flash can produce professional, natural-looking lighting by itself, and in this sense they all "suck".
R.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2005 03:46:40 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
The reason you need a faster shutter speed to handhold a longer lens is that the angular movement of the unstable camera is a greater percentage of the angular coverage of the image, and this effect is exactly mimicked by cropping in on whatever image you have taken; the tighter the crop, the more noticeable is the movement. |
See? Now you know why I stated it was my "current thinking" on the subject. :-)
To put what you said another way ... the 1.6x crop doesn't magnify the image blur on the sensor. But when you "enlarge" the image to a viewable size (to match what you would have seen with a full frame sensor), you will in effect be magnifying the blur 1.6x at *that* stage.
So I was right in one sense... blur on the sensor stays the same, but the blur on the "viewed image" is magnified due to the sensor size.
So we should definitely count the crop factor when judging handheld speeds. Thanks! |
|
|
|
11/02/2005 12:31:29 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
... Most people say never use the built-in flash unless you are desperate and have no alternative. |
This may have been true in the past but, along with so many other things, is changing as modern electronics technology marches forward. Today's built-in flashes are more useful than they used to be. But still not as good as an external flash attachment. And even the best flash lighting is still going to be inferior to natural sunlight. |
Why don't the built-in flashes have the ability to be aimed at either the subject or the ceiling (or even rotate left and right)? Sometimes you don't want to carry all your gear. |
|
|
|
11/02/2005 12:42:01 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by hankk:
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
... Most people say never use the built-in flash unless you are desperate and have no alternative. |
This may have been true in the past but, along with so many other things, is changing as modern electronics technology marches forward. Today's built-in flashes are more useful than they used to be. But still not as good as an external flash attachment. And even the best flash lighting is still going to be inferior to natural sunlight. |
Why don't the built-in flashes have the ability to be aimed at either the subject or the ceiling (or even rotate left and right)? Sometimes you don't want to carry all your gear. |
They don't have the ability to be used as bounce flashes because they lack the power such usage calls for. These are really tiny, relatively low-powered flash units. Light falls off with the square of the distance traveled, and you also get a fall-off in the absorption/scattering of the reflecting surface. Even if you could hypothetically produce the required amount of light from such a small bulb, the power demands would be so great as to run the camera's battery down extremely rapidly.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2005 12:48:25 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
...It's all about the distance of the flash from the lens axis..... |
Is that really true (I agree with the generalisation)? Not thought about it much (I hate flash generally) but I would have thought the issue is the angle of reflection from the retna bounced back through the field of view in the lens.
For example; If you had a BIG flash and a 600mm lens could you not get red eye even if the flash was a long way from the lens axis - due to the small angle at that distance?
Please don't take this as anything other than curiousity - just caught my eye and I started thinking about it.... |
|
|
|
11/02/2005 01:06:10 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
...It's all about the distance of the flash from the lens axis..... |
Is that really true (I agree with the generalisation)? Not thought about it much (I hate flash generally) but I would have thought the issue is the angle of reflection from the retna bounced back through the field of view in the lens.
For example; If you had a BIG flash and a 600mm lens could you not get red eye even if the flash was a long way from the lens axis - due to the small angle at that distance?
Please don't take this as anything other than curiousity - just caught my eye and I started thinking about it.... |
Not really. To understand why, take a look at what a long lens really IS: it's a super-cropper. Don't believe me? Put your camera on a tripod and take a picture at wide angle and another at telephoto. Now open both in your image editor and crop the WA so it shows only what the tele does, and magnify it so its the same size on the screen. Issues of grain/noise aside, the images will be indistinguishable.
It follows logically that whatever red-eye shows up in the wider shot will be present, even more prominent due to larger relative eye-size, in the tele shot. The angles are not changing.
The real determining factor in red-eye is where the eyes are looking, and how close they are to being on the lens/flash axis. If someone is looking directly at the camera, and if their eyes are in the center of the frame, and if the flash is on axis with the lens, you WILL get red-eye. If the face is centered and the flash is on-axis with the lens but the subject is looking at 45 degrees to right or left, there will be no red-eye.
If the flash is off-axis and the subject is UNcentered by half the degree the flash is off-axis, red-eye may still happen. It's complex. The basic working premise of the off-axis flash brackets is that subjects will be more-or-less centered and will be looking at the camera. At least as far as red-eye is concerned. They are also useful for their more natural shadows/modelling.
Reading back over your question and this answer, I'm not sure I said anything different than you did, LOL. Just wasted more words saying it.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 09:20:04 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 09:20:04 AM EDT.
|
